OCTOBER 2, 2012 WORKSHOP MINUTESCITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At -Large
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4
GLENN R'DA VIS, Rose Hall - District 3
WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH, At -Large
HARRYE. DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2
ROBERT M. DYER, Centerville - District 1
BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7
JOHN D. MOSS, At -Large
JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach - District 6
ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large
JAMES L. WOOD, Lvnnhaven -District 5
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES
CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE
CITYATTORNEY- MARK D. STILES
CITY ASSESSOR - JERALD D. BANA GAN
CITY AUDITOR- L YNDON S. REMIAS
CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC
I.
II.
CITY HALL BUILDING
2401 COURTHOUSEDRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005
PHONE. -(757) 385-4303
FAX (75 7) 385-5669
E-MAIL: ctycncl@vbgov.com
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
02 October 2012
CITY COUNCIL and SCHOOL BOARD JOINT MEETING - Building 19 -
A. REVENUE SHARING FORMULA
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
A. DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT
- Conference Room -
Elizabeth "Boo" Twohy, Vice -Chair - Development Authority
B. PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS - PENDING PROJECTS
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
Michael Kalvort, Director - Parks and Recreation
Brian Solis, Planning Design/Development Administrator - Parks and Recreation
Public Hearing_4nnauncentent
Virginia Beach Probation and Parole Office
City Council Chamber
City c4`11'irginia Beach
2.101 Courthouse Drive
Virginia Beach. Virginia 23456
October 4, 2012
6:00 ].Al.
-1 -
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
October 2, 2012
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., called to order the CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD JOINT
WORKSHOP, in Building 19, Tuesday, October 2, 2012, at 4:00 P.M.
Council Members Present:
Glenn R. Davis, William R. "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert
M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, John D.
Moss, Mayor William D.. Sessoms, Jr., John E. Uhrin, Rosemary
Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Absent:
None
School Board Members Present:
Vice Chairman William J. Brunke, IV, Emma L. Davis, Chairman
Daniel D. Edwards, Hugh Greene, Dottie Holtz, Brent N. McKenzie,
Ashley K. McLeod, Sam Reid, Patrick S. Salyer, Scott Seery and
Carolyn D. Weems
School Board Members Absent:
hR=
October 2, 2012
-z -
CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD
JOINT WORKSHOP
REVENUE SHARING FORMULA
4:00 P.M.
A copy of the Verbatim Transcript and the Packet provided to City Council and School Board are hereby
attached and made apart of this record.
The City Council/School Board Joint Workshop Adjourned at 5:02 P.M.
October 2, 2012
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
October 2, 2012
3:58 p.m.
WORKSHOP SESSION
CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD JOINT MEETING
REVENUE SHARING FORMULA
VERBATIM
CITY COUNCIL
William D. Sessoms, Jr., Mayor
Louis R. Jones, Vice -Mayor
Glenn R. Davis
William R. DeSteph
Harry E. Diezel
Robert M. Dyer
Barbara M. Henley
John D. Moss
John E. Uhrin
Rosemary Wilson
James L. Wood
CITY MANAGER:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY ASSESSOR:
CITY AUDITOR:
CITY CLERK:
At -Large
Bayside - District 4
Rose Hall - District 3
At -Large
Kempsville - District 2
Centerville - District 1
Princess Anne - District 7
At -Large
Beach - District 6
At -Large
Lynnhaven - District 5
James K. Spore
Mark D. Stiles
Jerald Banagan
Lyndon S. Remias
Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC
SARAH DEAL JENKINS, CMC
DEPUTY CITY CLERK, II
1
2
MAYOR SESSOMS: It's always good to bring the School
Board and the City Council together,
and I think this is following up on our commitment to do this.
If you recall some time ago, we asked Jim and Jim to see about
coming up with a Revenue -Sharing Formula. And we also asked
that the leadership of the School Board and the City Council
meet prior to us having this meeting, which has occurred, and
it was agreed by the School Board Chairman and Vice Chair and
myself and the Vice Mayor and Jim Merrill and Jim Spore to get
what was presented to us in front of you all, and I believe
that we do recommend what is going to be presented. We look
forward to a brief presentation and then some discussion. Jim
and Jim, whichever Jim wants to start out?
CITY MANAGER: Let me just say, we have worked on
this very well together, both staffs,
and recommend this new policy to you. It's pretty
straightforward and consistent with what we talked about last
December. The principle features, I think, that are in the
policy are the expanded local revenue sources. It really
opens up a lot of the additional revenue sources that had not
been shared with the Schools before. It includes that in the
pot. It incorporates the State SOQ computation, which is
updated, as you all know, every other year, which allows us to
take into account by using that mechanism changes in
enrollment, changes in population, adjusted gross income
changes, property value changes, and so on and so forth. So,
that's a feature that I think helps.
It requires that it be adopted by both bodies. Whereas, the
old formula was just adopted by the Council, this one suggests
that both the School Board and the City Council, if we want to
have this policy, both bodies would adopt the policy. It
requires that it be reviewed annually at the staff level, in
terms of revenue adjustments and some unique things that have
happened, like in the past couple or three years we had some
enormous swings in revenues with the Federal government. As a
provision that if more resources are required, the Board would
enact a resolution requesting those of Council. And we're
suggesting that it be good for a three-year period through
June 30th, 2015, and that we have a review an reauthorization
at the end of that time.
So, that's a quick scan of what's in there. In the packet
that you have at your place, there's a copy of the briefing
that I referenced back in December. There is a copy of the
draft policy, itself, in terms of the verbiage. There's a
summary of how the formula would have worked, if we used it
for this current budget, and I emphasize a very preliminary
projection of the upcoming 2014 revenues and expenditures.
0
COUNCILMAN WOOD: -- what four things it included.
CATHERYN WHITESELL: Okay. This is the real estate tax
revenue that is in the budget for
113. This is the total 6 -cents tax increase that the Council
provided the increase. I backed it out at this point. We
also back out all dedications. The new formula says it's all
local tax revenue that hasn't already been dedicated.
Personal Property Tax, General Sales, Utility, Utility
Consumption, you see all those revenues, we have an EDIP
dedication that also needs to be backed out here, all the way
down to City Tax on Wills, $70,000.
So, within the formula, it's kind of a two-step and actually a
three-step process with the dedication of the 4 cents in Real
Estate. The first is you take all the local taxes that
haven't been dedicated, then you take what's called the
required SOQ match, which is determined by the State through
the Local Composite Index, that's $165 million for 113, take
that out, then you have a resulting revenue stream to which
we're going to apply the percentage for the discretionary
match, which is $592.7 million.
The way I got 32.37, because if you'll notice it is different
than what Dr. Merrill and Mr. Spore presented back in
December, is because I knew the answer for the 113 Budget and
I'm using it to set the formula. I backed into that
percentage. So, that gives the discretionary match at $191.8
million. And then I added back the Schools 4 cents, the $19.2
million, to come up with the School formula, had we used it in
113, would have been $376.2 million.
Now, that's different than the 387 they actually got because
of these two numbers right here, which is Fund Balance use,
one-time money, the School Board's decision to use the
Sandbridge surplus in their Operating Budget and then the
Council's decision applied $9.2 million of one-time funding.
So, that's what accounts for the difference.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Other questions or comments?
Rosemary?
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Well, my question was answered,
because that 4 cents, as you probably
figured out, was pretty important to me and I wanted to make
sure that was all accounted for and also to know what all the
different streams were.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Ashley?
BOARD MEMBER MCLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted
to, I think it's important that we
talk about the elephant in the middle of the room. The fact
of the matter is, is that while we have already said part of
this agreement is that if we need more money we'll have to ask
for it. Well, Sir, I'm already asking for it. This doesn't
actually meet it.
So, my concern is, by agreeing with this we already know it's
not going to meet our needs. One of the things it said and
many people have talked about this is, and we've been out
doing forums and that, is we'd like to see full-day
Kindergarten. It is going to be years and years before we can
do that because that is just not feasible based on this
formula. That is one of the hazards of going into a formula.
I have no problem if we go into this that it will be my
responsibility to then ask for a tax increase specific for the
formula to go towards it, but it's just the reality as quick
as we agree on something like that I'll be putting forth a
resolution asking for that, because we already have a
shortfall, and it's hard to say we're fully funding Schools
when we already know the formula doesn't meet the needs, and I
just felt the need to make sure everyone heard that out loud.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Thank you. John?
COUNCILMAN MOSS: No surprise to anyone here that I
don't support formulas. I always
think these joint sessions should be more about education
first and the requirement, and, secondly, about the money it
takes to get that job done. So, like always, I always prepare
for these events, and I have prepared remarks and I will just
read. I don't want to be misquoted.
This afternoon, we should be receiving a stage -setting
narrative on what actions the Schools need to take, what
metrics they need to improve upon to improve our scores, and
the new goals we should aspire to that takes us from the
Number 5 to the Number 1 Public School System in the country.
Who has a business that says "I want to be Number 5"? I don't
know who that is. I'm sure your bank wants to be Number 1.
The story of all great-grandparents and grandparents and
parents, teachers, employers, and our youth want to hear today
are the non -material solutions which may be curriculum
changes, scheduling changes, the self -finance initiatives
through internal efficiencies, and the new initiatives that we
need to make to increase the competitive edge of our students
to pursue their dreams. This joint meeting should be about
the needs of our education of children and talk about the
money second.
I can think of no greater ambitious goal to motivate the
community's commitment to Public Education to have a School
System where it's the personal motivation of the student, not
the education of the mother or the socio-economic status of
the family, that determines their educational achievement.
That is a goal we should all pursue. We all know that Public
Education is the single strongest engine in our culture to
power upward economic mobility and personal fulfillment. Our
School Board delivers across the full spectrum of diversity in
our community in all of its dimensions a National top ten
public performance at half the price of the best in class
private schools in our region, and they should be applauded
for that.
All the stakeholders and our youth understand that advancing
excellence in education to the next level will not be achieved
by reverse engineering from a dollar figure established by a
funding formula. I think that's the exact point Mrs. McLeod
was mentioning. There is no need for a funding formula for
Education. A funding formula is just another way to say
entitlement. Entitlement shortchanged the customer they are
intended to serve, the taxpayers that provide the funding, and
the future that endures the opportunity costs imposed by the
ineffective and inefficient investment of economic resources
incentivised by the funding formula.
Our obligation to properly fund education is independent of
the business cycle and the availability of total municipal
revenues. It is not unconstrained, but it would be truly the
exceptional set of circumstances where collected revenues
after Public Safety expense would not sustain public
educational services. Foremost of our responsibilities and
our oath of office and the Constitution and the City's Charter
are Public Safety and public education. Likewise, the Members
of the School Board are charged by their oath of office to be
the unfettered advocate to provide quality instruction and
diversity of opportunity to infuse in our youth the
competencies and the proficiencies in their application to
secure a competitive advantage in the world of work.
The School Boards have not been granted the power to tax. The
School Boards have no experience or consent of the government
to judge whether or not the sum total of the City's
requirements require a tax increase or not. They do not
possess that perspective and we shouldn't be asking them to do
it, in my opinion. The School Board's goal is to increase the
critical thinking of our students. The application of
N
critical thinking skills to the issue before us would expose
that the real estate bubble masks the underlying ills of the
funding formula, and as just noticed we see here even this
funding formula falls short of being able to beat even the
baseline expenses of the system.
A funding formula creates a firewall between public education,
our Number 2 priority, and all City expenses. It means that,
for example, the Strategic Growth Office does not have to
compete against lowering class sizes. A funding formula means
that lower City priority activities get funded while City
Council want the School Board to request a tax increase to
meet higher educational priorities. I think that's misguided.
I recognize the majority of City Council may prefer a funding
formula. And I recognize that some Members of the School
Board have an affinity for a funding formula in pursuit of the
false promise of funding stability when really it represents
annual requests for tax increases as proposed and are even
willing to endure that imposition of asking for tax increases
to get what they think is a better way of being funded.
I'm committed to funding the baseline requirement represented
by the current Operating Budget adjusted for the legally must
pays that we know about and making up for State reductions in
funding should that happen. I'm committed to embracing the
School Board's plan to take our School System to Number 1 and
to annually collaborate on incremental funding on our journey
to the next level of educational excellence, be it full-day
Kindergarten or whatever that may be, but there is a plan that
is within community's ability to pay if we set our
prerogatives in the right place and revisit City expenses of
lower priorities.
It is the Council that commits itself to funding the
requirement to achieve excellence of education and to invest
in continuing improvement that truly provides the stability of
a commitment that the School Board can trust. There is no
commitment to excellence. That's a commitment to money. You
and we all should be committed to excellence for the students,
not committed to funding.
