Loading...
NOVEMBER 7, 2000 MINUTESCITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At -Large LINWOOD O. BRANCH, 111, Beach - District 6 MARGARET L. SURE, Centerville -District 1 WILLIAM W. HARRISON, JR., Lynnhaven - District 5 BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 ROBERT C. MANDIGO, JR., Kempsville - District 2 NANCY K. PARKER, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES-SMITH, MMC, City Clerk ir5�Zinia B NITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005 PHONE: (757) 4274304 FAX: (757) 426-5669 EMAIL: Ctycncl@city.virginia-beach.va.us November 7, 2000 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 10:30 AM A. RED WING GOLF COURSE COMMISSION (15 min) Sara A. Hensley, Director, Parks and Recreation B. OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW (30 min) Barry Frankenfield, Design and Development Administrator, Parks and Recreation C. STATE FINANCES/REVENUES (15 min.) Robert M. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager D. LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE (15 min) Robert M. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager E. INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264 (30 min.) E. Dean Block, Director, Public Works II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend T. E. Thieman, D.D. Pastor Emeritus 12:30 PM II 2:00 PM C. Ic E. F G. H PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES 1. INFORMAL & FORMAL SESSIONS AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION October 24, 2000 The Consent Agenda will be determined during the Agenda Review Session and considered in the ordinary course of business by City Council to be enacted by one motion. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the proceeds from a Lease/ Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER $184,058 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to the FY2000-2001 operating budgets of the Departments of Public Works and General Services re equipment and fourteen (14) positions for additional infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection Project; and, increase estimated revenues accordingly. 2. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $90,000 from fund balance in the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue fund to the FY 2000-2001 operating budget of the Police Department re purchase of a mobile surveillance vehicle. 3. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $69,368 Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services; TRANSFER $7,708 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies for grant matches to the FY2000-2001 operating budget of the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit re funding a juvenile education program; and, increase estimated revenues accordingly. 4. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973,866 from the General Fund Balance and $65,120 from the Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings re the Gainsharing program and the Special Productivity Incentive fund. 5. Petition to authorize a temporary encroachment into aportion of the City's one -hundred foot (100') drainage easement at 2001 Falling Sun Lane by James O. and Vivian A. Rogers re a wooden bulkhead for bank stabilization and erosion control (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7). I. APPOINTMENTS RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) SUPER HORNET COMMISSION J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS K. NEW BUSINESS L. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) 11/02/00 AGENDA\ 11/07/00 www.virginia-beach.va.us U 5 6 Op 0 U %p"(1 M I N U T E S VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia November 7, 2000 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING re RED WING GOLF COMMISSION in the Council Conference Room, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at 10:30 A.M.. Council Members Present: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf and Nancy K. Parker Council Members Absent: Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. [ENTERED: 10: 40 A.M.] William W. Harrison, Jr Reba S. McClanan Rosemary Wilson [ENTERED: 10: 40 A.M.] [OUT OF CITY] [VACATION TO CELEBRATE 25'" ANNIVERSARY] -2 - CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING RED WING GOLF COURSE COMMISSION 10:30 A.M. ITEM # 47324 Sara Hensley, Director of Parks and Recreation, advised, in response to the Resolution ADOPTED in August, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted an evaluation of the proposal prepared by Arthur Hills and Associates for the renovation and expansion of Red Wing Lake Municipal Golf Course. Lillie R. Gilbert, Chair - Parks and Recreation Commission, introduced the members of the Commission in attendance: Nicholas F. Anoia Herbert A. Culpepper Vice Chair Ray Marion The Outdoor Initiatives Committee, a subcommittee composed of Commission members, met on August 28, 2000, and recommended three renovation/expansion options that would be presented to the Commission. The Commission discussed and adopted these recommendations on September 13, 2000. A Public Meeting was planned for October 4, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing the recommendations. Option 1 27 golf complex Privatize golf course development and management, with reduced fees for residents Club House, parking and maintenance complex renovations Space for relocation of Owls Creek Municipal Tennis Center Option 2 Improve exiting 18 holes Provide additional 9 holes City to operate and manage Rebuild existing greens Renovate club house Option 3 Upgrade existing 18 -hole golf course, including rebuilding greens and renovating club house City to operate and manage On October 4, 2000, the Commission held a public meeting and gathered feedback from approximately eighty (80) citizens. At that time, the three renovation options were explored and attendees were able to provide comments on the plans. City Staff and Commission members responded to questions and provided a forum for individual option review and discussion regarding the three proposals. The public almost unanimously advised they did not favor prioritization, but did favor a municipal course. The citizens favored expanding the course to 27 -holes at a cost of approximately $9 -MILLION. The citizens are willing to have the current 18 -holes renovated completely with 9 -holes at a later date. The citizens believed the course should be focused on community recreation golf, instead of an upscale course. Citizens recommended the course be city -operated. On October 23, 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a special meeting to develop their recommendations for City Council on Red Wing Lake Municipal Golf Course's potential expansion renovation. The Commission, by a 7-3 vote, favored those ideas ofthe citizenry. The Commission voted to support theArthurHills and Associates design, rebuild the 18 holes, using the existing corridors; thereby leaving Open Space for natural habitats. In addition, the Commission supported the expansion of an additional nine holes, the course be of high quality and that City Staff operate and manage the golf course. The Commission requests City Council issue an extension of sixty (60) days for City staff to contact Arthur Hills and Associates to obtain current cost estimates, investigate construction of a new club house, rather than renovate the existing structure; revise Sensitivity Analyses information; and, research alternative funding sources. The Commission would like to return to City Council in January 2001 with complete recommendations. November 7, 2000 -3 - CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING RED WING GOLF COURSE COMMISSION ITEM # 47324 (Continued) There are 490 acres ofland, of which almost 40% could be considered natural lands -wooded uplands and wetlands. The Commission suggested keeping existing corridors and preserve the natural area protecting some of the native habitats and design an Outdoor Environmental Educational Program into the new plan for the golf course. This course could be registered with the Audubon Society and receive certification for the golf course. During the process, the native birds and animals habituating the golf course could also be preserved. Mrs. Gilbert advised a raise in the golf rates is a major issue, particularly with the Seniors. Dick Nutter, Golf Pro, advised a good quality golf course is complimented by a good quality club house. A fee structure is being considered which will favor the residents. November 7, 2000 -4 - CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW 10:42 A.M. ITEM # 47325 Barry Frankenfield, Design and Development Administrator -Parks andRecreation, presented information relative the FINAL DRAFT of the Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan 2000. SUMMARY OF PUBLICAND STAFF COMMENT RECEIVED FROM PRELIMINARYDRAFT Various soccer organizations indicated a need for more athletic field improvement to land recommended for acquisition - particularly fields designated for individual sports, such as soccer. Clarify recommended improvements to trail improvements in the North End Clarify recommended trail improvements leading to Sandbridge - Ferrell (future Nimmo) Parkway and/or Sandbridge Road. Take out all projected costs which will be accounted for in existing CIP projects. Stress how the Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan will promote pedestrian and recreational connectivity throughout the City. Coordinate trail recommendations with the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Transportation Plan. Significant Changes made to Preliminary Draft Address all public and staff comments. Include greater detail of implementation and funding strategies. Prioritize all recommended acquisitions ("top, " "high, " and moderate') based on evaluation criteria. Specified trails throughout the City on all maps categorize by existing trails, sidewalks (which require improvements to trail specifications), trails proposed with road CIP Projects and proposed "new "trails which are not currently funded for design or construction. Recommend additional land for acquisition including land associated with the Stumpy Lake to Back Bay Greenway; property on Indian River road for athletic facilities and additional right-of-way needed for Southern Section trails. VIRGINIA BEACH OUTDOORS PLAN 2000 ESTIMATED COSTS Acquisition Phase: The estimated cost to acquire and maintain the land recommended for Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan/Open Space Program is: Land (4,100 acres) $ 99, 300, 000 Maintenance (5 years) $ 2, 900, 000 Potential Tax Loss (5 years) $ 1.070.000 Total Acquisition: $103,270,000 (Approximately $100,000,000) November 7, 2000 -5 - CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW ITEM # 47325 (Continued) VIRGINIA BEACH OUTDOORS PLAN 2000 ESTIMATED COSTS Improvements Phase - The estimated costs to $100 -MILLION Land Costs implement the improvements recommended $ 50, 000, 000 Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan/Open Space Less Grants & Partnerships (10%) Program is: ($ 10, 000, 000) Parks and athleticfacilities: $ 17,000,000 New trails (75 miles) $ 16,920,000 Greenways access (37 miles) $ 12, 700, 000 Scenic Waterway access (13 sites) $ 1,575,000 Total Improvements: $ 48,195,000 (approximately $50, 000, 000) HYPOTHETICAL FUNDING PLAN Ten Year Program Estimated Funding Ranges $50 -MILLION Land Costs $100 -MILLION Land Costs Total Estimated Costs $ 50, 000, 000 $ 100, 000, 000 Less Grants & Partnerships (10%) ($ 5,000,000) ($ 10, 000, 000) Less Stumpy Lake Appropriated Funding ($ 9,500,000) ($ 9,500,000) Total Acquisition Phase $ 25,500,000 $ 70,050,000 Cost per year for 10 years $ 2,550,000 $ 7,050,000 The public was very supportive of pay -as you go funding, but not bonding. The public did not support financinz for acauisition of open space. HYPOTHETICAL IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD Tax Increase Needed @ $.01 real $ 0.012 $ 0.032 estate tax = $2,200,000 Annual total tax increase impact for a $ 12.00 $ 32.00 home assessed at $100,000 Annual total tax increase impact for a $ 24.00 $64.. 0 home assessed at $200,000 VIRGINIA BEACH OUTDOORS PLAN 2000 UPDATE WHAT'S NEXT Briefing Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals in November 2000 Holding a final public meeting on November 15, 2000, in City Council Chamber to distribute plan and survey for comments that can be mailed Make minor modifications to the Plan based on public and staff comments and as directed by City Council Bring a final adopted version of the VBOP 2000 UPDATE to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council for adoption in January 2001 November 7, 2000 M CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW ITEM # 47325 (Continued) The Parks and Recreation Department was commended on the preparation of their Plan. Mr. Frankenfield advised there was discussion in general terms. The value ofpreservation for open space can be a cost neutral situation based upon the expenses for roads, water, sewer, etc. There should be a commitment that preservation of open space over a long term increases property values, quality of life and does not cost as much as residential development. Mr. Frankenfield will provide estimates relative this concept. Some of this information is referenced on page 14 of the Report. Mr. Frankenfield will make sure this information is addressed in the Public Meeting next week. Mr. Frankenfield will prepare an acquisition plan example relative the $50 -Million and $100 -Million Land Costs, pay-as-you-go, and indebtedness. Sara Hensley, Director of Parks and Recreation, advised in addition to being aware of the land identified throughout the City, there are also other tools which can be implemented and utilized as an Outdoors Plan is developed. This is not just about acquiring the land, but making decisions in the future to preserve land. After the Public Meeting,, information relative extensive examination of specific properties and costs will be presented during a Closed Session. It was suggested this Plan be presented to the major real estate and commercial developers. The formation of an Oversight Committee was recommended. The framework and membership for an Open Space Program Oversight Committee (or Commission), composed of City Council, staff and citizens should be identified. November 7, 2000 - 7 - CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING STATE FINANCESIRE VENUES 11:25 A.M. ITEM # 4 732 6 Robert M. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager, through the utilization of power point, displayed the State Budgetary issues. The State revenues for the first quarter of fiscal year 2001 grew at an annualized rate of 1.7percent, compared to the 5.5 percent growth required to fund the state budget. Each percentage is worth about $110 -MILLION dollars, so if revenue growth does not improve during the remainder of the year, the revenue shortfall could approach $400 -MILLION. The lower than expected revenue growth could be due in part to a higher than normal level of tax refunds issued during the same quarter. It is premature to draw conclusions based on one quarter of revenue data, but the sluggish growth during the first three months of the fiscalyear is cause for concern. If the revenue estimate for fiscal year 2001 needs to be revised downward, then the revenue estimate for fiscal year 2002 will need to be adjusted downward. Currently, the state budget for Fiscal Year 2002 assumes revenue growth of 6.9 percent. Depending upon the Governor's revised official forecast in December, the State couldfind itself confronted with a sizeable revenue shortfall that would have to be made up through budget cuts or transfers from the revenue stabilization, or "rainy day "fund. The Northern Virginia economy is paying the way for the rest of the Commonwealth. The Northern Virginia economy is very technology rich. Virginia Beach has approximately one-half of the population of Fairfax County and generates about 5% of the State's income tax. Fairfax County, by itself, generates 25% of the State income tax. The technology sector is very depressed at this time compared to a year ago. Rainy Day Fund The option of using the "rainy day" fund would occur, if the combined revenue growth of individual and corporate income taxes and sales tax were 2 percent or more below the official forecast. The state now has approximately $575 -MILLION in the fund. Car Tax Triggers The car tax legislation that passed in 1998 says that the State will not automatically move to the next phase of tax relief if any of the following conditions occur: Actual general fund revenues are less than the official revenue forecast by 0.5 percent or more. The December forecast for any fiscal year indicates that revenues will be less than 5 percent greater than revenues for the immediately preceding fiscal year The December forecast indicates that general fund revenues for either of the fiscal years covered by the Appropriations Act in effect at the time, will be less than the amount budgeted. Car Tax Costs FY 2001 $572.4 -MILLION FY 2002 $855.4 -MILLION FY 2003 $ 1.2 -BILLION November 7, 2000 CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING STATE FINA NCESIRE VENUES ITEM # 47326 (Continued) Budget Shortfalls $62 MILLION is needed for the next phase of the Food Tax Repeal, April 1, 2001. No teacher salary increases have been approved for the 2nd year of the Biennium. Each percent increase represents $27 -MILLION, i.e. 4percent increase would be $108 -MILLION. There is a $42 -MILLION shortfall in the next fiscal year for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA). The Social Service Agencies, for this fiscal year, have a reported $100 - MILLION shortfall. It is assumed this amount will remain the samefor the 2nd year of the Biennium. More than $47-MILLIONis currently needed for the Community Services Board, specifically Mental Health and Mental Retardation The Commonwealth's Revenue Growth has been driven by capital gains from the stock market. Major indices are down 35010for this year. This will have an unknown impact on State revenues. The State did not meet sales tax revenue targets last year. Erosion was due to a move to a services economy and possibly Internet sales. CONCERNS ON TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Raised by the Senate Finance Committee The draft Sixyear Improvement Plan released in September makes several assumptions which appear questionable, including: Interest debt service payments on the Federal Revenue Anticipation Notes (FRANs) are not accounted for after the current biennium. Maintenance costs beyond the current biennium are assumed to be flat. The statutory change which increased mass transit's share of highway revenue is assumed to lapse after FY 2002. The transportation revenue forecast embedded in the Plan does not match the current official forecast for transportation revenues. The Plan number is $139.7 -MILLION higher than the current official forecast total. The first four assumptions together have allowed an estimated $424.3 - MILLION to be allocated to individual construction projects - much of which will likely not be available. The cost increases since last year on construction projects that are underway or complete total $169 MILLION. The Plan does include implicit cost adjustments in the out years but the total impact of cost increases are unknown at this time. Cost overruns have led to the continued practice of allocating funds to projects - $642.8-MILLIONfor those complete or underway—for extended periods, after the projects are complete. November 7, 2000 KIM CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING STATE FINANCES/REVENUES ITEM # 47326 (Continued) The State Health Department received a memorandum directing them to prepare contingency plans for 2, 4 and 6%. The Department has not been told to implement these cuts. This is the only department that has received any direct correspondence relative this shortfall. The Senate Finance Committee is having a 2 -day Retreat. They will then have the October figures. House Appropriations Committee will be meeting. Unless the trend reverses itself, then the Commonwealth will be short of funding. Mr. Matthias advised the Planning District Commission, during the prioritization process, devised a cost of $1 -BILLION to turn the Route 460 Corridor into an Interstate Highway from Suffolk to 295. This could be supported by a stand alone toll of .$1.00. There is not enough funding for both the Third Crossing and the Route 460 Corridor. Mayor Oberndorf advised the Mayors, Chairs and others in the Planning District (HRPDC) voted for the Third Crossing as their Number One priority. A coalition of communities are working on the issue of the Route 460 corridor in conjunction with the Planning District in the western part of the State for the purpose of attempting to get the Route 460 corridor option "off the ground". Virginia is the Internet Capitol of the World. 90% of the value of all Internet stocks is possibly in Northern Virginia. If that stock is worth less money and citizens are paying less taxes, this is not affecting citizens outside of Virginia, as much as it is in Virginia. Mayor Oberndorf advised the U.S. Conference of Mayors has tried to negotiate a position for a representative of local Government to be appointed to be to the Committee for Control of Internet Taxes nationally. The majority members of this committee is composed of members of the Internet industry. Detailed studies relative these taxes affecting the United States have been formulated by the Mayors and Chairs Committee. November 7, 2000 -10 - CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE 12:00 NOON ITEM # 4 732 7 Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager, referenced the PREFACE to the DRAFT Legislative Package, which states several City concerns. Although the state economy continues to expand, the growth is much less than projected. The Commonwealth also has a number of financial obligations that will be coming due during Calender 2001, including the next phase of the Food Tax Repeal and the next phase of the Personal Property Tax Relief Program. The Commonwealth has anticipated shortfalls in funding in several areas, including the Comprehensive Service Act, Social Services program and Mental Health and Retardation Programs. The 2000 General Assembly funded no teacher salary increases in the second year of the Biennium. Several organizations, such as the Virginia Municipal League, Virginia Association of Counties and the General Assembly's own State and Local Taxation Commission suggested returning substantial sums of money to local governments. The City is quite concerned about the requests to return additional sums to localities at a time which may have extreme financial difficulties for the General Assembly. Virginia Beach, like all localities, would like to diversify its income steam by receiving a dedicated portion of the state income tax, Virginia Beach is more concerned at this time with the General Assembly not adequately funding the traditional and customary state funded programs The short fall in funding of the Comprehensive Services Act, Social Services program and Mental Health and Retardation, must be made up before any consideration of additional revenue sharing to localities and should be considered. Besides the state funding of these traditional programs, the City believes top priority should be Virginia assuming its constitutional share of educational funding. The City's number one request to the General Assembly, after funding traditionally State operatedprograms above, is that the Standards of Quality be funded to the full SS percent as required by the Code of Virginia to provide a quality education. Several studies in the pastfive years have identified $2 -BILLION a year in unmet needs for transportation. The General Assembly, through the Virginia Transportation Act of 2000 in the 2000 Session, tried to address this deficit. However, there still exists a cash flow problem exceeding $600-MILLIONwithin VDOT and many needs are unmet. The Third Crossing of Hampton Roads, the Southeastern Parkway, improvements to Route 40, improvements to Route I-64 on the Peninsula and Southside, a new Midtown Tunnel, improvements to Route I-264 in Virginia Beach and improvements to Dominion Boulevard in Chesapeake are all high priorities and yet will likely not be constructed under existing revenue streams. The City is also quite concerned the Highway Maintenance and Operation Fund established for maintenance of existing roads and other transportation modalities no longer has sufficient revenue to meet the need. Mr. Matthias advised the items contained within the Legislative Package: L Funding of Education H Funding for Transportation III. Funding for Marine Science Museum IV Funding for Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) V Funding for Community Services Board (CSB) VI. Funding for Public Libraries VII Infopowering the Commonwealth (Public Libraries) VIII. Funding for State Health Department IX Funding for Contemporary Art Center of Virginia expanded Educational programs X Support for inclusion of "Sexual Orientation" in any proposed "Hate Crimes" Legislation XI Solid Waste Facilities XII Crowd Control XIII Public Utility Fee Collection XIV A & E Selection Process XV Faxing and Electronic Submission of Prescriptions XVI Block Grants for Urban Road Funds XVII Campaign Finance Reform ADDENDUM -PUBLIC SAFETYISSUES November 7, 2000 � ' ' '�� _ � City of Vir�iriia Beach ye �z q9� OPV Op OUR KATION - OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER (804) 427-4242 FAX (804)427-4135 TDD (804) 427-4305 November 3, 2000 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Municipal Center, Building 1 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Council Members: MUNICIPAL CENTER VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23456-9001 Attached is the draft Legislative Package for the 2001 General Assembly Session. Bob Matthias will give you a presentation on the package on Tuesday. Adoption is scheduled for your meeting on December 5, 2000. As you will recall, Council, the School Board, and the General Assembly Delegation are having a reception on Thursday, December 14, 2000, at which time we can discuss the package with the Delegation. The Joint Rules Committee of the General Assembly has proposed some sweeping changes in how the General Assembly considers legislation. Although they will not formally adopt these proposals until the first day of the General Assembly next year, we must comply with the schedule with the assumption that the General Assembly will ratify these proposals. The proposal is as follows: • GeneralAssembly members shall have unlimited pre -filing privileges forlegislation. However, after the first day of the session, House of Delegates members shall only be able to introduce six bills and resolutions and Senators will only be able to introduce 10 pieces of legislation. • Request for drafts of legislation to be pre -filed, shall be submitted by 5:00 p.m., December 18, 2000. • Tuesday, January 9, 2000, will be the last day to request first day of introduction bills. • Wednesday, January 10, first day of session will include charter changes, tax exemptions, local fiscal impacts and VRS changes. • January 12, 2001, will be the last day to request drafting forlegislation not required The Honorable Mayor and Member of City Council November 3, 2000 Page 2 to be filed earlier. • Friday, January 19, 2001, will be the last day to introduce legislation for the 2001 Session. • There are exemptions to the above deadlines in that they shall not apply to commending memorial resolutions, House or Senate Resolutions, bills or resolutions affecting the procedure or schedule of the General Assembly, resolutions or bills confirming appointments, bills or resolutions introduced with unanimous consent, or bills or resolutions introduced at the written request of the Governor. • Saturday, February 24, 2001 Adjournment This promises to be a very interesting General Assembly session. The primary concern will be the possible shortfall in revenue if the State's experience to date continues. You will be receiving a briefing on the State's financial picture at your meeting Tuesday. The General Assembly will also be considering redistricting during 2001 with several special sessions to be held after the regular session. Please let me know if you would like additional issues added to the package or any other information you would like provided to you at your November 7t`' meeting. With Pride in Our City, James K. Spore City Manager JKS/RRMI c attachment c: Robert R. Matthias PREFACE The 2001 Session of the Virginia General Assembly promises to be one of the more vexing sessions in recent years. Although the state economy continues to expand, the growth is, at the time of this writing, much less than projected. The Commonwealth also has a number of financial obligations that will be coming due during calendar 2001, including the next phase of the Food Tax Repeal and the next phase of the Personal Property Tax Relief Program. Furthermore, the Commonwealth has anticipated shortfalls in funding in several areas, including the Comprehensive Services Act, Social Services Program, and for Mental Health and Retardation Programs. Finally, the 2000 General Assembly funded no teacher salary increase in the second year ofthe biennium. This will need to be addressed by the 2001 Session. The above is back -drop to several organizations such as the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties and the General Assembly's own, State and Local Taxation Commission suggesting returning substantial sums of money to local governments. The City is quite concerned about the requests to return additional sums to localities, in a time of what may be extreme financial difficulties for the General Assembly. Although, Virginia Beach, like all localities, would like to be able to diversify its income stream by receiving a dedicated portion of the state income tax, Virginia Beach is more concerned at this time with the General Assembly funding the traditional and customary state -funded programs. The short -fall in funding of the Comprehensive Services Act, Social Services Program and Mental Health and Retardation, must be made up before any consideration of additional revenue sharing to localities should be considered. Besides the state funding of these traditional programs, the City believes top priority should be Virginia assuming its constitutional share of education funding. We applaud the General Assembly for initiating the two-year study of the Standards of Quality in education funding. Virginia Beach spends more than $93 million of local tax dollars above that required by the Standards of Quality. This is in contrast to nationwide data that revealed the Virginia State Government investment in the Operational Cost of the Commonwealth's Public Schools constitute $17.66 per 1,000 of the state's personal income, a level of investment exceeded by 43 states. Therefore, the City's number one request to the General Assembly after funding the traditionally state operated programs above, is that the Standards of Quality be funded to the full 55 percent as required by the Code of Virginia to provide a quality education. One final area that is of great concern to Virginia Beach and other localities is transportation needs and funding for those needs. Several studies in the past five years or more have identified $2 billion a year in unmet needs for transportation. We applaud the General Assembly for its attempt, through the Virginia Transportation Act of 2000 in the 2000 General Assembly, to try to address this deficit. However, as will be laid out in detail in the transportation section of this legislative package there still exists a cash flow problem exceeding $600 million within VDOT and many needs are unmet. The Third Crossing of Hampton Roads, the Southeastern Parkway, improvements to Route 460, improvements to Route 1-64 on the Peninsula and Southside, a new Midtown Tunnel, improvements to Route 1-264 in Virginia Beach, and improvements to Dominion Boulevard in Chesapeake are all high priorities and yet will likely not be constructed underexisting revenue streams. Also, the City is quite concerned that the Highway Maintenance and Operation Fund established formaintenance of existing roads and other transportation modalities no longer has sufficient revenue to meet needs. Funds are now being transferred from the Commonwealth Transportation Fund that was established for construction to meet the needs in the HMO fund. The growing disparity in the state's transportation needs and resources must be addressed. Delays in rectifying transportation concerns in Hampton Roads, northern Virginia, and other areas of the state will diminish the Commonwealth's ability to compete in the global market. It will also exact a very high human and fiscal cost on our citizens by reducing their quality of life. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Funding of Education II. Funding for Transportation III. Funding for Marine Science Museum IV. Funding for Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) V. Funding for Community Services Board (CSB) VI. Funding for Public Libraries VII. Infopowering the Commonwealth (Public Libraries) VIII. Funding for State Health Department IX. Funding for Contemporary Art Center of Virginia Expanded Educational Programs X. Support for Inclusion of "Sexual Orientation" in any Proposed "Hate Crimes" Legislation XI. Solid Waste Facilities XII. Crowd Control XIII. Public Utility Fee Collection XIV. A & E Selection Process XV. Faxing and Electronic Submission of Prescriptions XVI. Block Grants for Urban Road Funds XVII. Campaign Finance Reform Addendum - Public Safety Issues 2 O ? OF OUR NIPSON City of Virginia Beach 2001 General Assembly Session Legislative Package DRAFT NOVEMBER 3. 2000 ■ ■ LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS The legislative package from the City of Virginia Beach for the second year biennium of the millennium is primarily funding oriented because of our increasing reliance on state funding for programs and the growing dependence by localities on property taxes and the few local revenue sources available. Virginia Beach feels the state must take a larger role in helping the City to provide services to our citizens. Requests for funding are as follows: L FUNDING FOR EDUCATION: With more than 50% of the City's budget committed to educating the 77,000 plus students in the Virginia Beach Public School system, it is vital that the state provide its full share of both operation and infrastructure funding. The state should fund the full cost necessary to meet the Standards of Quality (SOQ). With the Virginia Beach School system having more than 1,000 teachers above the number needed to meet the SOQ and having to spend $93,000,000 in local funds above the SOQ amount, it is obvious that the level of education funding provided under the guidelines of the SOQ is hopelessly inadequate. Furthermore, state funding for new construction, renovation, maintenance, land acquisition and installation of educational technology is needed. We look forward to the results of the ongoing JLARC study of education. REQUEST. While localities are grateful for the funds placed into education infrastructure and technology from the state lottery, we believe that all of the approximate $310 million per year from the lottery should be made available to localities instead of less than half of that amount that is now available (the remainder of the lottery funds are being utilized by the state to meet its share of the SOQs). The General Assembly has also mandated that JLARC embark on a review of the Standards of Quality. This report is due for consideration by the 2002 General Assembly and is likely to reveal that localities across the Commonwealth are contributing much higher levels of effort for education than the Constitution envisioned. Although some legislators called these additional efforts local aspirations, Virginia Beach feels that the Standards of Quality, which the State funds, are not adequate for students to pass the Standards of Learning Testing. Virginia Beach, for instance, appropriates approximately $93 million a year in local funds above that which the Standards of Quality require. 1l. FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION: During the 2000 General Assembly the General Assembly passed the Virginia Transportation Act of 2000 (VTA). This was an attempt by the General Assembly to address the short fall in transportation funding statewide. The City and all localities are very much indebted to the General Assembly for attempting to address transportation. However, since the General -Assembly met the development of the Six Year Plan by the Commonwealth Transportation Board has revealed that there are still serious and growing problems in transportation. The Six Year Plan has identified a continuing cash flow in which more than $640 million worth of money is still being allocated to projects after they have been constructed. Also, the Six Year Plan as adopted does not have inflation built in for any maintenance needs after the first two years of the Six Year Plan. Furthermore, the Six Year Plan does not have any debt service for the Federal Revenue Anticipation Notes after the first two years. Several of the projects supported by the City that were to be funded with FRANS were not included in the Six Year Plan including, improvements to Route 1-64 in the vicinity of Yadkin Road in Chesapeake and the Interchange Improvement Program for 1-264 in Virginia Beach. Finally, it seems obvious that the General Assembly will be reluctant to appropriate additional General Fund Revenue to transportation considering the shortfall in projected revenues to the Commonwealth. REQUEST: Transportation improvements are vital to timely movement people, goods and services. In spite of the General Assembly's efforts in the VTA 2000 our transportation system is approaching very unacceptable level of service in Hampton Roads and in Northern Virginia. The General Assembly is requested to consider additional revenue sources such as those proposed by the Commonwealth Transportation Alliance, including an increase in the gasoline tax and other transportation related revenues. In order for the Commonwealth to address the estimated $2 billion a year shortfall it is imperative that substantive progresses in increasing revenues for transportation be made immediately. Ill. FUNDING FOR THE VIRGINIA MARINE SCIENCE MUSEUM, PHASE Ill: The Virginia Marine Science Museum is owned and operated by the City of Virginia Beach in cooperation with the Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation, Inc. Phase I of the Virginia Marine Science Museum opened in 1986 as a 41,500 square foot aquarium and museum facility. Phase 11 opened in 1996 and tripled the size of VMSM through addition of a nature trail, several large aquariums and an IMAX 3D theater. Since the opening of Phase ll, the museum became the highest attended museum in the state,- and one of the top ten attended aquariums in the United States. In the last three years it has been visited by more than 215, 00 school students and its outreach programs have been presented to thousands more throughout the state. The primary reason for its successful growth is that it has been appreciated as both an educational facility valued by residents as well as one of Virginia's greatest tourist attractions. Phase 111 Expansion Overview The architectural plans for Phase 111 are 30% complete and call for a building that will surround a 1.6 million gallon aquarium containing a variety of marine species. The architectural design firm has a strong reputation for building the largest and most attended aquariums in the world. The facility design is unique for its expansive underwater views and natural exhibits that immerse visitors in the environments of the animals they see. It will set the new standard for the look of future large aquariums. The exhibit themes will focus entirely on Virginia's marine environment and an important conservation element of this will be to relocate the museum's stranding center to the Phase 11I facility where it will become part of a major marine animal rescue exhibit. Preliminary discussions with Old Dominion University has indicated an interest on their part to consider building an adjacent research and marine studies facility that would operate in conjunction with Phase Ill, provided that land could be made available for this purpose. A recently completed economic impact study indicates that with Phase 111 the Virginia Marine Science Museum will have an annual IV. V. attendance of 1,000,000 visitors which will in turn generate annual tax revenues of $2.9 million for the City of Virginia Beach, $1.2 million for the Hampton Roads region, and $3.7 million for the Commonwealth. Costs Funding Building $42,600,000 Federal $ 2,000,000 Site 10,000,000 State 10,000,000 ($2 million provided to date) City 30,600,000 Private 10,000,000 Total $52,600,000 Total $52,600,000 REQUEST: The Virginia Marine Science Museum is seeking $8,000,000 to be used for construction costs which will occur in FY200112002 and asking that $500.000 be restored to its budget for operating costs. FUNDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT (CSA): CSA funding is inadequate to address the needs of the children in Virginia Beach and across the Commonwealth. REQUEST: Given that Virginia Beach has consistently been unable to meet the needs of children and adolescents eligible for services under the Comprehensive Services Act due to inadequate state funding for both mandated and non -mandated children, the City requests a state code change that would require sum sufficient state funding for this program. Also with the continued escalating cost associated with this program, the City requests that the General Assembly direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study of CSA and its impact upon local government. The members of the study commission should include legislators, representatives from local government, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judges, local human services representatives including Social Services, Community Services Boards, Public Health, Court Services, and the public education system. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB): Any plans for the future of the publicly funded mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services system should provide sufficient state funding for a comprehensive system of care and treatment at the state and local level. Funding must be adequate to meet the needs of. a. Persons eligible for medicaid supported services but are unable to receive them due to lack of state match funding b. Persons in need of services unfunded by medicaid C. Persons who are indigent and cannot access medicaid services 2. State facility resources available to localities have been declining steadily over the past ten years. During FY 2001, the state Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services will be developing a plan for the future of Eastern State Hospital. Representatives from the local governments and community services boards served by this state facility should be involved in all discussions and planning for the future of Eastern State. Specifically, code changes are requested in the following areas: a. Prior to the submission of any plan regarding the restructuring of state facilities, the Commissioner of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services must provide meaningful opportunities for local government and CSBs served by state facilities to participate in state planning and policy development efforts. b. Sufficient community funding to meet the needs of persons who otherwise would be served by a state facility must be identified prior to restructuring or downsizing of state facilities. C. Since inpatient care is a state funded/state facility responsibility, inpatient care (whether provided in community inpatient facilities or in a state facility) should be entirely paid for by state resources to meet the needs of indigent persons who have been committed to state facilities. 3. Local Community Services Boards should be statutorily defined as the local public manager and safety net provider of community based mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services. Public management includes the following responsibilities: a. The single point of entry into the publicly funded system for mental retardation services. b. The single point of entry into the publicly funded system for mental health and substance abuse services for consumers who are at significant risk for publicly funded inpatient care or are in need of multiple services. C. The oversight of both public and private providers funded by the publicly funded system. d. The provision of leadership in the development and implementation of public policy governing the community mental health system. 4. Given the number of persons with chemical addictions incarcerated in local jails, we support increased state funding for the SABRE program to expand substance abuse treatment in the community corrections programs. Substance abuse services should be provided in both adult and juvenile correctional facilities and should be coordinated with local community services boards. VI. FUNDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES: The Code of Virginia (Title 42. 1, Chapter 3) establishes Virginia's policy of granting financial aid for the development of local public libraries and specifies a formula that determines the dollar amount each public library system should receive in any budget year. FY2001 was a landmark year as Virginia's public libraries achieved full funding of the formula for the first time since 1985. This goal was reached following a three- year process within the legislature. It is essential that full funding be maintained in FY2002 in order to accomplish the long-range -goal to insure that every citizen has equal access to a minimum level of quality public library service. Appropriations for state aid have historically been made by amendment from members of the General Assembly, both in the Senate and in the House of Delegates. State aid is critical to the Virginia Beach Public Library and is essential in supplementing operating budget funding. These funds are used solely to purchase books, electronic resources, and other materials used directly by citizens. The Library provides resources for school-age students particularly during afternoon, evening, weekend and summer hours when school libraries are closed. The Library serves adults, many of whom use its resources as their only source of free, up-to-date information. The Library supports parents and families with the tools and materials essential to have every child enter school ready -to -learn. REQUEST: Current State Aid Appropriation FY 2001 $20,485,543 Virginia Beach State Aid Received FY 2001 $377,862 Request for State Aid Appropriation FY 2002 $21,194,997 Virginia Beach State Aid Expected FY 2002 $378,780 Virginia Beach % of total appropriated state aid FY2001: 1.845 Virginia Beach % of total requested state aid FY2002: 1.787 Virginia Beach state aid/capita* FY2001: $0.90 Virginia Beach state aid/capita* FY2002: $0.91 * based on 1998 population estimate of 418,300 VII. INFOPOWERING THE COMMONWEALTH (PUBLIC LIBRARIES): In response to the 1997 House Joint Resolution (No. 444) requesting a strategic information technology plan for public libraries that addressed universal access, the Library of Virginia developed an technology initiative, Infopowering the Commonwealth — Virginia's Public Libraries: Electronic Resource Libraries for 21s' Century Information. fwww.infopowering.lib. va. us] Infopowering is a statewide initiative to connect all Virginia citizens to their web -enabled government and to Internet information resources through their local public library. Second, it is a strategic technology plan for Virginia public libraries that addresses bridging the "digital divide" with universal access to information. Third, it is a cooperative effort to ensure that all 349 public library facilities in Virginia have access to a core group of reference and research materials online. At its 1999 session, the General Assembly took a small step toward implementing the plan by providing $500,00 to begin start-up grants for all public libraries without November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) Internet access (188 library sites). This goal was achieved by the end of 1999. The second step is to ensure adequate access — libraries using dial-up connections, often at 14.4 or 28.8kbs, need to be upgraded to dedicated lines at 56kbs or better. Most libraries also need additional PC's to meet high demand from their users. Web - enabled government requires citizen access to the web. An Infopowering goal is one Internet access point for every 3,125 citizens. At the beginning of 2000, the current ratio in Virginia was one for every 11,200. Governor Gilmore included $1,000,000 in the FY2001 budget and an additional $1,700,000 in the FY 2002 budget for a total of $2.7 million dollars allocated to the Infopowering initiative. REQUEST. The Virginia Beach Public Library supports the Virginia Library Association's legislative position to maintain the current level of funding ($2.7 million) in FY 2002. in 2001, the Virginia Beach Public Library is eligible for a partnership grant within the Infopowering funding that will