My remarks today here, it's getting close to close, are not
inconsistent with the approach I took leading up to the
adoption of the current budget. I accept the majority of my
peers judge that public education was a lower priority than
any City proposed expenses, and therefore the Schools were
attributed to a 4 -cent tax increase in the Real Estate Tax
increase. I'm very proud of the five of you on the School
Board that stood tall and voted against a resolution
requesting a tax increase, a resolution that was not requested
6
by City Council as a body but by selected Council Members. We
have a Council -Manager form of government with the Mayor as
largely ceremonial, and only Council acting as a body can
provide direction.
When the time comes, I will not vote in favor of the School
Funding Formula or a Memorandum of Agreement containing a
provision whereby the School Board has to petition for tax
increases. I will vote to appropriate funding to the Schools
without categorical restrictions for its Operating Budget. A
budgeting process based on needs just like the process that
families an businesses use will best serve the present and the
future. Thank you.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Thank you, John. Glenn?
COUNCILMAN DAVIS: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman, I think that
this formula is very important
because it provides financial protection for our School
System, and that need became no more apparent than in the
budget this year. A formula like this would protect our
School System against irresponsible budget cuts like those
proposed by the Moss budget that would have made this year our
teachers take a pay decrease compared to the prior year on top
of a half -million -dollar lump -sum cut. That's why we need
this. We can't afford these irresponsible cuts. We see them
proposed for this budget year and we need to protect our
School System against it going forward.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Thank you. Bill?
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: I went through the documents we were
provided, and I went through the
documents we were provided and I'm having a hard time getting
the numbers to match between Attachment 3, the brief, itself,
and the estimate of 2013, 2012, and 2014/2013. And I'll be
honest, I'm trying to go back through it again now hoping that
maybe the copy I had received Friday in my package was messed
up, but --
MAYOR SESSOMS: Bill, I'm going to ask Catheryn to
meet with you and go through it in
detail to make sure you get comfortable with the numbers.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Okay. Because I'll tell you right
now that they're off quite a bit
significantly.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Maybe Farrell could come, as well.
10
FARRELL HANZAKER: We can do that later.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Then I'll hit a couple more questions
because I'm trying to break this down
as easy as possible. Then on attachment 3, Item Number 27, it
says, "School Board decision to move Sandbridge surplus to
budget." I wasn't quite sure that was a School Board
decision. I thought it was a Council decision, but maybe I
missed something. So, the School Board makes the decision to
move Sandbridge surplus funds? Help me out here. What am I
missing?
CATHERYN WHITESELL: Under the old policy, when we
declare, when Council declares
surplus $7 million, we split it -- under the old policy, when
the Council declared surplus $7 million, we split it 51% to
the Schools.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Yes.
CATHERYN WHITESELL: So, they got roughly $3.5 million.
They made the choice. They had
always gone to their CIP to support their Capital Program.
With last year's budget, or the '13 budget we're in now, the
School Board made the decision to pull $2 million of that and
put it to their Operating Budget. That's where that number
came from.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Okay. Got it. So, at least I
understand that now. Then the way I
understand it, we have five funding categories: Pupil
Transportation; Administrative, Attendance and Health;
Construction; Operations and Maintenance; Debt Service. I was
trying to go with the information we're provided here and
Friday and map this over and I just can't flat do it. So, I
need some help mapping Fiscal Year 13 and Fiscal Year 14 with
the five categories that we provide over. Now, as I
understand it, our total City debt is roughly $1.3 billion.
The total Schools debt is $320.8 million. Debt Service is
$44.8 million. Is that Fiscal Year 12-13, or is that 13-14?
Is that what we're projecting or is that what is actual today?
CATHERYN WHITESELL: The numbers I gave you this morning
were out of the 13 budget.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Out of the 13 budget. Can we get
what's projected for Fiscal Year 14,
as well? I know we've got, according to our City Manager,
roughly a $60 million shortfall next year. So, what I'm
trying to do is determine, break this down, what are our
11
projections and shortfalls, which areas, and then I know
technology is separate from this or is put into a Special
Revenue Fund, which is under this or not under the five
categories?
CATHERYN WHITESELL: The formula policy is silent on the
category issue and has left that up
to the Board and Council to decide with each budget. So,
there's nothing in the new policy, itself, that speaks to
whether we stay with categories or don't stay with categories.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Understood.
CATHERYN WHITESELL: So, none of these numbers are
reflective of that.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: But I'm trying to map from here to
the basic five groups that we have,
and then on the technology side I know we have Special Revenue
Streams or Special Revenue Technologies.
CATHERYN WHITESELL: Yes, sir. I'm glad to show you that
in the Operating Budget. We can do
that after the meeting.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Okay. I'm just trying to find out
where it maps to these five areas,
because it should be pretty easy and pretty basic, but I can't
get there from here. Then I'd like to also know what are the
projected increases from last year to this year? What are the
drivers? Is VRS a driver this year? These are the things
that I'm trying to determine.
CATHERYN WHITESELL: Two things. The very quick, very
preliminary estimate, starts with the
13 budget and takes out one-time use of revenues. That's all
we knew about revenues at that point. We're in the process of
putting together the Five -Year Forecast, which we'll brief you
on on the 20th of November. We'll go into all of the details
of the revenue streams and how the projections are doing and
how they're doing right now. As you all know, this is very
early in the fiscal year for us. Our major revenue streams,
Real Estate doesn't come in until December, so we don't get a
first good look until then. We don't get a real good look on
Personal Property until next June. So, we're working through
some issues talking to the Commissioner of Revenue's office,
the Real Estate Assessor. That detail I think that you're
looking for will be available next month when we get together
again.
12
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: Okay. Well, I look forward to that.
And I'll provide you my questions,
because I'd like to know what the projected shortfalls are,
what's the plan on the Schools side to prepare for the
projected shortfalls, what are we looking at for a total cost
per student between Fiscal Year 12 and 13 and Fiscal Year
13-14, but most importantly how will these drivers affect the
services on our students? What will be the impact, positive
or negative, and then how will it affect the quality of
education, and where do we go forward from there?
I know that the discussion today is "do we go with the School
Funding Formula or not"? "Let's beat up the Moss-DeSteph
Budget because I didn't like it", or whatever else. I'm
trying to get back to the basics of what are we supposed to be
doing. The core services of government are the safety and
security of our people, education of our kids, and I'm trying
to get back to that and better understand it. With what we're
provided, I can't get there from here. And then I know
there's multiple special grants and other revenues that are
unaccounted for on the basic City side. I'm trying to look at
total budget because we should have transparency here, and
that's what I can't get to add up on any of this.
So, with that, once we get there, I'd be pretty happy to say
"okay, now I'm comfortable". Right now, I can tell you I'm
not real comfortable, because I can't answer my basic
questions, which I believe everybody in this room is
responsible for answering those basic questions to those who
elect us to sit in here and do this job. So, that's all I
have for comments. Thank you.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Thank you, Bill. Barbara?
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Mr. DeSteph mentioned the Debt
Service. Is the School Debt Service
in this amount of the contribution, or was that about $44
million, is that in here?
CATHERYN WHITESELL: Yes. They would be expected to pay
their $44 million out of the
contribution.
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: So, this $387 million from this year
did include it. It wasn't in their
initial request, I think. I was just confused because it
comes at a different time.
CATHERYN WHITESELL: Yes.
13
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: But it is in this amount?
CATHERYN WHITESELL: Yes.
COUNCILMAN DESTEPH: You just can't map it over to the
categories and figure out where
it's --
COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Well, it's not a category.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Em?
BOARD MEMBER DAVIS: Thank you. I look at this budget and
I see a deficit already, as
Ms. McLeod has already said. We'll never get to full-day
Kindergarten under a budget like this one. However, if City
Council in their list of priorities could put in full-day
Kindergarten as one of their priorities and list it along with
their other priorities, couldn't they then shift money to it
as needed? The other thing I think about is salary increases.
When you give your people a salary increase, look to give our
people a salary increase. When you look to VRS for an
increase in VRS, look to our people for VRS, because we have
the same problems. And when you go to do an oceanfront
beautification, it benefits all of us. So, if we had one list
of priorities combining both School and City needs, maybe that
would show us more of a direction where we need to put these
extra funds. Thank you.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Good point, Em. Carolyn?
BOARD MEMBER WEEMS: Yes. I was kind of going to say the
same thing as Em said. This budget
is minimum basic need. It gives us the feeling of we're going
to get that, but like Ms. McLeod said and Em has said, we're
basically going to have to ask for a tax increase. But I'm
thinking that we should -- we've been to these meetings and I
just don't feel,like there's a lot of change and a lot of
positive change after we sit here and we come to these
meetings. And then we do it again a few months later, and
then we do it again a few months later.
And I don't know what the answer to that is, except for I
think that if we're going to be, and we are on the same team
looking at the same citizens, looking at the same students, we
need to express our needs more than just a budget. We need to
tell you why is full-day Kindergarten so important. We need
to let you know why are we always talking about this full-day
Kindergarten, how much it's exactly going to cost, and what
are you getting for that cost.
14
Now, we're going over four-by-four scheduling versus regular
scheduling. One is a budget savings, but it may not be the
best thing for the students, and we need to be able to come up
with we don't go that way or we do go this way because
educationally it's best. We've got achievement gaps with
these minimum budgets. We're not going to be able to do much
to work with achievement gaps of our racial achievement gaps,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and Special Education
achievement gaps. They're huge.
But I think that we, as the School Board, and we did do this
in a listing of priorities, but I think that we need to talk
more and say "this is why we need the money because this
achievement gap is ... da -da -da -da -da". This has a direct
correlation to X student going to college. This has a direct
correlation of this student not signing up for an AP class.
This has a direct correlation of these people not getting jobs
when they graduate from high school. This has a direct
correlation, early education to what these students are doing
by Third Grade. We need to impress that upon you folks so
that you know the importance and so you can say we're trying
together, like Em gave one example; there's many. We're
trying together as a City and School System to go for full-day
Kindergarten.
So, I just think that if we keep going the way we're going, I
just haven't seen many changes after these group meetings.
It's just all about money. It's all about budget. We can't
do this. Y'all ask more and then everybody is pointing
fingers. I'm tired of it. We just need to work together and
we need to somehow figure out how we're going to do that and
how we're going to have the same priorities, which is very
hard because y'all have many on your plate, but as my
colleague here says Education and Public Safety are just up
there and it should be everybody's top two priorities. So, I
want to work together, but I want to maybe educate us all a
little bit exactly what these programs mean and not just
always have a dollar sign stuck to it; "no, we can't do it,
it's too much". We might need to do it because it has such an
implication to our future employees, our future workers, our
future community. So, I would like to kind of see a shift
change in that, Mayor, and Chairman, and hopefully y'all can
facilitate that and tell us what the best way to do that is.
MAYOR SESSOMS: I would sit back and say to you, I
think we'd welcome hearing from the
School Board, going down their priorities, and we'd welcome
that, and as to why they're needed.
15
BOARD MEMBER WEEMS: We kind of do it in a list, just like
y'all do, but I think it needs to be
more explained instead of just "this is important and it costs
this".
MAYOR SESSOMS:
CHAIRMAN EDWARDS:
We'd welcome that.
Dottie?
BOARD MEMBER HOLTZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Davis
says this formula would provide
financial protection for everybody. Of course, that's what we
all want. I wonder, the 32 -plus compared to over 50 just
seems to be so different, and I understand about the different
revenue streams. If this particular formula were applied to
the budget, which was fully funded last year and gratefully
so, would it have covered everything?
CHAIRMAN EDWARDS: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER HOLTZ: It would?
CHAIRMAN EDWARDS: That's what this came from.
BOARD MEMBER HOLTZ: I don't see it. Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Bill?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BRUNKE: Thank you. First, I really
appreciate that we are all having
this conversation in October and not in February, as we did
last year, regarding funding formulas, the approach to funding
our budget. So, I appreciate that commitment.
This meeting is an outgrowth of last year's budget cycle. And
the impression that I was under going into the summer was that
there was a general commitment on the part of Council, who is
the only body who truly gets to decide how our Schools are
going to be funded, to look towards a funding formula, and the
work over the course of the summer was to provide a framework
in which a formula may work.
I'm going to back up from that for a second, because I do want
to re -visit that, but talk about what seems to be another
discussion evolving, and that is the merits of a funding
formula, whether we should or shouldn't have one. I'm an
advocate of the funding formula and I have been for as long as
I have been involved in the Board. I think a funding formula
has served our City well over the past fifteen years. Having
children who have been the product of K through 12 under a
16
funding formula, I have to say they've done quite well, and
they have been quite successful in a model in a system in
which Schools were funded through this formula.
I think it's important, also, as we talk about funding
formulas, that as you set the tax rate you're in essence
coming up with a funding formula. It's a funding formula that
is based on a number of factors, the most significant which is
Real Estate taxes, and you're not necessarily exchanging that
every year. You are using that formula of "X" number of cents
per hundred to develop and work to develop a budget within the
constraints of that formula. I think what this does on the
Schools side is it takes that and it now says as a community
we have a lot of things we have to address.
And there are times when we're going to have to specifically
pull out one piece and maybe make some adjustments, but we
will provide Schools the amount of money that falls out from
this funding formula. That formula provides us with
stability. It provides us with predictability. And, most
importantly, it forces the School System to work within the
constraints of a budget, because what's going around the table
right now are all of the things we don't have, and I, frankly,
don't want a repeat of last year. And if we do not put in
place and maintain the integrity of this formula, and by the
way, the only way this thing works is if we maintain the
integrity of this formula, if we don't have that structure in
place, what we're going to hear is "want, want, want, want,
want".
And what I love about this formula is if we as a School Board
want it that bad, we have the opportunity to ask for it. We
have to ask for a tax increase. Without that structure of the
formula, I think it becomes a lot of wants and a lot of
pittings of the Schools against the Council, and some of the
stuff we've experienced over the past two or three years
where, frankly, the integrity of the existing formula was
undermined. We all know that, and I'm glad that we're hitting
the reset button on this. So, I am an advocate of a funding
formula, no different than the fact that you all on Council
use funding formulas to determine your budgets, as well.
I want to address the specific formula. It's awesome, if I
could use that word. It is just simply awesome. I think it
addresses the concerns many Council Members had about some of
the changes in the School System, the increases and decreases
in enrollment. It address that. It addresses the level of
funding coming out from the State. It addresses the relative
strength of this community as compared to the rest of the
Commonwealth. It broadens the base of the revenues that the
17
School System is receiving. No longer will we have to have a
debate about whether or not a good year at the Oceanfront is
good for our Schools.
And I don't want to have to read an advertisement in the
newspaper and have people holding them up talking about this,
because the fact of the matter is what's good at the
Oceanfront is also good for our Schools, and this formula
shows that. And I like that and I think that is a really,
really important step that we broaden that base and that the
entire community is on the same page with regard to where our
resources are going. Again, I'm an advocate. I don't have a
vote in this other than to adopt a resolution that says I
support this. You all are the ones ultimately that do that,
and I encourage you to support this. I won't comment on some
of the alternative budgets that are out there and how they
were arrived at. I'll leave that alone for now.
MAYOR SESSOMS: I've got Scott, then Sam, then
Rosemary.
BOARD MEMBER SEERY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all,
I want to say thank you to
Dr. Merrill and Mr. Spore and your staff. I do think you guys
did an outstanding job, and I think we are making progress. I
think when I look at a formula where it does provide for
adjustments based on the Local Composite Index and provides
for adjustments based on increases and decreases in student
enrollment, that's progress because that's input that has come
from both Boards. I am concerned as has been voiced a couple
of times with the fact that where we end up is with a budget
where we're already looking at proposing a new tax increase,
especially with an economy that we're looking at current debt.
I am all for planning and predictability, but I think that
Mrs. Davis brought up a good point, is that maybe progress can
be further made by having joint priorities. Because I know,
because I hear it all the time from Members of City Council,
of your concerns about the School System and things you would
like to see within the School System, and I think there is
support for a full-day Kindergarten. I know that there is
support to adjusted unified pay scale, and I know that we all
in this room want to move from the Number 5 School System in
the country to the Number 1 School System in the country, but
it is going to take a joint effort. I don't know that a tax
rate increase is the right way to get there, and so that's my
concern with this formula is that we all have a common goal.
We have common priorities. I think we need to take further
steps in order to address those priorities. I think we need
to do it jointly. Thank you.
W:?
MAYOR SESSOMS: Thank you, Scott. Sam?
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Don't forget me.
MAYOR SESSOMS: I think you're right after Sam.
BOARD MEMBER REID: I remember when the funding formula
was looked at and everybody decided
that it was going to go away. We were all upset. A lot of
the community was upset. And everything that I've heard from
the community and folks that I've listened to and talked to,
everybody supported the old funding formula. The new one is
at least data driven. It's not the arbitrary funding formula
we had before. So, this one is data driven. There's more
revenue streams to give us on the School Board side some
stability from year to year. Doctor Merrill had a study done
showing the economic benefit that the School System brings to
our city. We're talking millions upon millions of dollars
worth of economic growth and businesses that come to our
community because of the School System.
The funding formula, I like it. It gives us a baseline. It
gives us something to work from and some stability within the
School System on what we're going to plan for next year. The
other thing is, beyond the School Board and City Council
giving us the stability, it provides the families that live
here in our city and their children, our students, the
understanding that that money and the School System are going
to go forward, and it's not going to be the contentious budget
year we had this last go -round.
But beyond the current students and families that live in our
city, a stable School System, a stable budget, something that
we can plan on, also provides other families that want to move
to Virginia Beach because of the School System that that
stability will be there as their children grow up through the
years, starting in Kindergarten and going through High School
in our city. It gives them that stability, that understanding
that what's gone on since '97 will go on now as a data -driven
formula and that their children, our students, will have the
opportunity to get one of the best educations in the United
States.
And I am dedicated, I think everybody here on our School Board
is absolutely dedicated, to making our School System number
one. We'd all like to be number one instead of number five,
but you've got to tip your hat to our staff and our
administration who have done an incredible job bringing us to
number 5 in the United States and doing it these last years
19
with the budget formula.
So, I'm going to support this. I think it's a fantastic
baseline. It gives us more revenue streams. It gives us that
stability from year to year. And then we can fine tune
without the contention, we can fine tune the needs that go
beyond the funding formula, and we can work together. And
this will provide us that baseline where we can all work
together instead of having the kind of budget year we had this
last go -round. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SESSOMS: Thank you, Sam. Rosemary?
COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I know I'm the only person here
that's served on both the School
Board and the Council before a funding formula ever, with a
formula, and then without one. And having all of those
experiences, I can tell you, having the funding formula was a
whole lot better than not having the formula. It gives me
great comfort in knowing that our two Jims put their brilliant
heads together and this is what they've come up with, they've
agreed upon. They're the ones -- we're the policy makers --
they're the ones who actually have to make it work. And
they're the ones who are going to have to get out there and
make sure that all of it goes well.
Last year was pretty painful for most of us sitting here with
what we all went through with the budget. And as painful as
it was for us, the really unfair part was the pain that our
employees went through and our parents went through and our
kids went through. And to see those children's faces who were
worried about if they were going to have transportation to
their programs or the different things, that was really,
really terrible that they had to have that kind of suffering.
I really think we owe them a lot more than what we gave them
last year. We got through it and there is a difference of
where we were last year where we are today, and that's $19
million and the 4 cents increase. So, we did make a pretty
good stride with that.
So, I continue to support the budget. I think it's the right
thing to do for our citizens and also for both bodies to be
able to figure out where the money is coming from and where
it's going to go, and there are triggers in place. If these
things don't work, we can go back and re -visit them. So,
that's the really good thing. And there's also another really
good thing, is both bodies are going to have to be on board
this time. It's not one sided. It is where we all -- maybe
it's not going to be unanimous, but we're all going to have to
agree upon this. But, anyway, if the School Board will
20
support this, I'm definitely there to support it with you.
VICE -MAYOR JONES: Brent?
BOARD MEMBER MCKENZIE: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want
to echo some of the thoughts from my
colleagues. I, too, have been a proponent of the funding
formula for a long time for all of the reasons that have been
said. Stability and predictability from a School Board
perspective, it gives us a better opportunity to plan and
budget for the next year.
The new formula seems to be a huge improvement over the last
formula. It includes the enrollment issues that I know
Mr. Jones has brought up many times, and the LCI and SOQ
funding, it doesn't take into account the grants we get from
the Federal government. So, all of those things seem to be
steps forward. I do have a couple of concerns. The first one
is the 4 -cent tax increase that went through last year on
behalf of the Schools, 4 cents of the 6 cents.
In here, it states that if the LCI is changed, basically, the
State is going to give us more money through the LCI, then
that 4 cents of the tax increase lowers, if we get less of
that 4 -cent tax increase on a ratio basis, right? So, if they
lower the LCI, then we also take a hit from the money we get
through the funding formula, also. So, are we taking a hit on
that twice? Just once? All right. Well, even if we're only
taking a hit on it once, still if you look at next year's
projections we start off with a $35 million deficit just on
the Schools side, and the State is not likely to take up LCI
again for another year or so. But if they did for some reason
and we got more money from the State, then that money would
just be taken again back from the City side, and so we would
still be left with a $35 million deficit. That 4 -cent tax
increase was meant to avoid us having to make those
catastrophic cuts that are going to come from a $35 million
deficit.
So, I guess, my concern is, the citizens are going to have an
expectation, we raise taxes for Schools, even if the State
gives us more money, we're still going to have this huge
deficit because the City is just going to take it back from
US. That, I have a huge concern with. I don't know if maybe
we can change it that if the Local Composite Index is below
the Fiscal Year 12-13 level of .0410, I don't know if that
number is negotiable or not, but I don't think that -- looking
at the deficit we're going to have that an LCI change from the
State can only hurt us either way. It doesn't help even if
the LCI was increasing State funding, we still lose money on
21
the Schools side. So, I think that's a major tissue.
The second issue I have is with the reversion of different
fund balances. My understanding is, I was talking to Farrell
before the meeting started, that certain funds that we have
historically been able to keep a balance in things like the
Athletic Fund and Technology Fund, those dollars will no
longer be allowed to be kept on the Schools side; they will
have to revert back to the City side, and we'll have to ask
for those dollars. And obviously we have had this issue over
the last few years with reversion funds, and that does the
exact opposite of what the funding formula does.
The funding formula allows us to have predictability in the
plan but us having to rely on a decision made by the City
Council on whether we're going to keep those fund balances
doesn't allow us to have predictability in the plan. So,
those things seem to be working against each other. So, I
have some concerns with that, also. And I would hope maybe
with the Athletic Fund, Technology Fund, we might be able to
continue the way we have been doing that in the past. I know
there have been some characterizations of that as being a
slush fund or the Schools trying to put money in there to get
around the reversion back to the City, but that's not the
case. I don't believe that we have ever had a dollar in any
fund that we didn't have a plan for, especially with the
Athletic Fund, Technology Fund, Textbook Fund; these things
all span more than one budget cycle at times. But we have
specific plans for those items, so that's something that I
would like to see changed.
VICE -MAYOR JONES: Patrick, did you have your hand up?
BOARD MEMBER SALYER: Yes, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor.
This proposal represents a reasonable
approach to resolution of an extremely difficult problem over
the last couple of years; reasonableness by staff, and now us,
the elected members. It goes without saying that we serve the
same body here in Virginia Beach but under different
capacities and under different legal obligations, and those
obligations can't be changed. And by us working together
under this agreement with both bodies having buy -in and having
say-so in it is far superior to the previous formula.
In the final formula inclusions, it looks reasonable. Are
there going to be some tweaks? Yes. But the issues that have
been suffered, and I use the word "suffered" for a reason over
the last couple of years, are now rear-view mirror issues.
We're now going into another budget season, and this provides
the opportunity for all of us to go forward and to candidly
22
and honestly express our concerns and priorities. I think
that one thing that may help in the final formula inclusions
is a gas gauge, something on websites, or something that shows
the different categories of funding, where they're coming
from, where they're going to. And I love the LCI calculation,
I do, but if we could show our public where those funds are
coming from, how they're being supplied or resupplied and
where they're going, I think that would provide for a more
open and, the catch word is, "transparent" government. I'm
going to support this. I think this is a step in the right
direction. I think it has the support of the majority of the
elected bodies represented here, and it's a great step forward
for us to move forward for Virginia Beach, as a whole. Thank
you, Mr. Vice Mayor.
VICE -MAYOR JONES: Glenn?
COUNCILMAN DAVIS: Mr. Vice Mayor, having been
intimately involved with the language
around the 4 -cent tax rate adjustment, I wanted to address
that for a second. When this was first designed with the rate
increase, we had explained to the citizens in Virginia Beach
that it was necessary because of the poor economy and the
decrease in funding from the State level.
Specifically, from the education system alone in Virginia
Beach, our School System had taken a reduction over, I
believe, it was five years of about $30 million, or six years
of about $30 million, and we were trying to cover that gap.
And many of us had gone out to the public to explain the need
for that 4 cents to help cover that gap in education. But we
had also told them what fiscally responsible bodies should
tell the citizens, which is when the economy recovers and the
State gets more money and they start filling that bucket
again, that money will then be reverted back to the citizens
and offset that rate adjustment. That was something that was
passed down to the School Board leadership that we were going
to do.
And in our City budget, our City Manager is directed annually
to tell us what the LCI adjustment is, if it has been
readjusted. And then, if there is additional funding from the
State over this fiscal year, that money then comes to the
Council because it's a net zero sum scenario to the Schools.