allow additional PC's to be purchased to support the information needs of citizens and to narrow the gap of the "digital divide': Vlll. FUNDING FOR STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. The City appreciates the increase in funding made by the General Assembly in its 2000 Session for the Virginia Beach Health Department. However, that funding will expire unless reappropriated at the end of the current biennium. The General Assembly has directed that a study of Health Department Funding be done and we also appreciate that effort. Public Health Departments are often over looked in their service to everyday citizens. The Virginia Beach Health Department, for instance, has been active over the last summer trying to identify birds that might bring the West Nile Virus into the area and other mosquito born illnesses because of the very wet conditions. This is in addition to the services the Health Department has historically been providing which the average citizen has often overlooked. REQUEST: The General Assembly is requested to reexamine the formula for public health departments and to establish a new formula based on need and population. The existing formula is completely outdated and does not take into account the needs of growing localities. IX. FUNDING FOR CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER OF VIRGINIA: The Contemporary Art Center of Virginia is a non-profit, non -collecting institution founded in 1952 to foster awareness, exploration and understanding of the significant art of our time. The Center fulfills its mission by providing regularly changing exhibitions by internationally, nationally and regionally renowned contemporary artists and by presenting educational programs that encourage critical thinking, dialogue and artistic expression. The Center is the only institution in the Commonwealth of Virginia dedicated solely to contemporary art and education and, as such, is an important element in the Commonwealth's cultural tourism initiatives. November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) Art often reflects the political and social milieu in which it is created and invites the viewer to explore, not only the aesthetic and philosophical aspects for the work, but its relevance to their own expression and participation in society. The Center is a unique forum for ideas and discourse essential to an informed and involved citizenry. The Center's mission renders it an equally valuable educational resource. The Center's educational programs are designed to provide children and young adults a foundation for their lifelong appreciation and exploration of the world in which they live and work. The Center's commitment to excellence in education was recently recognized by the prestigious Rufus Beamer Excellence Award, a state-wide initiative sponsored by the Virginia Department of Education and the Virginia Council of Vocational Education. Students from three local high schools collaborated with the Center's education department to create a unique project that incorporated art, history, science, technology, culture, industry and the environment in a public exhibition at the Center for nearly three months. Essential to this goal is the training of professional educators. For several years, the Center has offered a Teacher Institute underwritten in part by Title Vl. During the Teacher Institute, educators receive instruction on (1) object -based learning, (2) the integration of art with other disciplines and (3) writing innovative, flexible curricula and lesson plans. Educators can choose to apply the Institute toward re -certification or graduate course work. Educators who attend the Institute are asked to train their colleagues at their schools in the techniques they learn. The Institute no longer qualifies for Title VI funding because it is not a new project. The Center is not able to sustain the institute without external funding. The Center's education staff, in collaboration with other professional educators, has developed programs that meet current requirements for Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL) in several subjects. Specifically, It's Greek to Me, developed for 3' graders, integrates social studies, mathematics and architecture. Ancient China: Digging into the Past Today, developed for 2„d graders, integrates history, social studies and archeology. Move It: Magnets, Electricity & Kinetics, developed for 4rn graders, explores physical science. Building with Light, developed for 5" graders, explores the functional and aesthetic properties of light and meets science SOL's. During the 1998-99 academic year, approximately 6,000 students under the age of 18 benefitted from education outreach programs offered by the Center. The success of these programs is evidenced by the increasing number of requests from schools throughout Hampton Roads. REQUEST. The Contemporary Art Center of Virginia requests $375,000 for the second year of biennium from the legislature for the purpose of developing an expanded educational program that employs state-of-the-art telecommunications to reach students and educators state-wide. We propose to electronically export these educational programs to schools outside the region offering educators a cost-effective means to meet the requirements of the SOL's. Many schools in the state lack adequate resources to develop and implement such a program. In addition to state support, the November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) Center is actively seeking corporate partners for this technology initiative that will assist with the needs of the schools. By taking the programs state-wide, the Center is able to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the cost per student. The Center's education staff will coordinate with other institutions to present `traveling exhibitions" designed to provide students opportunities for direct observation of paintings, drawings, sculptures, artifacts or other objects. We also propose to electronically export the Teacher Institute state-wide thus offering educators in remote counties and underfunded school districts the opportunity to benefit. Funding from the legislature will allow the Center to promote and coordinate the expanded program, make the necessary investment in technology and training and augment the education staff. X. SUPPORT FOR INCLUSION OF "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" IN ANY PROPOSED "HATE CRIMES" LEGISLATION: Under the current State Code, there are enhanced penalties for certain crimes if the person who commits the crime selects his or her victim because of the victim's race, religious conviction, color, or national origin. These crimes are generally referred to collectively as "hate crimes." During its 9998 and 9999 Sessions, the General Assembly considered, but did not adopt, several bills which, if adopted, would have expanded existing "hate crimes" legislation to include any victim selected because of his or her sexual orientation. REQUEST. The Virginia Beach City Council believes that any criminal who selects his or her victim simply because of the victim's sexual orientation should also be subject to enhanced penalties. Therefore, the Council supports the inclusion of "sexual orientation" in any "hate crimes" legislation considered by the General Assembly during its 2001 Session Xl. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES: During the last General Assembly code changes were made dealing with sanitary land fills. The proposed regulations that are under review and comment at this time by the Department of Environmental Quality will disallow the utilization of much of Landfill #2 for the last ten years of its planned life. This would cost the City approximately $42 million in additional cost. Although the regulations are still under review, the City is quite concerned that the intent of the General Assembly is not being carried out by the regulatory agencies. REQUEST: Request that the General Assembly review the regulations proposed by the Department of Environmental Quality dealing with landfills so that non-polluting landfills, like Landfill #2, do not have their useful life unnecessarily shortened. November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) Xll. CROWD CONTROL: Section 15.2-1130 of the Code of Virginia provides that any city having a population between 100,000 and 110, 000, or between 150,000 and 160, 000, may, by ordinance, provide that any person who negligently fails to provide adequate security or crowd control at an activity that draws large crowds of people may be liable to the city, in an amount not to exceed $1,000, for the cost of providing emergency response to such activity. The Police Department believes that this authority should also be extended to Virginia Beach which, due to its size, is often the site of large-scale activities that present security and crowd control concerns. Furthermore, the Police Department believes that the penalty should be increased to $5000, for the cost of providing emergency response to such activity. REQUEST. It is recommended that § 15.2-1130 be amended to read as follows: § 15.2-1130. Liability for failure to provide adequate security or crowd control. Any city having a population between 100,000 and 110, 000,, er between 150,000 and 160,000 or greater than 390,000 may provide by ordinance that any person who has negligently failed to provide adequate security or crowd control at a sporting event, restaurant, night club or other business or commercial activity that draws large crowds of people may be liable in a separate civil action for the cost associated with any emergency response by the law-enforcement agency or emergency medical services personnel of such city caused by the sponsor, owner or tenant of any sporting event, restaurant, night club or other business or commercial establishment who negligently failed to provide adequate security or crowd control. Such person shall be liable to the city in an amount not to exceed $5, 000. XIU. PUBLIC UTILITY FEE COLLECTION: The Department of Public Utilities uses the services of outside legal counsel to assist in the collection of unpaid water and sewer connection fees, and would like to be able to recover attorney's fees as part of its collection efforts. Unfortunately, there is no statutory authority for a locality to recover attorney's fees under these circumstances. REQUEST. It is recommend that the next to last paragraph of Virginia Code § 15.2-2119 be amended to read as follows: § 15.2-2119. Fees and charges for sewer services. Such fees and charges, along with delinquent water and sewer connection November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) fees, and the a_y penalty and interest thereon shall constitute a lien against the property, ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid taxes. Such amounts, plus reasonable attorney's or collection agency's fees which shall not exceed twenty percent of the delinquent tax b fee or charge, may be recovered by the locality by action at law or suit in equity. XIV. A & E SELECTION PROCESS: Pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act, all public bodies are authorized, without limitation, to provide, in an Invitation to Bid, that awards may be made to more than one bidder, and to provide, in a Request for Proposal ("RFP') for "nonprofessional services," that awards may be made to more than one offeror. However, only State agencies are authorized to provide, in an RFP for "professional services," that awards may be made to more than one offeror, and this authority contains numerous limitations. The Department of Public Works has identified circumstances under which the authority of the City to make multiple awards on a single RFP for architectural and professional engineering services would be beneficial. Additionally, the contract term and dollar amount limitations currently imposed on the authority of State agencies make multiple awards on a single RFP for architectural and engineering services appear to be unnecessary in light of the fact that no such limitations are currently imposed on the authority of public bodies to make multiple awards on an Invitation to Bid on an RFP for nonprofessional services. REQUEST: Therefore, it is recommended that § 11-37 of the Act be amended to read as follows: § 11-37. Definitions. The words defined in this section shall have the meanings set forth below throughout this chapter. 3. a. Procurement of professional services. A contract for architectural or professional engineering services relating to construction projects may be negotiated by a state agency,, as defined in § 11 6 public body for multiple projects provided (i) the projects require similar experience and expertise, and (ii) the nature of the projects is clearly identified in the Request for Proposa , and (Ag the contract tettn i� Hmited to Under a_y such contract, fij the fair and reasonable prices, as negotiated, shall be used in determining the cost of each project performed, (hg the sum ofe November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) Lot ALUML.J"MWELWLL.AffW1&WJ&WA"Wn i�ncnimc�ff—aILI W.c►Miic:���i�a�ts�ii�cii�� Competitive negotiations for such contracts may result in awards to more than one offeror provided (i) the Request for Proposal so states and (ii) the state agency public body has established procedures for distributing multiple projects among the selected contractors during the contract term. XV. FAXING AND ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PRESCRIPTIONS: A number of our citizens have requested that the code be changed to allow individual to fax a prescription to a pharmacy, then at a later time to pick up the medicine and present the original prescription. This would prevent a number of individuals who now must present the prescription in person and wait for the pharmacist to fill the medicine or return at a later time. REQUEST: To amend the Code of Virginia to allow pharmacists to receive through electronic means, such as fax or email, prescriptions for drugs. The pharmacist would be allowed to fill the order for the drug, but the original prescription signed by the doctor would have to be presented at the time the drugs were delivered or picked up. XVI. BLOCK GRANTS FOR URBAN ROAD FUNDS: As stated earlier, the transportation issue is proving to be very vexing for all Virginians. Under the current code, Virginia Beach can, on a project by project basis, receive funds for urban construction projects and design and build the projects of our choice. The City has the ability to pick and choose which projects the City will take responsibility for and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) must be responsible for other projects. In order to expedite the construction of transportation projects under the urban system, the City believes that localities should be able to request that their urban allocation is given to them in block grants to construct projects as approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Localities would be responsible for all phases of the project including design, right of way accusation, construction and construction management. The roads would obviously need to be constructed to all VDOT standards including any accounting standards and requirements. REQUEST: The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code of Virginia to allow cities to, by resolution of the governing body, request that future urban allocation be given as a block grant to that locality. The payments could be made on a quarterly basis. The cities would be responsible for building the road and to account for the money under all accounting standards imposed by VDOT. Jurisdictions could only revert back to November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) the customary practice of VDOT managing urban funds through another resolution of the governing body. XVII. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: Campaign Finance Reform is an issue that is receiving much discussion at the local, state, and federal level. Although the General Assembly has embarked on a Study of Campaign Finance Reform the recommendations of that group are not known at the time the Legislative Package is being prepared. Virginia Beach City Council desires Campaign Finance Reform at the local level. Currently, there is no audit being done on local races and it seems to be obvious that the amount of money spent on advertising and other campaign activities sometimes does match that reported by the candidates. REQUEST: The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code of Virginia to require that auditing be done of all local local governing body elections when a total of more than $5000 per candidate is expended. Results shall be furnished the State Board of Elections so that any irregularities can be pursued. November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) ADDENDUM 1. PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES: Presently, state code only specificallx authorizes officers, who did not observe the actual violation, to stop and ticket offenders for speeding violations upon receipt of a radio transmission from the officer observing the violation (§46.2- 882). Present traffic volume, especially in heavily populated jurisdictions, and the way highway's are now being constructed, make it extremely difficult for single officers to position themselves and their vehicles at a place where they can both observe infractions and then be able to exit the location in order to stop the violator. While the "team" policing concept has been recognized in other states, only certain judges in Virginia Beach will allow this action. We would request that the legislature specifically expand the authority granted under §46.2-882 to include all traffic charges punishable as misdemeanors and traffic infractions. This would allow officers more flexibility in citing violators, other than speeders, by allowing an officer to transmit the violation to another officer who could make the actual stop and ticket the offender for the officer who observed the actual offense. We would suggest that §46.2-102 and §19.2-81 be amended as follows: REQUEST. §46.2-102. Enforcement by law-enforcement officers; officers to be uniformed, officers to be paid fixed salaries. --State police officials and law-enforcement officers of every county, city, town or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth shall enforce the provisions of this title punishable as felonies, misdemeanors, or traffic infractions. Additionally, notwithstanding §52-22, state police officers may enforce local ordinances, adopted under subsection G of §46.2-752, requiring the obtaining and displaying of local motor vehicle licenses. Fifty percent of the revenue collected from such enforcement shall be remitted to the locality to the Department of State Police and disposed of by the Department to cover its cost of operation. Every law-enforcement officer shall be uniformed at the time of the enforcement or shall display his badge or other sign of authority. The driver of any motor vehicle may be arrested without a warrant under this section if the arresting officer is in uniform or displays his badge of authority and if he observed the offense, or has received a radio message from the officer who observed the offense. All officers making arrests incident to the enforcement of this title shall be paid fixed salaries for their services and shall have no interest in, nor be permitted by law to accept any benefit of, any fine or fee resulting from the arrest or conviction of an offender against any provision of this title. Section §19.2-81 needs to be changed to coincide with the requested change in §46.2-102: §19.2-81. Arrest without warrant authorized in certain cases.-- The following November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) officers shall have the powers of arrest as provided in this section: 1. Members of the State Police force of the Commonwealth, 2. Sheriffs of the various counties and cities, and their deputies, 3. Members of any county police force or any duly constituted police force of any city or town of the Commonwealth. 4. The Commissioner, members and employees of the Marine Resources Commission granted the power of arrest pursuant to §28.2-900, 5. Regular game wardens appointed pursuant to §29.1-200, 6. United States Coast Guard and United States Coast Guard Reserve commissioned, warrant, and petty officers authorized under §29.1-205 to make arrests, and 7. The special policemen of the counties as provided by §15.2-1737, provided such officers are in uniform, or displaying a badge of office. Such officers may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits any crime in the presence of the officer, or any person who commits a violation of section §46.2 of the state code if an officer has received a radio message from the officer who observed the violation, or any person whom he has reasonable grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in his presence. The present DUI Cost Recovery law (§15.2-1716) allows localities to bill up to $1,000 for any accident or incident involving a person convicted of DUI under state code or local ordinance. Some believe that this has required a minute -by - minute accounting of the officer's time and equipment which is extremely staff intensive. We would request this code be amended to specifically allow localities to bill either with a flat fee or with minute -by -minute accounting. We would request this be amended as follows: REQUEST. §15.2-1716. Reimbursement of expenses incurred in responding to DUI incident.-- Any locality may provide by ordinance that any person who is convicted of a violation of §§18.2-51.4, 18.2-266 Or 29.1-738, or a similar ordinance, when his operation of a motor vehicle, engine, train or watercraft while so impaired is the proximate cause of any accident or incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, shall be liable in a separate civil action to the locality or to any volunteer rescue squad, or both, which may provide such emergency response for the reasonable expense thereof, in an amount not to exceed $1,000 in the aggregate for a particular accident or incident occurring in such locality. "Reasonable expense" maybe billed as a flat fee of $100 or with a minute -by -minute accounting of the actual costs incurred. As used in this section, "appropriate emergency response" includes all costs of providing law-enforcement, fire -fighting, rescue, and emergency medical services, The provisions of this section shall not preempt or limit any remedy available to the Commonwealth, to the locality or to any volunteer rescue squad to recover reasonable expenses of an emergency response to an November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) accident or incident not involving impaired driving or operation of a vehicle as set forth herein. State Code §46.2-817 (eluding police) was changed as of July 1, 2000. These changes provide that simple eluding (i.e., failure to stop) now becomes a Class 3 misdemeanor. If the operator of the vehicle drives in a willful and wanton disregard of a signal to stop so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of a law-enforcement vehicle or endanger any person, it become a Class 6 felony. Unfortunately, the penalty section of this code only provides that if convicted of the misdemeanor under this section, the driver's license of the offender may be suspended for periods of 30 days to 1 year, however, if speeds were more than 20 miles over the posted limit it becomes mandatory that the suspension be issued. REQUEST. We would request that all eluding police convictions carry a mandatory license suspension. This may be easily done by deleting the word "may" and substituting "shall" as shown below: State Code §46.2-817 Disregarding signal by law-enforcement officer to stop; eluding police; penalties. C. When any person convicted of a misdemeanor under this section, in addition to the other penalties provided in this section, the driver's license of such person may shall be suspended by the court for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than one year. However, in any case where the speed of such person is determined to have exceeded the maximum allowed by twenty miles per hour, his driver's license shall be suspended by the court for a period of not less than ninety days. State codes §46.2-705 and §46.2-707 require motor vehicles to be insured or to pay the required uninsured motor vehicle fee; state code §46.2-373 requires officers to place the name of the insurance carrier or agent on accident reports. Unfortunately, no code requires proof of insurance to be carried in the vehicle. Thus, law enforcement officers must rely on the information provided by the operators of the motor vehicle during accident investigations; much of this information is incorrect or false. We would request that state code §46.2-104, which mandates that the operator's license and vehicle registration card be in possession of the vehicle operator, be amended to include carrying proof of liability insurance. Further, while this code requires the operator of am motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer operated on the highways of the Commonwealth to have this information in their possession, the punitive portion appears only to apply to persons licensed by the Commonwealth. Thus, persons from out-of-state seem to face no punitive actions from this statute. This could be corrected by amending the present code as shown below: November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) REQUEST. §46.2-104. Possession of registration cards; exhibiting registration card, proof of liability insurance, and licenses; failure to carry license, proof of liability insurance or registration card. The operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer being operated on the highways of the Commonwealth, shall have in his possession: (1) the registration card issued by the Department or the registration card issued by the state or county in which the motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is registered, and (ii) his driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit, and (iii) proof of liability insurance. The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, exhibit his registration card, proof of liability insurance, driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the officers, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity. Every person ficemsed 's pe who fails to carry his license or permit, proof of liability insurance, and registration card for the vehicle which he operates, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and upon conviction punished by a fine of ten dollars. However, if any person summoned to appear before a court for failure to display license, permit, proof of liability insurance, or registration card presents to the officer issuing the summons or a magistrate of the county or city in which the summons was issued, before the return date of the summons, a license or permit issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued, proof of liability insurance, or a registration card, as the case may be, issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued, or appears pursuant to the summons and produces before the court, a license or permit issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued, proof of liability insurance, or a registration card, as the case may be, issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued, he shall have complied with the provisions of this section. Presently, state code only allows a person to be charged with Refusal to submit to a chemical test after the refusal statute has been read to them by a Magistrate. Only after this is done, and the subject again refuses, can a warrant for Refusal to submit to a chemical test be obtained. Unfortunately, many persons suspected of driving under the influence are transported to a medical facility for treatment after accidents; on -duty magistrates are usually unable to leave their office and come to a medical facility. Thus, many vehicle operators, especially repeat offenders, are aware of this problem and refuse to submit to a test while at a medical facility. Since the magistrate cannot come to the medical facility to read the refusal statute, offenders are able to refuse testing without risking refusal charges. Additionally, this makes convicting the November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) offender of driving under the influence very difficult. REQUEST. We would request that the state code be amended to allow officers to read the offender the Refusal statute (using the same form as the Magistrate) while at any medical facility. The officer would read the form to the driver, and have them sign the form should they again refuse the test. The officer and a witness would then sign the form and give a copy to the defendant. This change would then allow the officer to prosecute the subject for Refusal. We would request the code be changed as follows: State Code §18.2-268.3. Refusal of tests; procedures. A. If a person after having been arrested for a violation of §§18.2-51.2 or §18.2-266.1 or of a similar ordinance and after having been advised by the arresting officer that a person who operates a motor vehicle upon a public highway in this Commonwealth is deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood and breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood, and that the unreasonable refusal to do so constitutes grounds for revocation of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of the Commonwealth, refuses to permit blood or breath or both blood and breath samples to be taken for such tests, the arresting officer shall take the person before a committing magistrate. If said person is unable to be taken before a committing magistrate due to treatment in a medical facility, the arresting officer, in front of a witness, shall again advise the person of the law requiring a blood or breath sample to be taken and the penalty for refusal with such form as provided by the Supreme Court, If he again so refuses after having been further advised by the magistrate, or arresting officer, of the law requiring blood or breath samples to be taken and the penalty for refusal, and so declares again his refusal in writing upon a form provided by the Supreme Court, or refuses or fails to so declare in writing and such fact is certified as prescribed below, then no blood or breath samples shall be taken even though he may later request them. B. The form shall contain a brief statement of the law requiring the taking of blood or breath samples and the penalty for refusal, a declaration of refusal, and lines for the signature of the person from whom the blood or breath sample is sought, the date, and the signature of the witness to the signing. If the person refuses or fails to execute the declaration, the magistrate, or the arresting officer, shall certify such fact and that the magistrate, or arresting officer, advised the person that a refusal to permit a blood or breath sample to be taken, if found to be unreasonable, constitutes grounds for revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth. The magistrate shall promptly issue a warrant or November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) summons charging the person with violation of §18.2-268.2. The warrant or summons shall be executed in the same manner as criminal warrant or summons. At the scene of any medical facility, the arresting officer may issue a summons for violation of §18.2-268.2 in lieu of securing a warrant. C. Venue for the trial of the warrant or summons shall lie in the court of the county or city in which the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicants is to be tried. The executed declaration of refusal or the certificate of the magistrate, or arresting officer, as the case may be, shall be attached to the warrant, or summons from the arresting officer, and shall be forwarded by the magistrate, or arresting officer, to the aforementioned court. D. No changes necessary. E. The declaration of refusal or certificate of the magistrate, or arresting officer, shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant refused to allow a blood or breath sample to be taken to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood. However, this shall not prohibit the defendant from introducing on his behalf evidence of the basis for his refusal. The court shall determine the reasonableness of such refusal. The present State Code requires an accident report be submitted if total damage exceeds $1000. This dollar amount was set approximately 10 years ago and is much too low based on the cost to repair today's vehicles. If this amount could be raised to $2500, it would greatly reduce the amount of paperwork necessary at minor accident scenes, reduce the burden on the courts in their attempt to determine fault, and reduce the time officers spend investigating minor accidents. We would suggest the state code be amended as shown below: State Code §46.2-373. Report by law-enforcement officer investigating accident. A. Every law-enforcement officer who in the course of duty investigates a motor vehicle accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or total property damage to an apparent extent of We $2500 or more, either at the time of and at the scene of the accident or thereafter and elsewhere, by interviewing participants or witnesses shall, within twenty- four hours after completing the investigation, forward a written report of the accident to the Department. The report shall include the name or names of the insurance carrier or of the insurance agent of the automobile liability policy on each vehicle involved in the accident. Presently, state code requires a vessel must be abandoned for a period exceeding twelve months before it is subject to the provisions of state code November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) 29.1-733.1 (Acquiring title to an abandoned vessel). REQUEST: We would request that a new code section, 29.1-733.2 be enacted to allow a city, county or town the authority to declare any vessel left unattended on a public highway or street, on public property or a waterway within the jurisdiction of the city, county or town abandoned and allow for disposal of the vessel in the same manner as abandoned vehicles under state code 46.2-1213. 29.1-733.2 A. The governing body of any county, city, or town may by ordinance provide for the removal for safekeeping of vessels and vessel trailers to a storage area if. 1. It is left unattended on a public highway, street or other public property and constitute a traffic hazard; 2. It is left unattended for more than ten days either on a public highway or street or other public property; 3. It is left unattended on a waterway within the jurisdiction of the governing body. 4. It is immobilized on a public highway or street or other public property by weather conditions or other emergency situations. B. Removal shall be carried out by or under the direction of a law-enforcement officer. The ordinance, however, shall not authorize removal of vessels, and parts thereof from private property without written request of the owner, lessee, or occupant of the premises. The ordinance may also provide that the person at whose request the vessel or part of a vessel is removed from private property shall indemnify the county, city or town against any loss or expense incurred by reason of removal, storage, or sale thereof. Any such ordinance may also provide that it shall be presumed the such vessel or part thereof is abandoned if it has been in a specific location for ten days without being moved. As prompt as possible, each removal shall be reported to a local governmental office to be designated in the ordinance and to the owner of the vessel. Before obtaining possession of the vessel or parts thereof, the owner shall pay to the parties entitles thereto all costs incidental to its removal, storage and locating the owner. If the owner fails or refuses to pay the cost or if his identity or whereabouts is unknown and unascertainable after a diligent search has been made, and after notice to him at his last known address and to the holder of any lien of record with the office of the Department against the vessel or part thereof, the vessel shall be treated as an abandoned vessel under the provisions of this code and disposed of in a manner consistent with the applicable provisions established under 46.2-1213 for disposal of abandoned vehicles. November 3, 2000 (1:30PM) -11 - CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264 12:35 P.M. ITEM # 47328 E. Dean Block, Director - Public Works, introduced John Herzke, City Engineer, who presented through, the utilization of Power Point, the I-264 Corridor Interchange improvements. Mr. Herzke advised there is a study required by FHWA that prior to any final or proposed designs are developed for these interchanges, a Corridor Study shall be prepared. I-6411-264 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AND HOV CONNECTORS VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT - TWO PROJECTS First Project: Connection of the 1-264 HO lanes through the I-264 Interchange. Study RE Construction 04101 - 10102 11102 Beyond 2006 VDOT Schedule: Study 04101 -10102 RE 11102 Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0% Construction 01105 VDOT Project Estimate: P.E. $ 3,000,000 $ 1,000,000 from other fund sources in the VTDP R/W $ 0 $43,835,000 shortfall for construction Construction $ 39,232,000 Total: $ 42,232,000 Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0% $30,829,000from otherfund sources in VTDP $ 11,403,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP Second Project: Construct dual lanes on the off -ramp from I- 64 west to I-264 east VDOT Schedule: Study 04101 - 10102 RE 11102 Construction 01105 VDOTProjectEstimate: P.E. $ 1,000,000 R/W $ 1,000,000 Construction $ 10,000,000 Total: $12,000,000 Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0% $10,000,000 from other fund sources in VTDP $ 2,000,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP I-2641WITCHDUCK ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT Replace the existing partial clover leaf interchange with an improved interchange. VDOT Schedule.• Study RE Construction 04101 - 10102 11102 Beyond 2006 VDOT Project Estimate: P.E. R/W Construction Total: $ 5,000,000 $ 3,502,000 $ 60,890,000 $ 69,392,000 Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0% $24,55 7, 000fundedfrom the VTA of 2000 $ 1,000,000 from other fund sources in the VTDP $43,835,000 shortfall for construction November 7, 2000 -12 - CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264 ITEM # 47328 (Continued) I-2641ROSEMONT ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT In VDOT VTDP, funds are only available for P.E. and R/W. Replace the existing partial clover leaf interchange with an improved interchange Study 04/01 - 10/02 .Funding for construction not programmed in the VTDP P.E 4/02 VDOT Schedule. Study 04/01 - 10/02 VDOT Project Estimate: P.E 11/02 Construction Beyond 2006 VDOT Project Estimate: P.E. $ 5,000,000 R/W $ 2,695,000 Funding Source: VDOT Urban Allocations 98%, City Construction $ 60,000,000* Participation 2% Total: $ 67,695,000 $32,932,000 from programmed Urban Allocations *Per VDOT but not reflected in the VTDP Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0% $ 2,444,000 from other fund sourced in VTDP $ 7,045,000 to be funded by VTA of2000 $21,880,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP $ 650, 000 from other fund sources in the VTDP Second Phase: Complete Lynnhaven Parkway Interchange $60,000,000 shortfall for construction Improvement I-264/LYNNHAVEN PARKWAYINTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTSIPROP. GREAT NECK ROAD VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT First Phase: New interchange at Great Neck Road and build collector distributor roads on 1-264 VDOT Schedule: Study 04/01 - 10/02 P.E 4/02 Construction 01/06 VDOT Project Estimate: P.E. $ 3,000,000 R/W $13, 714, 000 Construction $ 40,542,000 Total: $ 57,256,000 Funding Source: VDOT Urban Allocations 98%, City Participation 2% $32,932,000 from programmed Urban Allocations $ 2,444,000 from other fund sourced in VTDP $21,880,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP Second Phase: Complete Lynnhaven Parkway Interchange Improvement VDOT Schedule: Study 04/01 - 10/02 RE 11/02 Construction 01/06 VDOTProjectEstimate:: P.E. $ 2,000,000 R/W $ 8,353,000 Construction $ 30.445.000 Total: $ 40,798,000 Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0% $38,398,000 to be funded form VTA of 2000 $ 2,400,000 from other fund sources in VTDP November 7, 2000 -13 - CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264 ITEM # 47328 (Continued) SUMMARY OF FUNDING VTA of 2000 $ 70,000,000 VDOT Urban Allocations $ 32,932,000 Other funding Sources (STP, CMAQ, NH, etc.) $ 47,323,000 TOTAL FUNDING PROGRAMMED $150,255,000 REVIEW PROCESS Corridor Study - 04/01 thru 10/02* Preliminary Engineering/Design Concepts Public Hearings Citizen Review/Input Draft Report Additional Public Hearings City Council Review City Council Approval Proceed with Design and Construction November 7, 2000 -14- A GENDA RE VIE W SESSION 12:58 P.M. ITEM # 47329 H.1 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the proceeds from a Lease/Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER $184, 058 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to theFY2000-2001 operating budgets ofthe Departments ofPublic Works and General Services re equipment and fourteen (14) positions for additional infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection project; and, increase estimated revenues accordingly. The City Manager advised Council Lady Eure the lease purchase for the equipment would be for a maximum offive (5) years. Dean Block advised the interest rate would be less than 5%. ITEM # 4 733 0 H.4 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973, 866from the General Fund Balance and $65,120 from the Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings re the Gainsharing program and the Special Productivity Incentive fund. Council Lady Eure expressed concern relative the $65,120 comingfrom retained earnings in the Water and Sewer Fund for the FY 2000 Gainsharing program. The City Manager advised the funds are based on a proration ofwhere the employees work. Thus the involvement of these fundsfrom the Water and Sewer Fund. For the past six (6) years, this program has been funded from a combination of these two sources. ITEM # 47331 BY CONSENSUS, the following shall compose the CONSENT AGENDA: H.1 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the proceeds from a Lease/Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER $184, 058 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to theFY2000-2001 operating budgets ofthe Departments ofPublic Works and General Services re equipment and fourteen (14) positions for additional infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection project; and, increase estimated revenues accordingly. H.2 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $90, 000 from fund balance in the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue fund to the FY 2000- 2001 operating budget of the Police Department repurchase of a mobile surveillance vehicle. H.3 Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $69,368 Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services; TRANSFER $7,708 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies for grant matches to the FY2000-2001 operating budget of the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit refunding a juvenile education program; and, increase estimated revenues accordingly. H.4 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973, 866 from the General Fund Balance and $65,120 from the Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings re the Gainsharing program and the Special Productivity Incentive fund. H.5 Petition to authorize a temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's one -hundred foot (100 ) drainage easement at 2001 Falling Sun Lane by James O. and Vivian A. Rogers re a wooden bulkhead for bank stabilization and erosion control (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7). November 7, 2000 -15 - CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS 1:00 P.M. ITEM # 47332 Vice Mayor Sessoms commented relative the School Formula Committee, and advised there is a comfort level for the next couple of years with the Formula. The last meeting will be scheduled next week; however these issues will pertain more to "lump sum funding", etc. ITEM # 47333 Council Members Branch and Eure met with the School Modernization Committee. Some of their costs are increasing; however, lottery proceeds are better than expected. These reversion funds have been utilized to bridge the gap. The modernization is on schedule; however, one of the schools will be moved back a year because only f ve projects can be efficiently conducted at one time. Due to changes in construction costs, the Committee will conduct an Annual Review of modernization as opposed to a 2 -year review. Because of additional costs, there will be more demolition and construction of new schools, as opposed to renovation. The cost of the whole project has a differential of only $800, 000. ITEM # 47334 Mayor Oberndorf spoke at the AIA Leadership Conference in Richmond. The Chairman of the Board of Prince William County also spoke relative the Formula established for schools. Due to this Formula, there are no disagreements between the School Board and the County Board of Supervisors. The School Board is immediately aware of the funding available to operate and maintain the schools for the year. ITEM # 4 733 5 Council Lady Henley was astonished to witness a house under construction on apiece of property which she knew had previously been considered "not buildable ". The Health Department, instead ofrequiring the land management septic tank system utilized in the past, approved one of the new experimental systems. Rather than requiring a 3 -acre minimum with land management, this house is being built on a 1 -acre lot at 2.6 feet elevation. The City staff is investigating this matter. ITEM # 4 733 6 Mayor Oberndorf referenced an article concerning Norfolk being interested in bringing the light rail from downtown Norfolk to the Newtown Road juncture. Vice Mayor Sessoms advised Virginia Beach's position on light rail reflects the City will not interfere with the neighboring cities concerning light rail with the complete understanding no funding will come from Virginia Beach. Chesapeake, Portsmouth and Norfolk have supported pursing light rail. Council Lady Eure advised a conference is scheduled relative the high speed rail line on Friday, November 10, 2000.. Dale Castellow - Planning, will be attending. If Norfolk does build a light rail from Newtown Road, at least the citizens could board there and access it to Richmond or Washington. Vice Mayor Sessoms said HRT is very much in favor of high speed rail. Councilman Jones advised 25% of the surface transportation funds are going to be allocated to the light rail project and 25% of the ISTEA funds for the district are going to be allocated to the project. All f this effects the amount of funds received by Virginia Beach. Councilman Harrison inquired why the Route 460 Corridor was not considered for the high speed rail. Route 460 crosses the Elizabeth and James Rivers at their two narrowest points. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 1:15 P.M. TO VIEW THE RENOVATIONS. November 7, 2000 -16 - ITEM # 4 733 7 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the INFORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at 1:25 P.M. Council Members Present: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 -17 - ITEM # 47338 Mayor Oberndorf entertained a motion to permit City Council to conduct its CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A), Code of Virginia, as amended, for the following purpose: PERSONNEL MATTERS: Discussion, consideration or interviews of* prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1). To Wit: Boards and Commissions: Resort Advisory Commission Super Hornet Commission PUBLICLY -HELD PROPERTY.• Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly -held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(3). To -Wit Lynnhaven Parkway/264 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council voted to proceed into CLOSED SESSION. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson (Time of Closed Session: 1:25 P.M. to 1:55 P.M.) November 7, 2000 -18 - FORMAL SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL November 7, 2000 2:00 P.M. Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the FORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chamber, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. This was the first meeting in the newly renovated Chamber. Mayor Oberndorf expressed appreciation to James K. Spore - City Manager, David Grochmal - Director of General Services and their staffs who have endeavored tediously to remove the asbestos and complete the renovation of the City Council Chamber as scheduled. The improved audio system is flawless and has resulted from hours of dedication. COMIT has provided the latest in technology i.e. voting system, recorder, plug ins for lap tops, electronic presentation system and lighting. New drapes, upholstered seats and carpet have been provided to create not only a beautiful but efficient Chamber. This renovation entailed a cost of approximately $350, 000. Mayor Oberndorf expressed appreciation to the Virginia Beach City School Board and the School Superintendent for allowing their utilization of the School Board Chamber for the City Council Meeting during the three months of renovation. Council Members Present: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan [OUT OF CITY) Rosemary Wilson [VACATION TO CELEBRATE 25'h ANNIVERSARY] INVOCATION: Reverend T. E. Thieman, D.D. Pastor Emeritus PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Vice Mayor Sessoms, being a Corporate Officer of Wachovia Bank, DISCLOSED there were no matters on the agenda in which he has a 'personal interest'; as defined in the Act, either individually or in his capacity as an officer of Wachovia Bank. The Vice Mayor regularly makes this Disclosure as he may not know of the Bank's interest in any application that may come before City Council. Vice Mayor Sessoms' letter ofJanuary 4, 2000, is hereby made apart of the record. November 7, 2000 WLZ Item V -E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM # 47339 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council CERTIFIED THE CLOSED SESSION TO BE INA CCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION TO RECESS. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; AND, Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 Itr.0aIix#inn CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 47338, Page 17, and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.1-344. of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk November 7, 2000 Lof OUR NAt10 Itr.0aIix#inn CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 47338, Page 17, and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.1-344. of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk November 7, 2000 Item V -F.1. MINUTES -20 - ITEM # 47340 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council APPROVED the Minutes of the INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS of October 24, 2000. Voting: 8-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Abstaining: William W Harrison, Jr. Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson Councilman Harrison ABSTAINED as he was not in attendance during the City Council Session of October 24, 2000. November 7, 2000 -21 - Item V -G. ADOPT AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION ITEM # 47341 BY CONSENSUS, City Council ADOPTED: AGENDA FOR THE FORMAL SESSION November 7, 2000 -22 - Item V -H. 1. ORDINANCES ITEM # 47342 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council APPROVED INONE MOTION, Ordinances 1, 2, 3, 4 and S of the CONSENT AGENDA. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 -23 - Item V -H. 1. ORDINANCES ITEM # 47343 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the proceeds from a Lease/Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER $184,058 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to the FY2000-2001 operating budgets of the Departments of Public Works and General Services re equipment and fourteen (14) positions for additional infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection project; and, increase estimated revenues accordingly. Voting: 9-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 I AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $184,058 FROM THE 2 TOURISM GROWTH INVESTMENT FUND RESERVE FOR 3 CONTINGENCIES AND APPROPRIATE $446,538 FROM A 4 LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO THE FY 2000-01 5 OPERATING BUDGETS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF PUBLIC 6 WORKS AND GENERAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE 7 EQUIPMENT AND FOURTEEN POSITIONS NECESSARY FOR 8 MAINTENANCE OF HURRICANE PROTECTION PROJECT 9 INFRASTRUCTURE 10 WHEREAS, the additional infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection Project, 11 including the new seawall and widened boardwalk, benefits the community and provides important 12 protection from major storms; 13 WHEREAS, $630,596 is needed to provide a basic level of maintenance for the additional 14 infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection Project, with $239,026 (for nine full-time 15 positions and related equipment) required by the Department of General Services, and $391,570 (for 16 five full-time positions and related equipment) required by the Department of Public Works; 17 WHEREAS, to fund this additional personnel and related equipment, $184,058 is available 18 in the Tourism Growth Investment Fund ("TGIF") Reserve for Contingencies, and the remaining 19 $446,538 can be provided from the proceeds of a lease/purchase agreement; and 20 WHEREAS, sufficient capacity exists in the TGIF to pay the associated debt service 21 associated with a lease/purchase agreement. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 25 1. That $66,570 is hereby transferred from the TGIF Reserve for Contingencies to the 26 FY 2000-01 Operating Budget of the Department of Public Works for personnel and one piece of 27 equipment necessary to provide maintenance for additional infrastructure associated with the 28 Hurricane Protection Project, and that five full-time positions in the Department of Public Works 29 are hereby established for this purpose. 30 2. That $117,488 is hereby transferred from the TGIF Reserve for Contingencies to the 31 FY 2000-01 Operating Budget of the Department of General Services to fund personnel and two 32 pieces of equipment necessary to provide maintenance for additional infrastructure associated with 33 the Hurricane Protection Project, and that nine full-time positions in the Department of General 34 Services are hereby established for this purpose. -24 - Item V -H.2. ORDINANCES ITEM # 47344 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $90, 000 from the balance in the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue fund to the FY 2000-2001 operating budget of the Police Department repurchase of a mobile surveillance vehicle. Voting: 9-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 FROM FUND BALANCE IN THE FORFEITED ASSET SHARING SPECIAL REVENUE FUND TO THE FY 2000-01 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MOBILE SURVEILLANCE VEHICLE WHEREAS, the Police Department's Special Investigative Unit is responsible for investigations of narcotics, vice, street gangs, and organized criminal activity in the community, and for property seized and forfeited as a result of these investigations; WHEREAS, forfeited assets allow for enhancement of the Police Department through the purchase of necessary equipment that ensures officer safety, improves documentation, saves time, and allows the officers to perform their duties with greater efficiency; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds for the purchase of a mobile surveillance vehicle are available to be appropriated from the fund balance of the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, That funds in the amount of $90,000 are hereby appropriated from the fund balance in the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund to the FY 2000-01 operating budget of the Police Department for the purchase of a mobile surveillance vehicle to enhance officer safety and document evidence obtained from special investigations. Adopted by the Council Virginia, on the 7 of the City of Virginia Beach, of November , 2000. CA -7889 F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\mobile Surveillance.Ord.wpd November 1, 2000 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Man.+-ment ServiceTill APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ity Atto ey's ice City of Virginia Beach Report Number: . Agenda Date: Date Submitte Policy Report on Mobile Surveillance Vehicle Background November 7, 2000 d: October 25, 2000 The Virginia Beach Police Department, Office of Special Investigations, wishes to add one additional Mobile Surveillance Vehicle (vehicle). This request is based on the level of use of the present vehicle and the desire to expand the current level of investigative activity and officer safety capability. The department is requesting that $90,000 in Shared Asset Funds be approved for use to purchase the vehicle. In 1993 Special Investigations began utilizing a surveillance vehicle to provide protection to undercover officers, conduct surveillance to gather and document information and evidence of crimes, and assist other units when specialized investigative techniques were required. The vehicle has been successfully deployed in many cases involving violent drug offenders, homicide and robbery suspects, and various other investigations. The vehicle has become the primary means evidence that is used during trials and surveillance that significantly enhances t in undercover operations. This capacit criminal offenders who, themselves, utj counter surveillance techniques to counter where the vehicle was utilized, almost currency, and real property were seized. Considerations of obtaining audio and video hearings. It has allowed for ae safety for officers involved y helps prevent detection by lize advanced technology and their arrest. In just one case )ne million dollars in drugs, According to the Mission Statement of Special Investigations, our detectives will provide superior investigative services which in turn will enhance the quality of life for all of the citizens and visitors in Virginia Beach. We accomplish this by selecting and training quality personnel from the Department. In addition, we provide our personnel with the highest quality equipment that is designed with the most up-to-date technology. During our investigations, one of the primary duties of all personnel in Special Investigations is officer safety. Our investigations routinely involve undercover operations targeting violent criminals. To ensure the Police Department Policy Report on Purchase of Mobile Surveillance Vehicle Page: 2 undercover officer's safety, as well as to document the necessary evidence, we utilize the equipment to its fullest capabilities. The current vehicle was purchased in 1993 and at the time of purchase was equipped with state of the art technology in both video and audio surveillance. The technology has advanced dramatically since 1993. In particular, the advancements in digital technology involving both audio and video capabilities, has dramatically improved. There have been many successes generated by the vehicle during a variety of investigations. The video and audio evidence presented during case screenings and trials have had significant impact on guilty pleas and verdicts received in court. Alternative Courses of Action The alternative to this purchase is to continue to operate at the current level. fele could continue to operate utilizing traditional methods of audio and video monitoring. This would require continuous replacement of equipment and upgrades to the current technology. Although the initial cost would be less expensive, over time the resulting cost would be more with less overall impact to the organization. The option would require the use of additional manpower for operations and would reduce the level of productivity of our personnel. Budgetary In proposals submitted by several vendors, the total cost for a fully equipped vehicle with state -of -the art technology is $90,000. Though costly, when compared to the past two years of generated revenue in the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund, which is funded by forfeitures accomplished by Special Investigations, the expenditure is only 3% of the total revenue. In fiscal years 98/99 and 99/2000, total federal revenue was $2,514,610 and state revenue was $357,787. Due to recent court decisions, the rules and probable cause requirements pertaining to federal forfeitures have become more difficult to meet. In recent federal legislative guideline changes, the burden of proof has shifted to the law enforcement agency and not to the defendant. When this occurred, evidence paramount to probable cause has been needed to successfully seize property in the federal system. In order to counteract these changes, the vehicle would be a valuable tool and provide evidence that could support these seizures. It should be noted, that this purchase is clearly within the guidelines of utilization of Shared Asset Funds. In the Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, on page 11 it states "Priority consideration should be given . . . to completely equipping units that generate forfeitures in order to foster future forfeiture investigations." With this in mind, the second vehicle would certainly help us to generate additional forfeitures by enhancing our ability to identify, document, and prosecute those individuals Police Department 2 Policy Report on Purchase of Mobile Surveillance Vehicle Page: 3 involved in narcotics trafficking. Recommendations In an effort to continue to meet the Mission and Goals of Special Investigations and the Department, we respectfully request the approval to purchase an additional vehicle. The vehicle would enhance our current capabilities, allow us to protect our undercover officers more effectively, document evidence for criminal trials, and assist in other investigations as needed. Based on this information, we are requesting approval to transfer $90,000 from the Shared Asset Account for the acquisition of the second vehicle as soon as possible. Prepared by: D0 ChiefJacocks Jr Da(e . Reviewed by: Catheryn W sell, Acting Director Managemen ervices Date Oral Lambert, Chief of Operations Date /` S-' // . / . av James . Spore, City Manager Date i Police Department 3 SUM Item V -H.3. ORDINANCES ITEM # 47345 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $69,368 Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services; TRANSFER $7,708 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies for grant matches to the FY2000-2001 operating budget of the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit re a juvenile education program; and, increase estimated revenues accordingly. Voting: 9-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND 2 APPROPRIATE A $69,368 GRANT FROM THE 3 STATE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 4 SERVICES AND TO TRANSFER $7,708 FROM 5 THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR 6 CONTINGENCIES FOR GRANT MATCHES TO 7 THE FY 2000-01 OPERATING BUDGET OF 8 THE VIRGINIA BEACH COURT SERVICE 9 UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING AN 10 EDUCATION PROGRAM 11 WHEREAS, under the Juvenile Accountability Incentive 12 Block Grant Program ("JAIBG"), the City of Virginia Beach has been 13 awarded a $69,368 grant in federal funds from the Virginia 14 Department of Criminal Justice Services, and must provide a grant 15 match of $7,708; and 16 WHEREAS, in cooperation with the Virginia Beach Public 17 Schools, the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit will use the grant 18 funds to continue an educational program developed under a previous 19 JAIBG grant that enables juveniles under the supervision of the 20 Juvenile Court to complete their high school education. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 22 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 1. That a $69,368 grant is hereby accepted from the 24 Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriated 25 to the FY 2000-01 Operating Budget of the Virginia Beach Court 26 Service Unit to continue to fund an education program for juveniles 27 under the supervision of the Juvenile Court; 28 2. That $7,708 is hereby transferred from the General 29 Fund Reserve for Contingencies for Grant Matches to the FY 2000-01 30 Operating Budget of the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit as the 31 local match for the grant; 32 3. That City Council hereby states that funding for this 33 program is contingent upon the availability of grant funding, and 34 that if this funding is reduced or eliminated, the program may be 35 reduced or eliminated accordingly; and 36 37 38 39 4. That estimated revenue from the federal government is hereby increased by $69,368. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 7 day of November , 2000. CA7892 F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\jaibgrant.ord.wpd October 30, 2000 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: .,�! - - Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney 2 ,SNT,BY: CVB; 757 563 1A57; 6CT-3i-00 3:42PM; PAGE 2/2 i Dep irtment of Criminal Justice Services 305 East Brood 5trtet, 10th Floor, Richmond, VA :7219 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Statement of Award/Acceptance Date: February 09, 2000 Crant Period: Sutypratlt4i : City of Va Beach Grant 1`10: 00-E3080.TI99 January 1.2000 -December 31. 