And the City Manager is directed to utilize that money to
decrease the Real Estate Tax adjustment that was passed in
this fiscal year. So, the twenty-two of us have done
something that most elected bodies don't do, which is sunset a
rate increase when it's no longer necessary for the reasons
you gave the tax payers to begin with.
23
VICE -MAYOR JONES: Yes, John?
COUNCILMAN MOSS: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want
to re -visit the funding formula for a
moment. I certainly would agree that the funding formula
provides a stable basement of funding. But if anyone thinks
we have a $35 million shortfall for the '13-'14 budget that
the Superintendent won't be as equally challenged to balance
without $35 million without cutting things that were near and
dear to all of our hearts like last time, I think all of us
would be operating a land that doesn't exist because you'll
have that very same -- as a matter of fact, I'd be going back
to the same slides just buffing up the numbers, because I'm
sure, roughly speaking, that's how he would balance.
And then in turn, all the people watching those things, that's
what I would do, if I were in your shoes. I'd look at that
whole list and I'd say, "Oops, here's how I back down to the
revenues I got. Okay, assuming we're still getting $4.5
million per penny"; but we don't do the City's budget on
formula, I can assure you, at least not the ones I work on.
And we would have to have about a 7.8 -cents Real Estate Tax
increase to cover that $35 million shortfall for the things
that Dr. Merrill would tell the Board they couldn't fit within
the basement.
So, I will concur that the funding formula will give
stability. It will also give you a good out -sight. You can
start planning now on your $35 million of reductions, and you
could attach that to your tax increase resolution. And what
that does is obviously Council doesn't have to raise taxes. I
hope we would go in and try to find things to cut on the City
side that were lower priority, but there will be as much
tension on that $35 million list as there was last year.
Friction is inherent to a difference between the money you
have and the money you want, and you have to take it from
someone else.
And I remember in one of our Informal Sessions, it was the
Vice Mayor who said, "You know, it doesn't make much
difference whether we have a funding formula or we don't. The
School Board is going to need at least the amount of money
that they had last year;" because that's the minimum basic
level of funding to provide, I would call my business, the
readiness of education. You can't do it for much less. So,
it's just a question of are we going to raise real estate
taxes, as you'll ask us to do, or will the Council have to go
back and look for other places to cut? But the tension
represented by that $35 million, unless we really get lucky
24
with the growing economy, that tension will not go away. It
will be in the same place it was last year, and we're fooling
ourselves if we think this is some kind of a revenue peace
accord in the community because the tension remains.
VICE -MAYOR JONES: Anybody else? I think the Chairman
would -- Bob?
COUNCILMAN DYER: Yes, thank you. My colleagues, I
think this is an opportunity for
communication, collaboration, and cooperation that we really
need between our two bodies. In terms of tension, there's two
types of tension. There's creative tension and destructive
tension. I think we need that creative tension between us now
to go forward and do the right thing.
That being said, I think Carolyn made a point about us, we
just get together periodically and there's a gap in-between.
I think one of the ways that we could simply build some
bridges between us is that every member of each body has a
counterpart. Dan Edwards has been my counterpart for the last
eight years in Centerville, and we've met frequently. We talk
on the phone. We get together for breakfast. We have
hopefully a little better understanding about building some
bridges, so maybe just as a habit we get in the habit of
picking up the phone and maybe meeting with somebody. John
meets with the person from the Beach District, Sam, right
there, there you go.
And once again, I think if we have an understanding, we're
both in this fiscal boat together that's coming down. We are
both facing this economic tsunami that's coming to us next
year. And I think if we have this understanding between us,
and I understand a little bit better what the School needs
are, and the Board knows what we're facing as a City to keep
viable, that this just might be a simple way as we go forward
to build some more bridges and close the gap and make sure
this is less contentious a process as it was last year.
VICE -MAYOR JONES: We've got a meeting starting at five,
but, Dan, I think you wanted to make
some comments?
CHAIRMAN EDWARDS: Very quickly, I don't think the
Board's role is to be an unfettered
advocate. We are elected by the same people you are, and we
need to provide the best education we can within a reasonable
amount of resources from which we will extract from those
people that put us in office, and we need to be sensitive.
25
The fact that we have to ask and we've kind of glossed over
the wording, the wording is we asked you for funds, and if and
only if you cannot find it within existing resources, then we
suggest you consider a tax increase. The Council will always
drive that process, but if we weren't required to do that, you
do turn us into an unfettered advocate. If we are completely
insensitive to taxation and resources coming from our
citizens, then frankly our role is not much different from the
PTA. But we're put in office to ask for a reasonable amount
of resources to provide a great world-class education.
The other thing which has sort of been missing in our
discussions, and I think it's because the two Jims truncated
their presentation, appropriately because frankly this
discussion I think was more important, but the basic SOQ
funding is pulled out before we do all of this, and the things
that are in that SOQ funding are also big variables. The SOQ
positions and the local funding piece for those positions,
including VRS adjustments, I believe, are in the SOQ, which is
pulled out ahead of time before we then take the balance, the
discretionary piece, put it out. So, that's pretty
significant.
We've got the LCI fixed. We've got a partial adjustment
that's going to address some of the big variables like VRS and
things like that. So, is it perfect? No. But I agree with
Bill's assessment, it's pretty phenomenal. And the things
that were ignored, including the downside stuff on enrollment
and things like that potentially that you all on the Council
have looked at wanting to have cranked in there and the things
that we wanted in there.
So, I thank the City Manager and the Superintendent. And I
agree with Bobby's comment on more dialogue, whether we do it
one-on-one or get together more frequently or provide you
position briefs on "these are issues coming forward", maybe.
Or other things that you could read that we just need to get,
things that we're talking about need to get, in front of you
earlier on. So, Mr. Vice Mayor, thank you.
VICE -MAYOR JONES: Just before we leave, I'd just like
to make a couple of comments. I'm
very grateful to the City Manager and the Superintendent for
the work that they've done. I think they've done a phenomenal
job putting together what they have and the decisions that
they've made. I think I can speak for the entire Council if I
say that we are just as committed to the educational system of
Virginia Beach as you are. And it is our intent to make sure
that the educational system in Virginia Beach not only stays
at Number 5 but goes up. And hopefully one day we'll be
26
Number 1. And I think we are open to any suggestions or ideas
that the School Board has to enhance and improve the School
System in Virginia Beach. And the judgment as to what those
enhancements might be is going to have to be jointly between
the School Board and the City Council and what funds are
available and how we can make those funds available.
So, with those comments, we look forward to working with all
of you in the coming year. And I hope that when we get to the
real budget process that we can all work together and make
everything happen in a satisfactory way.
The meeting is adjourned.
(Whereupon, the discussion of this matter was
concluded.)
Included in Packet —
1. A copy of the briefing that was provided on December 6, 2011
2. A draft copy of the proposed policy to guide the formula calculation
3. A summary of how the formula would have worked if it had been used for the current Budget
4. AVERY preliminary projection for the upcoming FY 2014 Budget
5. Composite Index of Local Ability -to -Pay Formula
6. Projected FY 2013 and FY 2014 State Payments - State Department of Education (Attachment D
to Superintendent's Memo No. 102-12 dated April 19, 2012)
7. History of the Composite Index for past Biennium
UO
LL
u
0
u
L)
• elk N
OOW-%%
a-J •
4-+ -J 4-J
i c6 y-
.-
:3 LAf c �-
. — 0) _� -0 a)
.—
• — �,
• -
v
O O -0•N 00 = v c�
V p 4-Jo V O . N u CL 1,0 �CL
cn � Q 4- cn ((.00
•- T L U
b.
Co
U 4-J — � Ol U fa .� r.,U
C� cn Ua� p _ cv to
MO
•� > Q C
caLn
O p (11U
ca
4-J VE cu
L O O s cu ai c Ln
.—
�- Hs u u -0 Z-0 a
ollw�
4-J
c
O
V
`0000
CL
V
J
> h�A E �O
O :3Q L
+-+ — . —
�,> con
° L 0 =3 +-+
L• — Vi � (� L
Q.� O �M O >,�U ca
� LL a) + W �n -� � � aro � w
ajto
a-+ o
V cn > : to Qom,,, •}O•' a) =3cn f6 O a�._ p X O,� m
w.
4 -J E
�_ U
• - I Q • ,� V
a-jE -0 (/) L Q) Uo CL)
L L u m
._
Qj
._
Q -U 4-' O c6 �-+ L-
c� •— M
O E� �� � �-a � �= � ca
O cn �, � O +,,,
._
4— U • (A +-+ O 4— O � L 4- L
O X ca c6 c � 41D � � � OV � � 1 O �
O N N O S p�� >• }' O ajtn L O
ca •4�D L aj � = U ° •� L
oma— �_ c= O � O ��o� o
0
L
U N
U
i°'� •
E 0
( V) U " Q
m CU
> (A 4=- °
V
t p • — • — .�C O4 -J M ca
4-J cu
m> c i y-- O U.
V 4A fo 4J C M �- o
aj Mo._
0 Ln
0 4-' a� � > z � V) m
>•1�+ ate--+ • � �- U ° a
�m
•� N U (IJ >
buo aT. C-
4- C) 4-J • 0 a-•+ S
m -C to i a-+
• N O p 0 Q E 0 cu (n
•—� }, •�
U W
i p E Q �• cn
> 4-J QJ W O E Ln ate' E
oc:M i
._
m v)m o cu
0
Ln
ate -J
f0
U
c
�
>-
c
O
O
CL
4-J
U
c
c
C:
cn
• —
0
on
E
U
[o
p
O
4A 4
4-J
E.�..r
O
p
Ln
�
V
�
:� ,,
�,
o
4-J
5 >.
� .�
>.
O
U
N
U
s v,
y-
O
N
>
ate--+
Ln
r.
m
L
v4 -J
•N
a�
Qa)
V,
i-
>
�
=
+,
=
a) a✓
M
CU
(1)4-J
O
CU�.
_0cn
N
C:
4-J-
N
i�
�
m
-0
—
>
N
O
C:
(u
m
>-
+.+
O
c�
'�
cn
}'
co 4A
OE
>
•v
O
O•�
vii
O�
U
a�
O
>,O
o
O�
ci
HC.w
LL
LLUU'cU�'
N
cli
�
Ln
O
4-J
V
4-J
0
Cl)
M
Q
(�
0
t1A
}+
0
N
=
a -J
-C
�
aJ
- J
4J
�
C:
+-+
Q1
cn
fII
Q
�
•U
L
cli
O
O
'pAvi
cn
0
>.
(�
N
Q)
=
Q
E
,O
O
U
V
c
M
4 -J4
},
O
.�
-J
4-J
CL
•c
O
m
CO
fa Ln
V�
O
O-
O
U
�p
L
t
s
m
E��
O
1—
V
O
}'
0
Ln
�-
U
Q
m-
a�
Q
°
Q
�
W
�
�
t�
a�
O �
U
to
•?
Q
L
O
/cu
-
Cl) O
>ro
v
V
O
+,
L
(1)p4
a--+
Ln
Q
O L
a,
m
O
OO
E
co
-aLP
°
OU
U
O
v
4J
>
M
C
m
O
v
N OL
ca
bn
a
O
L
O
on CL
CL
L
c_n
_C
Cl)U
M
Cl)O
m M
O
.�
cn
�0
m
U
4-JU
>
C:,
X
N
-J-�
M
�-' •—
to V
0
�,
—
�
vi
M
M
>—
�,U
L
O
O
t�
a--+
Cl) O
M �
-
+_ �
v
Vi
f �
4A
Q L
a- J
4-J
-J
3
, c
cn
v
0
un
0
Q
Q
N
X
O
Ot
M
�
r -I
v)
Ln t
�
cu
I—
_
Z
O
N
�1
O
U
%ftamoop
cu
Ln
C
O
E
V
4-0
m
.�
E
cu
O
^C:
W
4-J
Ln
V
m
r-
G
�
to
�>
V
CSA
.0
4-'
=3
C
70
4
c�
L_�
W
Lm
CU
CL
O
N
4-0
E
EO
W
0
�
O0
^
4-J
}�
W
E
rl
rl
W
Ln
Ln
m
m
m
C
O
E
V
4-0
m
.�
E
cu
O
^C:
W
4-J
Ln
V
m
r-
G
Q
X
CU
A
0
c
.O
m
75
U
U
O
L
O
10
•
t
L
O
4—
O
U
C6
a�
L
fu
N
.O
fu
ate-+
U
4—
E
O
L
c
cu
e
U
O
4-J
v I
_
L +.J
.O � � O
=3 4-
c O
4-J CU C:
5 .0
0 �. .—
EL
�%
L- �O
a- J +� 0
._ 4- CL
0o ._
U t;
0Q)
O
_m +.r m
�Q
L— +J >
— .-
E�. om
�a)
0 E Q� —0 c�i� U m
c.s
in 4— 41 _�
L
00 - >
0 bb
C:E O
Ll.cn . _ � ca —
• - +j +�
,cn O O
0 � •V
4- � - - -
._ c w
0 E fu m f�
V w w w w=
N
lD
O
\
• • • • • • rN
r...�
X
4- N
(1) D LL -
4 -J ... w X to M O c
O O cu •—
E w CU E
O v �" V }' o0
— +- Ln
N >LL t) -O -
a
�-
U
CO U
cu —0
T 0.
to v U c6
•� V L ° >
X
4-J O • 1 4� to o
,�
W � �— � c� ° � m M�
4-1
cO O C:V � � N� =34- N II .O
l0
NO
N M �.O O
Ln C 41
M 0 <Ln O .- +�
V `r)0>O V„ c :3�� o
cn = O
O
N
)
O
O
i
O V
� O �
._ O 4-J -p
L 4 4-J
L.
E4 -J U Q� p 0
O ca n CL
LL bn E 0
ai 0
.— u Lnv
—v ,
EasY
}' c6 — — � 0
•— — O N
4-J� V w
cn O O
. _ 4-J— a m
v
cnco
Ln O
E c:
O cl � cn cn `~
4i aj CU aj CU p V Qi E
0
C: C:
p w N E
ca > > c •,
wO -� c� -
V U Q s c�CDr4
Uo
0
0
T
0
0
S
u
U �
U
mD
� a
_ U
0 v
�m
U
WE
0
N
0
N
�-i
Ln
to t/1 fu f�
to V �
cn `�-
Q �
� c�i> >. >• O V
Q
m cn
=3N
+� O O O
ca �, CL O
L vV
O ca a� O too +�
V O -� b��A m 4�
•�N
4,, M U
Q N N m
V
m �
i ti -
CL , _ MO V -
U
L
o @
M? V - O � v
L
V Q y— M M fB
O V � (1) MO
cn 4-J C
N L4—
`+- V c: cn C:
O
Ocu }, O O
m C—
E ca >. u
,^ D O m N o
LA
' 4 -JN
1.0
D c�
000
LL
O
4-J O — o
4- o
OLn
a)
•—
•cry
4-Jm ii E .c
C: cu
Ln
CU v 4- � a� � Ln
m
i U m N u
C� O `n O tvo b.0`1'
(1)O f0 4-0 (1)C � O O
CSA C: N - m
O U
U C:r-I p .p r -I o
:3 Q-� V N (� cn N_ MO
N N - N =
4 -C M -r
-
U 4-J ~ ~
o °
N
O
r -i
LD
+- �
�
('�
c
E
m
N
V
V
�
.�
O
0
O
cr
GJ
V)
�
�
i
CL
4�
N
O
+-�
��/�
0
V
�
U
O
V J
a�
•-
U
U
^'
W
V
V /
_U
o Q
�
�
+
N
N
i
.M t
L U
Ecn
O
O
0
O
cu
L.
4 -al
cu
4-
�E
V
E
�c:cu
>
cin
=3=3
>-
4 -Ju
-0
E
c�
+i
• —
C
C
N
-
4�
•-
V
_
v
E
V
_�
•aA
—j
_
=3
O
i
ac
>
_
Lf)
40
+
w
4-J
O
,�
p
s
O
•
•
N
LL
V)
i Q oC
+-J 4-J
> N >
0— _0
V O' 1 Q i
= a)vi >
Q V >.(D (1)V
• cry E
U p X
u •> .i J _
((4-J_�� Q N vi c.� 0, . X o
T� L U
. — Q Q 1- O Ln
co U
aA,E —0o i o _0 cn
to M " a) c
i > V) C:
4- Do
� .a •� N U
cr O Q 4A -I-- cu
JO o �O
0 a�
4 -JF— V •— �..,
� � `•�
Ln
4-j
E Q O 0- Q Q W cr •—
(DTJ I I I I D���
0
00
U
.O O
' 4"' >
O Gi
>, >V
cu +-+ 0 .— (v —
Ucr� � ru
.— v
+- �-
ON Q.ro -0 M�
LL 0
-0 O � o
O +� +� E
� �m
ca O 4-J
E 0i -o 111-0
0 O +_+ E � 01
LLm O �w•� O m
r -I
C: v �- � O cn w O
cu
*2 *Z;i --*#z x 0
LL- V (� L. •— a -J +5 f�
cn N -� ca .= m E c ca U
� O U U C U 0
U
O
r -I
rn
G
W
m
L
O
cn
.`�.
N
4�
>-
cu
4-J
LL
EO
O4-Jn'
._
.—
O
-C V)
U CO U
L
V
cuW
m
E a
•-
0M
:t
= U
c
0 �
O ru
Oa-+
O
U.
N
C
Cf
op
5
o
�-
O
V
CD
O
C:
O
..j
•-
8�
Q
Cf
Q
O
QN
lD
0
O
E
-C -0 O
• O CU W
(UO
4-J V)
t�A > 4-- >
4� pCL
Q�
•U
O p U M
mD
4-J O E
L U
> .�
�• ' L -0 o
O I V `�m
bjO
E4-- V " S
50 4--1 E
• —
LL 0 • — >
�O O Z
X V i }' w
p O
>% cuN cn O
._
0 E u t-A
•— •— O
U w w ca W00
r-i
LU a� sz
tD
C
• • • • • • rN
O
—
V
C6
c
O
0
Q. a� ago
0
V)_
ro U
cli
co T5
• � cu i o
o
4J E.
�E.
CL
=3
LO V) -,
0 E
4-1V
m%%"moo
CD
• • • •rN-1
S4G1NIA-$C'�L
O4
CityCouncil and
v
School Board Policy
Title: City/School Revenue Sharing Policy
Index Number:
Date of Adoption:
Date of Revision:
Page: 1 of 5
1. Purpose:
1.1. This policy is to establish a procedure for allocating to the City and to the Public School System
revenues estimated to be available in any given fiscal year. It is the intent of this policy to provide
sufficient funding to maintain Virginia Beach Public Schools' academic success as well as the City's
strategic goals.
1.2. This policy is designed to accomplish these goals by providing better planning for school funding by
clearly and predictably sharing local revenues. It provides a balance between the funding requirements
for School and City programming. This policy seeks to provide a diverse stream of revenues that
mitigates dramatic changes in the economy by relying upon all local tax revenues that are under the
City Council's control rather than a subset of those revenues. It also recognizes decisions by the City
Council to dedicate some of these same revenues to city and school priorities outside of the formula.
This policy seeks to rectify some of the concerns with the past formula by linking city funding to schools
directly to the State Standards of Quality (SOQ) which periodically takes into account changes in
student enrollment, true property value, adjusted gross income, taxable retail sales, and population.
2. Definitions:
2.1. City refers to the City of Virginia Beach exclusive of the Virginia Beach City Public School System.
2.2. Schools refer to the Virginia Beach City Public Schools.
2.3. Local Tax Revenues refers to all General Fund non -dedicated local taxes (Real Estate less dedications
for Schools, Transportation and Outdoor Initiative; Personal Property; General Sales; Utility; Utility -
Consumption; Virginia Telecommunications; Business License (BPOL); Cable Franchise; Cigarette less
Page 1 of 5
dedication for Economic Development Incentive Program (EDIP); Hotel Room; Restaurant Meals;
Automobile License; Bank Net Capital; City Tax on Deeds; and City Tax on Wills)
2.4. Dedicated local tax refers to taxes that have been specifically obligated by the City Council or state law
to support specific projects or programs. Examples of dedicated local taxes that are excluded from this
policy include, but are not limited to, taxes collected within Tax Increment Financing Districts or
Special Services Districts; taxes established to support Open Space; Agricultural Reserve Program;
Outdoor Initiative; Economic Development Incentive Program; Tourism Advertising Program; Tourism
Investment Program; referendum related taxes; or taxes used to support the BRAC project.
2.5. Revenue Sharing Formula refers to the method of sharing local tax revenues between the City and the
Schools.
2.6. Budgeted local tax revenues refer to the appropriation of revenues by City Council in May each year
for the upcoming fiscal year beginning July 1.
2.7. Actual local tax revenues are the actual collected revenues reflected in the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR).
2.8. School reversion refers to unused expenditure appropriations and end of the year adjustments to the
Revenue Sharing Formula revenues based on actual collections.
3. Procedure to Calculate the Revenue Sharing Formula:
3.1. Initial Estimate
3.1.1. In October, Management Services will provide an estimate of local tax revenue for the upcoming
fiscal year.
3.1.2. The Required Local Match calculation - Using the SOQ for each of the State Biennial years,
Management Services will deduct this amount from the projection of local tax revenue and set it
aside as the first step.
3.1.3. Discretionary Local Match calculation - Management Services will then allocate to Schools
32.37% of the remaining local tax revenues. In FY 2012-13 Operating Budget the City Council
increased the real estate tax rate by four cents and dedicated it to the School's Operating Budget.
This dedication amount will be added back to the Schools Discretionary Local Match. This
dedication shall exist until such time as the State restores funding through a decrease in the Local
Composite Index below the FY 2012-13 level of 0.410. The City Council has directed the City
Manager to recommend as a part of the Proposed Operating Budget reductions in whole or in
part to the four cents dedication in an amount roughly equal to the increased State funding.
Page 2 of 5
3.1.4. The combination of the required local match and the discretionary local match shall comprise the
total local contribution to the Schools.
3.2. Final Estimate
3.2.1. In February, Management Services will provide a final estimate of the local tax revenues. These
will be the estimates to be included in the Proposed Operating Budget.
3.2.2. Required Local Match calculation - By February the final SOQ required local match should be
known from the State Department of Education and this figure will be used to set aside the first
allocation of revenues.
3.2.3. Discretionary Local Match calculation - Management Services will then allocate to Schools
32.37% of the remaining estimated local tax revenues.
3.2.4. The combination of the required local match and the discretionary local match shall comprise the
total local funding contribution to the Schools under the Revenue Sharing Formula. In FY 2012-13
Operating Budget the City Council increased the real estate tax rate by four cents and dedicated
it to the School's Operating Budget. This dedication amount will be added back to the Schools
Discretionary Local Match. This dedication shall exist until such time as the State restores funding
through a decrease in the Local Composite Index below the FY 2012-13 level of .0410. The City
Council has directed the City Manager to recommend as a part of the Proposed Operating Budget
reductions in whole or in part to the four cents dedication in an amount roughly equal to the
increased State funding.
3.2.5. Estimates of the revenues contained in the Revenue Sharing Formula shall be clearly presented in
the Operating Budget.
4. Procedure to Request an Increase in the Discretionary Local Funding Match:
4.1. The School Board shall notify City Council, based on the Superintendent's Estimate of Needs if they
determine a need for additional local funding to maintain the current level of operations or to provide
for additional initiatives. This Resolution shall state the amount of the School Board's requested
increase in real estate taxes, the purpose for which the additional funding is needed along with the
total amount of funding required and shall clearly articulate the School Board's willingness to support
the requested Real Estate tax increase if City Council determines that is required.
4.2. If the City Council determines that additional funding is warranted to maintain the current level of City
and School operations or to provide for additional initiatives, the City Council shall determine
appropriate action. This action may include consideration of existing dedications, or alternative sources
Page 3 of 5
of revenue or tax increases. If after deliberation and appropriate public involvement the City
determines that additional tax revenues are required, City Council may adopt a tax rate increase to any
revenue stream within this formula to generate additional local tax revenue.
4.3. Any increase or decrease in a local tax rate shall become part of the City/School Revenue Sharing
Formula unless directed otherwise by the City Council.
5. Actual Revenue Collections deviate from Budget Local Tax Revenues:
5.1. If at the end of the fiscal year, the actual revenues exceed the budgeted revenues, the amount of
excess shall be shared by the City and Schools in the same manner as they were shared for that fiscal
year, provided that such excess revenues shall only be shared after the necessary resources to meet the
City Council's General Fund Balance Reserve Policy have been determined and fulfilled.
5.2. If, the City anticipates at any time during the fiscal year that actual revenues will fall below budgeted
revenues, the School Board, upon notification by the City Manager of such an anticipated shortfall, will
be expected to take necessary actions to reduce expenditures in an amount equal to the School's
portion of the shortfall.
6. Reversion of Formula Revenues:
6.1. All other sources of funding shall be expended by the Schools prior to the use of local tax revenues.
6.2. All balances of local tax revenues held by the Schools at the close of business for each fiscal year ending
on June 30th (to include the accrual period) lapse into the fund balance of the General Fund.
6.3. At the end of the fiscal year, actual debt payments for the year will be compared to estimated
(appropriated) payments. If the actual debt payment exceeds estimated debt payments, the amount of
School reversion will be reduced by this difference. If actual debt is less than estimated debt payments,
the amount of School reversion will be increased by this difference.
6.4. The School Board may request by resolution the reappropriation of these funds in the subsequent fiscal
year to Schools for one-time purchases or to retain according to the policy on the School Reserve Fund
(fund number 098).