1-000 Project Director Project Administrator Finance Officer ,Mr. BcUce Bright Mr. lames K_ Spore Ms. Patricia A. Phillips Project Director Ciry Manager Finance Director City of Virginia Beach Court Serv. Unit City of Virginia Beach City of Virginia Beach 2305 Judicial Blvd. 2401 Courthouse Boulevard Municipal Center Building 10-A City Hall 2nd Floor Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Virginia Beach, V4►ainia 23456 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Phone No: (757)421-456L Phone No. (757) 426.4242 Phone No: (757) 427-46$1 Federal State GF Match LosAl Cash Match TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT 569,368 $ 57,708 577,076 This grant is subject to all rules, regulations, and special conditions included in this award. Jo h B. Benedetti, Directnr Please complete this form by indicating below your planned expenditures for each Purpose Area. See attached instructions for completing the award acceptance. Enter the amount of this grant, including matching funds, you plan to spend in each category below. The total entered must equal the total awarded in this grant, including match. please round to the nearest dollar.. Please review the Special Conditions accpmpa ing this award before comvlettnz this form. The undersigned, having received the Statement of trent Award/Acceptance and the Conditions attached thereto, does hereby accept this grant and agree to the conditions pertaining thereto, this J",9 day or Signature of Project Administrator: 0"ritle: C 1 MSN Q+�. Purpose Areas (see enclosed information for detailed explanations) Amount 1. Building, expanding, renovating or operating detention facilities; training of correctional personnel S 2. Accountability -based sanctions S 3. Hiring juvenile judges, probation officers, court-appointed defenders; pre-trial services S 4. Hiring additional prosecutors S S. Enable prosecutors to address gangs, drugs & youth violence more effectiveiy 5 6. Technology, equipment & training to aggigt prosecutors S 7. Holding juvenile offenders accountable and reducing recidivism S 77,076 8. Court -based programs targeting firearms offenders S 9, Drug court programs for juveniles $ 10. Interagency information sharing 5 11, Accountability -based programs 17. Drug testing for juveniles S $ Administratimi (may be no more than io% or total) S TOTAL S The undersigned, having received the Statement of trent Award/Acceptance and the Conditions attached thereto, does hereby accept this grant and agree to the conditions pertaining thereto, this J",9 day or Signature of Project Administrator: 0"ritle: C 1 MSN Q+�. -26 - Item 26 - Item V -H.4. ORDINANCES ITEM # 47346 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973, 866 from the General Fund Balance and $65,120 from the Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings re the Gainsharing program and the Special Productivity Incentive fund. Voting: 9-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE 2 AMOUNT OF $973,866 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FUND 3 BALANCE AND $65,120 FROM THE WATER AND SEWER 4 FUND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE GAINSHARING 5 PROGRAM AND THE SPECIAL PRODUCTIVITY INCENTIVE 6 FUND 7 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to continue 8 the Gainsharing Program for the employees of Virginia Beach which 9 will allow employees to share in savings realized through 10 organizational improvements; 11 WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to provide funding 12 for the Special Productivity Incentive Fund to reward departments 13 for productivity improvement initiatives; and 14 WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in the 15 General Fund Fund Balance and the Water and Sewer Retained Earnings 16 to continue the Gainsharing Program and to fund the Special 17 Productivity Incentive Fund while maintaining the policy level of 18 funding in the Debt Service Reserve Fund. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 20 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 21 1. That funds in the amount of $973, 866 and $65, 120 are 22 hereby appropriated from the General Fund Fund Balance and the 23 Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings, respectively, for the 24 Gainsharing Program and the Special Productivity Incentive Fund. 25 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to issue 26 checks for Gainsharing savings to all eligible permanent and part - 27 time employees on November 30, 2000, in accordance with the City's 28 Gainsharing Program. 30 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of City 31 Council members. 32 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 33 Virginia, on the 7 day of November , 2000. 34 CA -7893 35 ODIN\NONCODE\GAINSHARINGREVISED.WPD 36 R-1 - PREPARED: October 31, 2000 37 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 38 11kfeiltl'"l- 39 f4anageLtjServic'es APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: partment of Law E HISTORIC INDIVIDUAL GAINSHARING AMOUNTS FOR FULL TIME EMPLOYEES 1993 $319.00 1994 $258.00 1995 $218.00 1996 $304.00 1997 $224.00 1998 $258.00 1999 $220.00 -27 - Item 27 - Item V -H. S. ORDINANCES ITEM # 47347 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council AUTHORIZED: A temporary encroachment into a portion ofthe City's one-hundredfoot (100) drainage easement at 2001 Falling Sun Lane by James O. and Vivian A. Rogers re a wooden bulkhead for bank stabilization and erosion control (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) The following conditions shall be required: 1. The temporary encroachment shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach in accordance with the City's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location. 2. The temporary encroachment shall terminate upon notice by the City to the applicant and, within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, the temporary encroachment must be removed from the encroachment area by the applicant and the applicant will bear all costs and expenses ofsuch removal. 3. The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the temporary encroachment. 4. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the applicant. S. The applicant agrees to maintain the temporary encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. 6. The applicant must obtain approval of the Joint Permit Application from Waterfront Operations of the Planning Department. 7. The City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the temporary encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the applicant and collect the cost in any mannerprovided by lawfor the collection oflocal or state taxes; may require the applicant to remove such temporary encroachment; and, pending such removal and, if such removal shall not be made within the time specified by the City, the City shall impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that such temporary encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and shall collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. November 7, 2000 -28 - Item V -H. S. ORDINANCES ITEM # 47347 (Continued) Voting: 9-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye.- Linwood ye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A 3 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A 4 PORTION OF THE CITY'S ONE HUNDRED 5 FOOT (100') DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY 6 JAMES O. ROGERS AND VIVIAN A. 7 ROGERS, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND 8 SUCCESSORS IN TITLE 9 WHEREAS, JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS desire to 10 construct and maintain a wooden bulkhead within the City's one 11 hundred foot (100') drainage easement behind their property located 12 in Red Mill Farm at 2001 Falling Sun Lane. 13 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2- 14 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to 15 authorize temporary encroachments within the City's existing 16 easements subject to such terms and conditions as Council may 17 prescribe. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 19 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof 21 contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as 22 amended, JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS, their heirs, assigns 23 and successors in title, are authorized to construct and maintain 24 a temporary encroachment for a wooden bulkhead in the City's 100' 25 drainage easement as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SITE 26 PLAN MR. ROGERS 2001 FALLING SUN LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA PURPOSE: 27 NEW BULKHEAD IN: RED MILL AT: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA APPLICANT: MR. 28 ROGERS SHT 2 OF 5 DATE: 4/3/00," prepared by Spence Marine 29 Construction, Inc., a copy of which is on file in the Department of 30 Public Works to which reference is made for a more particular 31 description; and 32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment 33 is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria 34 contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and 35 JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS (the "Agreement"), which is 36 attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 37 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his 38 authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. 39 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be 40 in effect until such time as JAMES 0. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS 41 and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the 42 Agreement. 43 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 44 Virginia, on the 7 day of November , 2000. 45 CA#- 7F7-1- 46 F7.S46 TKENN\ENCROACH\ROGERS. ORD 47 R-1 48 PREPARED: 10/9/2000 2 APPVED AS TO CONTENTS '7 SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY A FORM CITY AtTOWY PREPARED BY PAIN ENG. DRAFT. 27 -SEP -2000 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 (a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this \\ day of �s Q -P �-. , 20 100 , by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the "City", Grantor, and JAMES 0. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, the "Grantee" (even if more than one). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as: Lot 764, Section 13, Subdivision of Red Mill Farm, said plat being duly recorded in the City of Virginia Beach's Clerk's Office in D.B. 2554, at Page 2021, and being further designated and described as 2001 Falling Sun Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23454; and WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a wooden bulkhead, a "Temporary Encroachment" in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City 100' drainage easement, the "Encroachment Area", and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. GPIN: 2414-54-2400 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee, and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval, and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SITE PLAN MR. ROGERS 2001 FALLING SUN LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA PURPOSE: NEW BULKHEAD IN: RED MILL AT: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA APPLICANT: MR. ROGERS SHT 2 OF 5 DATE: 4/3/0011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon! notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee, and that the j Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall 2 be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the! location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge such permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain approval of the Joint Permit Application from, Waterfront Operations of the Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted,i may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment and, if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures and seals duly affixed. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager ( SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk �O(SEAL) .eso.Roge S ( SEAL) Vivian A. Roger STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2 0 , by City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager, on behalf of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: 4 Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF .�o, t n I CA_ CITY/BOUNTY Of�rrV Q6Q-TCC" to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l I day of, 2o DD by JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A ROGERS, husband and wife. Notary Public My Commission Expires: �1'�.�)I D -L APPROVED WS TO CONTENT Tk (-4ag-4:2— SIGNATV E KPARTMENT APPRGVED !,k111T' E T. ) LEGAL SUFFRCIEW..' � i 5 i Sc,4Ur 1"-2-01 p(toP 0w4ER U J EXisrt,J6 CoNctte'E IIFaOwsrL� CANAL 60'4- AC2au No(tM,AL (,JA-lER FLOW s-rmcEJ ARi se -r NEW T/r,C3E/L dhCK V" ftlor+ O QW.ic wEA0 �,�� 3 of- N6w (Uw<"d A0 12. LF V PJ '31 '!v'W 10 s SAFETY TIE NEW QVLKMEAD FEmCE lN70 Fi1GN GROuWr• PA7to Fbac.H tNt9 R A `y u �lz S7oRy F2�+F - #2001 - a 0 v' ' J Z � . .0 10' wFlot - wOhk PATH CoNTRArc7oR P S7AGlt✓G AREA SS ' FALLI FJV SutJ LANE DATUM: NORMAL WATER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. VVA,c !`e- 2. Po u SITE PLAN MR. ROGERS 2001 FALLING SUN LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA too' ORAIrlA6E EASEmENT eLFV *3-0 ATTACH -% EX 1STW 6 PROP O�✓NE2 Q Iy PT ff DIST 1 A 42'6" 2 B 44' 1 2 46' 2 3 46' 3 B 38' 3 4 24' -,A�'T�I kAZ STEVENZ No. 17630 PURPOSE: NEW BULKHEA IN- RED MILL AT: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA APPLICANT: MR. ROGERS SHT Z OF.S DATE- 4/3/00 _. I I µ � �� ?�^' rr � ,. � i i x; ,�^' ,�/ } �,, jj ,, � � �� � �', ,., � � .. , p �I _, , , .p T i yi + 'i s' t +; pry .. p �� atm �'� �r �u 4..� � r �l i � _ ,. f t r .,... � � f ,,,�� � � I� !�� ., �4� � :. -- �`, i �,_-. f. �. � �,,� � � �.. ,a� � �� � . �'.... ,,P .. .,__ it ,, } . i N.,,' .._..,.... ,� ( I � � � �+ �„�.. i a f p k. �, � � � ,. ., �, � 1� � �e ,,, -' .. �� � � � �, � � � i 4 r I' q � �' e' i. r� �w... �� a � . t � � �... � i ��N, � �� i 1 a i �` , �, i i i � *', I �J� A .. ... .. . r . , J i U' � ! '� (....., � .� d / fir_ ` � ,/ \..... f �/, / ,� .i ; � „. � w i M' � � /p A� f � . �.. P �' � i. �I - „ ..,. ��.... k... ,. -29 - Item 29 - Item V -I.1. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 47348 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council: APPOINTED: Kenneth C. Taylor R. Preston Midgett REAPPOINTED: Dana W. Almond John F. Malbon Joseph D. Taylor II Three-year terms 01/01/01 -12/31/03 RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 W11A Item V -I.2. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 47349 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Robert F. Atherton Kempsville - District #2 F. Dudley Fulton Lynnhaven - District #S Kimberly L Johnson Rose Hall- District #3 Richard A. Maddox Beach - District #6 SUPER HORNET COMMISSION (This Commission is to dissolve sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal Register of the Record of Decision on the EIS) Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 -31 - Item V -I.3. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 47350 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council DESIGNATED: F. Dudley Fulton Chair Rear Admiral Fred Metz Vice Chair SUPER HORNET COMMISSION Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay. - None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson November 7, 2000 -32 - Item V -J.2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 47351 Mayor Oberndorf advised the OCEANA OPERATIONS TASKFORCE met Monday, November 6, 2000. Those present were: Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Rear Admiral Fred Metz. Captain John Shick. Councilman Robert C. Mandigo, Council Lady Nancy K. Parker, J.B. Dadson and Robert Matthias. The TaskForce will attempt to create apartnership between the citizens, City Council and the UnitedStates Navy. November 7, 2000 Item V -L. 1. ADJOURNMENT -33 - ITEM # 47352 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 2:12 P.M. -------------- Beverly O. Hooks, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk R Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk City of Virginia Beach Virginia Meyera E Oberndorf Mayor November 7, 2000