6.5. Before any reappropriation of funds by City Council, Management Services shall verify that there is
sufficient fund balance in the General Fund to meet the City Council Fund Balance policy.
6.6. If there is sufficient fund balance, Management Services shall prepare an ordinance for City Council's
consideration of the School Board's reversion request at the earliest available City Council meeting.
6.7. If there is insufficient fund balance according to the Fund Balance policy, the City Manager shall notify
the School Superintendent of this condition.
Page 4 of 5
6.8. Following City Council's action Management Services shall notify the Schools of the City Council's
decision and shall adjust the accounting records accordingly.
7. Revision to the City/School Revenue Sharing Policy:
7.1. The School Superintendent, City Manager, School Chief Financial Officer, and the City's Director of
Management Services shall meet annually to discuss changes in State and Federal Revenues that
support School operations, any use of "one-time" revenues, and any adjustments made to existing
revenues affecting this formula. If they determine an adjustment is needed the City Manager and
Superintendent will brief the City Council and School Board respectively.
7.2. City Council may revise the policy at its discretion after consultation with the School Board.
7.3. If no other action is taken by the City Council and School Board this policy shall remain effective until
June 301h 2015 at which time it will be reviewed and considered for reauthorization.
Approved
As to Content:
Dr. James G. Merrill Date
School Superintendent
James K. Spore Date
City Manager
As to Legal Sufficiency: Date
Mark D. Stiles
City Attorney
Approved by School Board: Date
Daniel D. Edwards
School Board Chairman
Approved by City Council:
William D. Sessoms, Jr. Date
Mayor
Page 5 of 5
Attachment # 3
SUPERINTENDENT AND CITY MANAGER FORMULA CALCULATION:
25 Dedication to Schools Qf4 centsof Real Estate Tax
26 Subtotal Formula Contribution
19,200,000
376,250,328
These are one time uses in the FY 2013 Budget
27 School Board Decision to move Sandbridge Surplus to Budget 2,000,000
28 Council Decision to provide General Fund Balance 9,200,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND NON -DEDICATED LOCAL TAXES:
1
Real Estate
438,975,636
2
Less: Schools & Transportation Dedication
(28,800,000)
3
Less: Outdoor Initiative Dedication
(2,264,682)
4
Personal Property
132,412,895
5
General Sales
54,098,252
6
Utility Tax
24,130,908
7
Utility Tax - Consumption
1,569,489
8
Virginia Telecommunications
19,279,076
9
Business License
42,423,932
10
Cable Franchise
7,527,233
11
Cigarette - General Fund Only
11,218,625
12
Less: EDIP Dedication
(2,243,725)
13
Hotel Room
5,622,146
14
Restaurant Meals
35,146,135
15
Automobile License
9,627,435
16
Bank Net Capital
3,180,790
17
City Tax on Deeds
5,912,533
18
City Tax on Wills
70,000
19
Subtotal Local Taxes less dedications
757,886,678
20
General Fund Revenue - local non -dedicated taxes only
757,886,678
21
Less Required SOO MatchS5t3
X6,525
22
592,690,153
23
32.37%
24
Discretionary Loca Match
191,853,803
25 Dedication to Schools Qf4 centsof Real Estate Tax
26 Subtotal Formula Contribution
19,200,000
376,250,328
These are one time uses in the FY 2013 Budget
27 School Board Decision to move Sandbridge Surplus to Budget 2,000,000
28 Council Decision to provide General Fund Balance 9,200,000
rn �
N l0
N M
N 111
O
00 to
Ln M
00
I� 00
00 M
Ln ao
N Lf1
M N
Ci, O
Ln .T-1-1
o a1
v
�-1
N +�
Q
x
LU a E
T-4 W
N d
LL N
LUL
m
N
W
N
N
N
_O
1Z
E
41
N
C
f6
!Z
N
H
W
O
H
O
"
Z
O
O
O
O
1Z
N
000
Ln
l0
N
O
O
O
01
O
Oa1
O
O
O
M00
O
O
O
LO
O
O
00LO
N
0
O
O
O
LO
O
O
0)LnOO
tN
N
W
r-
NOO'
m
�W
cn�
00
-
00
00
.-1
1z
01
r1
O
O
O
t0
ai
e-1
M
rl
Ln
N
a)
O
O
O
00
M
a1
00
N
rl�
r -I
M
O
O
Ln
1�
n
LI)
W
al
O
O
O
Ln
1-
00
Ln
00
al
O
LO
O
U
o0
00
N
00
W
Z,
O
00
Ol
r -I
a -I
v
a -i
l0
01
Cj'
N
a 4
RT
aa)
Q1
a1
0
sm
0
i
N
as
v
m
M
�
0
�
O
O
rI
O
O
O
Ln
r^ -I
ccn
-1
r 1
O
O
O
0)
d
O
M
O
O
o0
N
O
O
O
Ln
M
T
r,
O
O
a)
tD
O'
O
00
m
a)
00
O
O
Ln
00
O
O
O
LO
.-1
M
O
O
O
N
o0
M
ri
O
M
r
r-4
v
v
V
n
r-1
t0'
a i
LO
N
v
LO
r -I
W
dwo
N
L
d
O
C
0
O
�
N
N
co
F:
U
�
O
�
N
LL
t
O
�
U
�'
a_+
_
m�
a
u
m
m�
i
fO
)
£
°
o
2
a
d
t0
H
C
u
U
v
O
CO
U
x
w
O
L
L
u
OC
N
(0
a
C
C
10
E
L
N
G�
j
>
4O
N
a)
N
C
fd
LL
LL
O
L.
3
�
_O
a
,LA
4N
go
m
LL
N
f0
m
J
O
++
'8
'�
E
m
=
�
7
LL
C
'p
O
O
O
0)
N
on
C
01
O
N
C
N U
O
T
D
41
11
C
N
U
h L
�..�
m
o_
d
_
I ,
Li
cn
x
O ar
U
N
a�
Ln
O1
p
C
C
W
O
V)
m
fN0
O
M
C
"+3
O
L
t
N
M
N CL
O
01
>
N
Q
C
t
(U
U
00
>
U
V
o
U
N
N
t7
Ln
Ln
Ln
�
N
° 1�1
3
•—+
E
(U
w
N
Z
N
U
0OC
IL
LCL
LCL
rn �
N l0
N M
N 111
O
00 to
Ln M
00
I� 00
00 M
Ln ao
N Lf1
M N
Ci, O
Ln .T-1-1
o a1
v
�-1
N +�
Q
x
LU a E
T-4 W
N d
LL N
LUL
m
N
W
n.
CO
W
cO
vJ
CO
CO
cu
Cl)
C
C
Ncu
1.L
ryC13
LL D
O
13� O
0¢
N O
N O
:5 U
0
_OQ
O
z a
X c4
t� a
x
X
0
Vi
}—
0
LL'
U
cu
L
+
Nt
x
J
E
CD
E
a)
E
a
E.
,...
U
U
O
U
O
O
C
C
C
C
C
C
O-
co
U
u1
N O
2 co
N O
N
2 cu
O
U
a
C7 Q
C� Q
�
C� a
c
m
m V
N
o
m a
O
AN
O
C
G
COJICL
co
U)
O v
N N
ca
LLS.
O
Q
-p
Q
-0 J
Q
-0O
Q
O
0
tII.
(B
X
Q
J
(�
_
fn
U
J
ca
A
M
M
Z-.
a
I
I
I
+
N
y
m
p
O
-0
C
C
f1
E
= o
U
Q
>'
>O >0
co
o
C�_
>
co
�
o
2
0
Q
Q
C
::3>
� O
� O
E
Q
O
x
m
O
co
U
0
L
>
0
�
0
p
0J
��
I
I
LO
I
n.
ATTACHMENT D to Supts Memo No. 102-12
April 19, 2012
Projected FY 2013 and FY 2014 State Payments, Based on the Amendments Adopted in the
2012 Special Session I of the General Assembly to the 2012-2014 Biennial Budget as Introduced (HB 1301)
Standards of Quality (Soo), Incentive, Categorical, and Lottery -Funded Programs in Direct Aid to Public Education - As of April 18, 2012
..� ,, _„
Projected FY ?073 Projected FY 2013
Unadjusted ADM2 Adjusted ADM2
Projected fY.$014, Prajeeited FY 2014
Unadjusted ADMz- Adjusted ADiNz
NUM DIVISION '
128 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY 68,961.10 68,961 10
68,833 451- 68 833.45
51
EpiPen Grants 14
8,370
2012-2014 Cam oslte Index
FY 2013
FY 2014
0.4110
FY 2013 State Share FY 2013 local Share
FY 2014 State Share
FY 2014 Local Share
Standards of Quality Programs:
436,4001
5,624,7481 436,400
N/A1
c� Basic Aid
168,057,311
117,269,193
166,133,363
115,926,676
Sales Tax 7
69,064,589
N/A1
71,743,893
N/A1
Textbooks e
3,057,323
2,133,379
3,376,413
2,356,037
(Split funded - See Lottery section below)
t�> Vocational Education
2,518,321
1,757,267
2,513,660
1,754,014
c:� Gifted Education
1,868,432
1,303,779
1,864,973
1,301,365
E:� Special Education
18,481,230
12,896,071
18,447,020
12,872,199
c:� Prevention, Intervention, & Remediation
3,330,683
2,324,127
3,324,518
2,319,825
4> VRS Retirement (Includes RHCC) a
16,815,888
11,734,007
16,784,761
11,712,287
4> Social Security
10,073,286
7,029,067
10,054,640
7,016,056
a� Group Life
649,889
453,488
648,686
452,649
Remedial Summer School 5.10
1,173,172
N/A1
1,210,783
N/A1
Subtotal - SOO Accounts'
295,090,124
156,900,3781
296,102,710
155,711,108
Academic Year Governor's School 4
0
N/A1
0 N/A1
Additional Assistance with Retirement, Inflation
3,479,228
N/A1
3,442,748 N/A1
& Preschool Costs 13
N/A1
American Indian Treaty Commitment 5
0
EpiPen Grants 14
8,370
N/A1
Not Funded in FY 2014
Technology - VPSA 6
2,182,000
436,400
2,182,0001 436,400
Subtotal - Incentive Accounts 3
5,669,5981
436,4001
5,624,7481 436,400
r f r I Pro rams
Adult Education 5
59,977
N/A1
59,977
N/A1
Virtual Virginia 5
0
N/A1
0
N/A1
American Indian Treaty Commitment 5
0
N/A1
0
N/A1,
School Lunch 5
298,916
N/A1
298,916
N/A1
Special Education - Homebound 5
55,766
N/A1
57,718
N/A1
Special Education - State -Operated Programs 5
955,126
N/A1
1,018,807
N/A1
Special Education - Jails 5
241,894
N/All
277,120
N/A1
Subtotal - Categorical Accounts 3
1,611,679
01
1,712,538
0
ATTACHMENT D to Supts Memo No. 102-12
A..-:1 nn --
Projected FY 2013 and FY 2014 State Payments, Based on the Amendments Adopted in the
2012 Special Session 1 of the General Assembly to the 2012-2014 Biennial Budget as Introduced (HB 1301)
Standards of Quality (SOQ), Incentive, Categorical, and Lottery -Funded Programs in Direct Aid to Public Education - As of April 18, 2012
Lottery -Funded Pro rams
Foster Care 5
548,362
N/A1
573,250
N/A1
At -Risk
1,954,938
1,364,142
1,951,701
1,361,883
Virginia Preschool Initiative 17
3,809,652
2,658,348
3,799,050
2,650,950
Early Reading Intervention
809,123
564,600
917,620
640,309
Mentor Teacher Program
29,356
N/A1
29,356
N/A1
K-3 Primary Class Size Reduction
3,036,295
2,118,705
3,030,517
2,114,673
School Breakfast 5
221,010
N/A1
246,616
N/A1
SOL Algebra Readiness
466,897
325,797
466,897
325,797
Alternative Education 4, 5
0
N/A1
0
N/A1
ISAEP
62,869
N/A1
62,869
N/A1
Special Education -Regional Tuition 4, 5
8,104,869
N/A1
8,139,579
N/A1
Career and Technical Education 4,5
328,986
N/A1
328,986
N/A1
Supplemental Basic Aid
0
N/A1
0
N/A1
English as a Second Language 12
599,483
418,315
622,662
434,489
Textbooks 6
(Split funded - See SOQ Programs above)
587,338
409,840
261,502
182,474
Subtotal - lottery -Funded Programs'1
20,559,1781
7,859,747
20,430,6051
7,710,575
Total State & LocalFunds $322,930,580 $165,196,525 $323,870,602
1 "N/A" = no local match required for this program.
2 ADM values shown are based on the March 31 ADM projections used in the General Assembly Budget for FY 2013 and FY 2014.
3 Columns may not add due to rounding.
4 Includes state funding for regional vocational, special, and alternative education programs and Academic Year Govemors Schools.
5 Projected state payment. Final payments will be based on actual expenditures, up to the projected state payment, subject to the availability of funds.
5 Payments for the VPSA Technology Grants are made from bond proceeds and will be made, on a reimbursement basis, after each bond sale.
7 Projected revenue estimate. Semi-monthly payments will be based on actual sales tax receipts. Pursuant to the appropriation act, the Basic Aid state payment calculation is based on the
appropriated sales tax distribution and is not adjusted for actual sales tax revenues received.
6 The General Assembly assigned a portion of funding for Textbooks to the Lottery Service Area. Required Local Effort for Textbooks is based on the combined payments in the SOO and
Lottery Service Areas.
9 VRS Retirement includes payments for the Retiree Health Care Credit (RHCC). Please see the Budget Variables tab for the funded RHCC rate.
10 Projected payments for Remedial Summer School are based on the enrollment projections used in the General Assembly Budget for FY 2013 and FY 2014.
11 Projected payments for the Virginia Preschool Initiative are based on the enrollment projections used in the General Assembly Budget for FY 2013 and FY 2014,
12 Projected payments for English as a Second Language are based on the enrollment projections used in the General Assembly Budget for FY 2013 and FY 2014.
13 The Additional Assistance with Retirement, Inflation & Preschool Costs account provides $55.0 million in FY 2013 and FY 2014 in one-time allocations for additional assistance to school divisions to support
increased retirement employer contribution rates, inflation costs, and one-time costs associated with Virginia Preschool Initiative programs.
14 EpiPen Grants are based on $98.47 per school for all public schools, including district centers.
= SOQ accounts requiring a local match for purpose of meeting Required Local Effort.
BOLD = Account funding based on ADM; any changes in ADM numbers will result in a chane in the state oavment amount.
X
u1
kD
m
d
m
N
ct
0
0
O d
N
lD
N
m
Ln
M
O
lD
Q
'C
tRctLn
m
m
Tt�
O
E
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
U
E
00
O
N
d
lD
00
O
3
01
O
O
O
O
O
r1
0
C
ob
O
O
O
e0
��•+
061
O
O
O
N
Vf t�J
Q1
D1
O
O
O
O
O�
r-I
e-i
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
-3 -
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
October 2, 2012
Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones., called to order the CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING, re DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITYANNUAL REPORT in the City Council Conference Room at 5:13 P.M.
Council Members Present.
Glenn R. Davis, William R. "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert
M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, John D.
Moss, John E. Uhrin, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood.
Council Members Absent:
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.
October 2, 2012
-4 -
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ANNUAL REPORT
5:13 P.M.
Vice Mayor Jones introduced and welcomed Elizabeth A. Twohy, Virginia Beach Development Authority
— Vice -Chairman. Ms. Twohy expressed her appreciation to City Council for their continued support.
The Briefing is incorporated and made apart of this record.
Ms. Twohy stated this past year's accomplishments of the Development Authority are "BIG and BOLD
in an effort to bring investment to the City. During Fiscal Year 2012, forty-seven (47) business
announcements, representing more than $122 -Million Capital Investments and the creation of over 1,000
jobs were created in the City. 81 % of the announcements came from the Authority's targeted industry
sectors, 8.5% being Small, Women and Minority owned companies and 15% from international
companies. City Staff worked hard to ensure economic growth in the business community.
In 2011, City Council took two bold steps to help increase business growth: eliminating the Machinery
and Tool Tax and capping the Business License Fee for new companies for the first three (3) years of
operation in the City.
Also, YESOCEANA has become a national model so local governments can effectively partner with the
Military to identify and protect shared interests. The City acquired the London Bridge Commerce Center,
an 18 acre park, for companies that are compatible with the APZI Program.
In 2002, the City opened the Advanced Technology Center. This past year, nearly 2,200 students
received their Workforce Readiness Skills certifications. This plays an important role in attracting new
businesses to the City. Also, in 2011 the GROWSMART program was placed in the Economic
Development Department in an effort to reduce the number of kindergarten students requiring reading
remediation.
Additionally, in 2011, $6.1 -Million in tax revenue was generated to fund City Operations. In FY 2012,
four major new construction projects began in the Princess Anne Commons Corridor. The Authority is
responsible for a variety of assets in addition to its Business Park, including the Farm Bureau Live
Virginia Beach Amphitheater, Virginia Beach National and the Sportsplex. The success of the Authority
is a direct reflection of its three (3) year Strategic Plan. Four key initiatives have been identified for
October 2, 2012
-5 -
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ANNUAL REPORT
(Continued)
continued success: Economic Gardening Program, International Consultant, Permitting Process and
Transportation.
The Authority is completing the evaluation of the proposal received from Comcast-Spectacor and
LievNation for a state-of-the-art Arena. This partnership meets two (2) of the most important components
of the Resort Area Master Plan by making the Resort Area a "year-round" destination and creating new
business and job opportunities.
Ms. Twohy again expressed her appreciation to the Mayor, City Council, City Manager and the entire
Stafffor their continued support of the Development Authority.
Vice Mayor Jones expressed his appreciation to Ms. Twohy and the entire Development Authority for
their continued work and support of the City.
October 2, 2012
r►G
s
B le
Li IV. I
{j
D—n I:; ' J,16c
1.
. a ... — T�i' _..« '.^✓:.. -.—.._ .... ':r--` x._...
VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
J,F V:. RPdeon
f,,
Li IV. I
D—n I:; ' J,16c
1.
E) h. 2,,d v: ell
`
P�:rott Sh,•--od
C r,L,. -'I 6artholeew. J,.
l
- _
0,thp L Mood
l hr.onJ O. F. r.ench
M61�H11LU
In FY 12, Virginia Beach businesses
GREW BIG: 11
"WE GREW 100%
pnr IM P,,M —years F YWo- amm erp vre
are x..,i m awda �2^
- 47 project announcements
81% within target industry sector
8.5%SWaM companies
15% international companies
122 million new capital investment
- 1.000 new jobs
-900 jobs retained
gIG�{�[CrCr�
RUE
47 marketing missions, special events, trade
shows
- 802 existing industry calls
1.500 participants in SWaM programs
450 participants in SCORE counseling sessions
- 80 Virginia Beach entrepreneurs assisted by
"ft-Bbeh MN MMWar eaMvy vdlh.n
IDEAL LOCATION
SBDC
FOR GROWTH.
- 12.1 million impressions from Google
The WPW -1. rim b SWaM WW—
h- WpW ua 1'.p+. an sake vs'ume [ea :Ia;
keyword campaign & targeted web banners
- 15 targeted email blasts
10/2/2012
2
YESOCEANACOM
PhP."i':J IN G TO PRISIRVE OUR OU\LITY 0- JPE
ANA -
New
DAVCON, Inc. building
HIM
- Acquisition of 18 acre London
Bridge Commerce Center
- Eliminated 40,000 sf of non-
conforming retail/office space
(13% reduction in APZ-1
commercial non -conforming
inventory)
- Opening of BMZ GmbH, first
international company to
locate US headquarters under
APZ-1 program
10/2/2012
3
B I ¢110#��
BOLD
YESOCEANACOM
PhP."i':J IN G TO PRISIRVE OUR OU\LITY 0- JPE
ANA -
New
DAVCON, Inc. building
HIM
- Acquisition of 18 acre London
Bridge Commerce Center
- Eliminated 40,000 sf of non-
conforming retail/office space
(13% reduction in APZ-1
commercial non -conforming
inventory)
- Opening of BMZ GmbH, first
international company to
locate US headquarters under
APZ-1 program
10/2/2012
3
We're bean in Vilnia Beach
for X years, and
fo
If ETT
BENEFITTED
ROe
the military and the diverse populat w-
:inu
In 2002, the Virginia Beach Advanced
Technology Center opened.
In FY11/12:
- Nearly 400 use -days by existing industry for
employee training
- Nearly 2,200 Workforce Readiness Skills
certifications
- Over 5,300 industry -recognized certifications
for Virginia Beach Technical & Career Education
students
In FY 11/12 Virginia Beach GROWSMART program for early
childhood development initiatives was placed in Economic
Development:
- SBDC Partnership Project:
- Kindergarten Transitions
1,150 children impacted
24 new jobs created in
childcare centers
only 9% of kindergarten
students requiring reading
remediation (down from 21%
in 2003)
10/2/2012
4
i IG H11LU
Virginia Beach
Town Center
N
In FY 12, four major new
construction projects
began in the Princess
Anne Commons
Corridor.
- $6.1 million in tax revenues were generated
to fund City operations (FY11)
- Old Dominion University announced
location of its new Center for Innovative
Transportation Solutions
- Yardhouse opened a 10,000 sf restaurant,
its first in Virginia
- Havana Nights restaurant, jazz & cigar club
opened
Delta Career Education opened their new
8,800 sf headquarters offices
LifeNet Health
New S21 million Center for Regenerative
Medicine will open this Fall
Tidewater Community College
Started construction on new 89.500 sf Student
Life Center scheduled to open
Spring 2013
Tidewater Community College
Construction on new $53 million/120.000 sf Joint
Use Library nearing completion
Operation Smile
New 20 million global headquarters under
construction
10/2/2012
5
The Virginia Beach
Development Authority is
responsible for a variety of
assets in addition to its
business parks, including
the Farm Bureau Live
Virginia Beach
Amphitheater, Virginia
Beach National, Virginia
Beach Sportsplex.
Virginia Beach National generated more
than $198,000 in rental income with nearly
31,000 rounds of golf played (CY 11)
Farm Bureau Live at Virginia Beach attracted
more than 235,000 attendees for 21 live events,
generating $1.26 million in new revenue for the
City. Just over 75% of all tickets sold were to
non -Virginia Beach residents (according to
LiveNation sales records).
Virginia Beach Sportsplex attracted more
than 479,000 attendees for 281 events.
Field Hockey National Training Center
attracted nearly 164,000 attendees for 93
eve nts.
Princess Anne Athletic Complex hosted 97
events for 405,000 attendees.
�i1; �`i I F14 R. HIIIU
10/2/2012
2
Economic Development 3 -Year
Strate is Plan Update
Strengthen City's position relative to
global, national and local economic
realities
j-
Revised Target Industry Clusters:
-Professional, Scientific &Technical
u I was born and raised In New York,
W for me, Virginia Beach �i
Services
MADE THING S
- Information Services
P SI [ BI.i
- High-performance Manufacturing
&
It was the perfectNasfar asmybusiness
- Company Enterprise Management
needs and raising my family."
- Defense/Security, Maritime, & Retail
10/2/2012
2
BIG[ Vail' BOLD
Key Initiatives
- Economic Gardening Program: providing intensive consulting
resources to existing high-growth potential companies
- International Consultant: to promote Virginia Beach on a daily basis
to European companies in search of a new business location in the
United States
- Permitting Process: working with other City departments to identify
ways to continually improve our ability to help companies conduct
business
- Transportation: identify and support improved transportation
infrastructure for the movement of goods and people
31GTHING'S BOLA
Virginia Beach Arena Initiatives_ _,
- Continue and complete necessary due diligence of the proposal by
Comcast-Spectacor and LiveNation to create a state-of-the-art
18,500 seat arena in Virginia Beach
- Continue to implement City Council's approved Resort Area Master
Plan that establishes a year-round destination
- Create new business and job
opportunities while providing
enhanced quality of life
amenities for the City and
Commonwealth
10/2/2012
7
ash! ulliit .. ..
t- �. :+.'"_. .:� - - ._, "i �'vY°+vF'•-ter.
-
_ . w.r
-0 11
tr ? Upcoming Parks and
Natural Area Projects
City Council Briefing
October 2, 2012
Michael J. Kalvort, CPRE, Director of Parks and Recreation
Brian Solis, P & R Planning, Design & Development Administrator
Providing Public access Recreational Irroprovernents
t Open Space e uislt-ion Sites
■ From Past Open Space Acquisitions to Public Access and
Outdoor Recreational Improvements
■ Pending Land Use Applications for City Council's
consideration in November 2012
• Implementation of Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan
Recommendations, Public Involvement and Overall
Project Updates for:
■ Lake Lawson and Lake Smith Natural Area
• Marshview Park
■ Pleasure House Point Natural Area
-7 -
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
Mr. Solis advised two (2) Planning Applications will be on the Agenda for consideration in November.
The first project, Lake Lawson and Lake Smith Natural Area, located just off of Northampton Boulevard:
Below is an aerial view of Lake Lawson and Lake Smith Natural Area:
October 2, 2012
Lake Lawson-Lakeith NaWrai ,area
Over forty (40) wooded acres located on Shell Road/Northampton Blvd. on Lake
Lawson and Lake Smith Reservoirs in the Bayside area
• Acquired in three phases from Cita of Norfolk - 2005-2009
• Stimulated by Friends of Lake Lawson & Lake Smith coalition of area civic leagues
• Virginia Land and Water Conservation Funding grant
Extensive Public Involvement Process in Developing the Natural foea Master Plan
• Two Public Open Houses — Fall 2009 and Winter 2010
• Numerous meetings with neighborhoodJciric organi-at5ons over past four (4) years
about Master Plan and Its implementation
Street closure application to vacate interior "paper" streets and lot lines to be
considered by Planning Commission on 10/10/12 and City Council in November 2012
Lala Lawson-LakeSmith Natural Area
Phase IA (Fall/Winter 2012 -Spring 2013)
Boat Ramp, Car/Trailer Parking— low impact design storm water
treatment
• Shoreline Stabilization — prevent erosion/re-establish native vegetation
Shore Fishing Areas and Overlooks
• Hard and Soft Trails with access from adjacent neighborhoods
• Pedestrian Bridge — will connect North and South parcel
Phase IB (Concurrent -Spring 2013)
• Restroom/supervision Building, Playground and Education Shelter
• Floating Dock (Additive Bid Item, based on funding)
Phase II (West Parcel, currently un-fvindeci)
Access improverneratS
Traili
Below is Master Plan:
In
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
October 2, 2012
-10 -
CITY AIANA GER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
In areas of the Lake, the erosion is tremendous and must be addressed to preserve this natural asset:
Below are a few different design solutions:
October 2, 2012
-11 -
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
The Marshview Park is the second area to be discussed in the Briefing. This is located on the Eastern
side of the City, near the "south beach " end of the Oceanfront:
This area is approximately 100 acres on Lake Rudee and Owl's Creek. Below is an aerial of the site:
October 2, 2012
arshv(ew Pari.
Over 100 acres of wooded, waterfront on Lake Rudee/Owls Creek surrounded by
South Oceanfront neighborhoods
Acquired from Navy in 2010 after 18 years, in exchange for easement over
property acquired by City in Inter -facility Traffic Area (47 acres on Indian
River Road)
• Initial park study conducted with area residents and Navy in 2002
Park Master Planning Process 2010-12
October 2012
Public Open House (Conceptual Master Plan)
--
Final Feedoack (comment)
December 2012
— Final Master Plan (posted to F&R website)
s
� A,
u
M
arshv(ew Pari.
Over 100 acres of wooded, waterfront on Lake Rudee/Owls Creek surrounded by
South Oceanfront neighborhoods
Acquired from Navy in 2010 after 18 years, in exchange for easement over
property acquired by City in Inter -facility Traffic Area (47 acres on Indian
River Road)
• Initial park study conducted with area residents and Navy in 2002
Park Master Planning Process 2010-12
October 2012
Public Open House (Conceptual Master Plan)
--
Final Feedoack (comment)
December 2012
— Final Master Plan (posted to F&R website)
rshview Pal`[(
• Public Involvement Process Spring/Summer
2012
• Numerous Public Neighborhoods or Civic Organizations
— Shadowlawn , Salt Marsh Point, Seatack, Lands End Condo
Association, Sea Oats Condo Association, Rudee
Heights/Croatan
— Owl Creek Area Plan Steering Committee, Rudee Inlet
Foundation
— Resort Advisory Committee {10/4/12 scheduled}
— Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation
— Parks & Recreation Commission, Open Space Advisory
Committee, Bikeways and Trails Advisory Committee
— Internet/Paper User Survey and Project Website
Marshview Park,
Phase IA -Main Trail (Fall/Winter 2012 -Spring 2013)
• Pedestrian/Bike Trail (10' wide asphalt trail) connecting
multiple neighborhoods
• Small trail head - 4-5 parking spaces at Virginia Ave. to
support trail use
• $150,000 grant from VA Department of Conservation &
Recreation, Trail must be substantially complete by July
2013.
Phase IB -North Parcel (Winter 2013 -Spring 2014)
• Playground & Shelter, Informal playing fields,
Restroom/supervisor bldg., Parking Areas, Dog Park, Soft
Trails with potential BMX areas
-14-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
Below is the proposed Master Plan Concept 1:
Below is the proposed Master Plan Concept 2:
October 2, 2012
-15-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
October 2, 2012
-16 -
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
Pleasure House Point is the third and final area to be discussed in the Briefing. This is located on the
North/Central part of the City:
This area is approximately 118 acres on the Lynnhaven River. Below is an aerial of the site:
October 2, 2012
Pleasure House Point Natural :area
118 acres (107 City -owned), acquired in July 2012 through a partnership with Trust
for Public Land and Chesapeake Bay Foundation
• $2 million in grants and low-interest loan from VA Dept. of Environmenta! Quality
• Tremendous grass-roots support by Shore Drive -area residents, Bayfront Advisory
Committee and the Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation
Extensive Public Involvement Process In Developing the Natural Area Master Plan
• Four-month Master Plan Stakeholder Committee
• Two public open houses — 7130/12 and 8%23/12 in coordination with CBF
Numerous public forums and public meetings hosted by Bayfront Advisory
Committee and Lynnhaven River NOVV
Rezoning application to be considered by Planning Commission on 10/10/12 and
City Council in November 2012 to downzone the property from PDH -1 to P-1
Preservation
Pleasure House Poing Natural Area
Phase 1 (Fall/Winter 2012)
Secure property with timber guardrail
Install park identification signs, regulatory signs and trail signs
Establish parallel parking on the south side of Marlin Bay Drive
Prepare existing trails for public use
Work with Public Works and Strategic Growth Area Office to establish
funding sources and project parameters for construction of Marlin Bay
Extended
Phase 2 (Fall 2012 -Fall 2013)
Develop a management plan for Parcel 1 conservation area In
partnership with Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and key city stakeholders
identify and develop canoe/kayak access
Develop permanent, interactive website with information on wildlife
and eco -systems found at Pleasure House Point
Identify wetland restoration and oyster restoration projects
Support Chesapeake Bay Foundation Design and Development of
Education Center
Pleasure House Point Natuli-al Area
Future Phases (not funded)
• Historic Site Interpretation — Relocate "Battle of the
Capes" monuments from Fort Story to Pleasure House
Point
• Develop ADA accessible trail system
• Develop additional park amenities related to SE Coast
Paddle Trail
• Continue work on wetland restoration and oyster
restoration projects
• Continue additional public outreach through Bayfront
Advisory Committee and Lynnhaven River NOW
-19 -
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
Below is the proposed Master Plan for Pleasure House Point:
October 2, 2012
-z0-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
PENDING PROJECTS
(Continued)
Vice Mayor Jones thanked Mr. Kalvort, Mr. Solis and the entire Team for their work.
October 2, 2012
-21 -
ADDED BRIEFING
CONSULTANT SELECTION
IDENPENDENT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED
ARENA PROJECTIONS
6:00 P.M.
Vice Mayor Jones welcomed Patti Phillips, Director — Finance. Ms. Phillips provided the attached
Briefing, which is made apart of this record.
Ms. Phillips advised the City sent out a Request For Quotation "RFQ" on September 12`x', closing on the
26`F`. Anyone could reply; however, the City targeted seventeen (17) companies, with seven (7) responses.
The Scope of Services is detailed in the attached Briefing.
Staff recommends selecting Convention Sports and Leisure (CS&L), and a sample of their experience is
also included in the attached Briefing.
After City Council discussion and informal Vote of 8-2, noting the NAY Votes from Councilman Davis
and Council Lady Wilson with Mayor Sessoms being absent, Vice Mayor Jones advised Ms. Phillips to
move forward with the Study.
October 2, 2012
Mo
c
O
m
N
-
'�
V
N
r
L
0
W
O
M
V
+J
O
v
N N
00
N
N
O
N
l0
N
•
W
m
W
m
W
�
ui
W
W
W
i
W
cn
W
cn
O
z
•
LU
D
0
w
I-
O
o
Cl-
••
ry
LU
J
Q
Lr)
O
LL
ry
U
r)
Z X X X X X X X X X X I O
N
_N
m
4-+
12
M
Ql
Ql
R*
i
N
O
O
O
N
U
00
C14
�
2
O
-�
cu
w
V
.
4-J
wi
Q
cO
�O
cu Ln
M
O
0
N
U
Z
_O
L
U
a�
O
Q
06
=
m
H
o
M
=
O
Q'
C�
Q
�
i
N
e1
rO
Ol
Q
V
,�
=
=
T
>
m
vi
L
0_
•>
Q
+'
U
4-J
C
w
a)
N
O
op
N
U
Q
°
�
E
j
>
O
C
O
wc
2
t
I-
N
N
O
GC
0
N
c
fLC
u
+�
c
E
c
wate+
06
N
a
X
L
r-
M
M
LL
i
N
.1.1
3~
cn
O
U
�
L
O
`^
"a
Q
u
�,
Q.
cn
O
C)
O
m
m
LL
Q
V
V
L
O
N
+
C
�n
m
OL
N>
O
u
W
M
Z
>
>
O
N
CM
NCA
c
U
cB
F-
O
c
d
cB
m
J
06
4v -)i
c
O
c
u
M
0
O
to
ca
u
I
c
U
Nc
0
i
=
u
^
�
O
s
+r
m
UA
cO
u
f0
N
O
O
m
c
O
-cc
c
�°
4J
ho
m
•L
=
~
c
w
LD
MO
O
N
U
}O+
OA
m
>
m CO
06
N
M—
m
N
�-
Z
m
vi
V
c
O
w
L
a
�>
N
N
l�
J
a;
>
w>
m
A
c
+r
cVf
O
uU
X
O
U
y
r--1
Ln
ICT
N
Q
L
cVC
13
m
c
L
U
n.
++'
N
i
=Q
_
a�
Z
y
OA
ooc
O
r4
N
M
4
to
L6
I-�
r4
N
M
4
Ln
l6
I-�
o6
m
r -i
r -i
r -I
-4
A
r4
r -I
rq
N
U
N
U)
y--
0
O
CL
O
U
U)
TM
0
O
U
Cn
N
■ ■
U)
.F.r
V
LL
tQ
LM
Q
O
V
.
M
m
N
4-0U
0
c
O
U
O
cn
r•
FO
cn
cn
O
cn
U
cn
cn
C6
U
O
Jc
-�
75
cn
O
L
cn
O
4-0
cn
L
O
Ia
O
O
4-0
cn
cn
O
U
U
co
co
T
•
O
cn
Cu
cu
-6-+
cu
0
c
O
=3
�
U
O
�
L
•-
O
40
(f)
L
-c:
s
�
�
V
cm
m
O
E
O
.c:
C�
.m
LMC
>
<
m
N
■ ■
U)
.F.r
V
LL
tQ
LM
Q
O
V
.
M
m
N
4-0U
0
c
O
U
O
cn
r•
FO
cn
cn
O
cn
U
cn
cn
C6
U
O
Jc
-�
75
cn
O
L
cn
O
4-0
cn
L
O
Ia
O
O
4-0
cn
cn
O
U
U
co
co
T
•
O
cn
Cu
cu
-6-+
cu
0
V,
>1
U)
c
C6
0
�
U
Q
.�
.�
O
�
0
c
Q�
N
Q
N
c�
I
�
L
0
CU
n,
C:
.0
U
Z
0
O
CL
Co
U)IZ-
' a�
O
v
O
E
a�
Q.
0
0
O
L)
U
U)
d:
N
Q
O
U
a,
4-
O
ui
O
O
O
U
�
s
v
o
�
L
CL
�
o
0
c�
c�
m0l
1,
c�
Now
now
now
.,..
��
O
,
�
U)
V\,
O
73
O
CL
O
O
O
U
U)
■ ■
U)
L
4)
Ja
AMA
0
U)
O
U
L
O
E
L
0
ti
cn
O
4-0
0.
E
cn
m
Kai
A-1
O
L.
CL
aNC6d'
N
U
0
�
N
�
Q
W(n��
aNC6d'
L
U)
O
rMLO
L
a
a
O
U
J
06
(a)
U)
�
'p
Q
•�
O
U)
'U)
E
2�1
c>/),
>
E
c
Q
ECD
•�
Fu
Q0)'c
O
a)
(6
Co
co
V
N
00
O
"O
�
c
C
70
O
Q
i
Co
O
'
W
L•t
CU
cn
Q
c
O
U
>
Q
O
=
c
c
o
U)
0
U)
i
m
=
O
cu
e
.
cu
U)
U)
'U)
c
Q
>
C/)
Fu
Q0)'c
T)
U)
a�
c
c
E
m
CU
_0
(u
Q
Q
cn
CU
cn
Q
c
O
U-
C
cl)
O
=
c
c
o
—
a)
+�
N
i
m
=
O
cu
cu
IL
0
z
>
AN
-22 -
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Jones, DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 6:16 P.M.
Amanda Finley -Barnes, CMC
Deputy City Clerk, II
th Hodges Fraser, MMC
City Clerk
October 2, 2012