OCTOBER 16, 2012 WORKSHOP MINUTES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR WILLIAM D.SESSOMS,JR.,At-Large V
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R.JONES,Bayside-District 4
GLENN R.DAMS,Rose Hall-District 3
WILLIAM R.DeSTEPH,At-Large
HARRY E.DIEZEL,Kempsville-District 2 °0R
ROBERT M.DYER,Centerville-District I
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,Lynnhaven-District 5 CITY HALL BUILDING
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005
CITY MANAGER-JAMES K.SPORE PHONE:(757)385-4303
CITY A1TORNEY- MARK D.STILES FAX(757)385-5669
CITY ASSESSOR-JERALD D.BANAGAN E-MAIL:ctycncl@vbgov.com
CITY AUDITOR- LYNDON S.REMIAS
CITY CLERK- RUTH HODGES FRASER,MMC
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
16 October 2012
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 4:00 PM
A. 2013 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager
B. SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
David L. Hansen, Deputy City Manager
C. PENDING PLANNING ITEMS
Jack Whitney, Director—Planning Department
1 11 1 1
-1-
r'r 8 . .%
;): I
i,�J
4, b
X�
4,,%%:
ti
X94 b �
1.,{ FLR N:,":.,
Se-t�yyv
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
October 16, 2012
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., called to order the CITY COUNCIL'S WORKSHOP in the City Council
Conference Room, Tuesday, October 16, 2012, at 4:00 P.M.
Council Members Present:
Glenn R. Davis, William R. "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Barbara
M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor William
D. Sessoms,Jr.,John E. Uhrin, and James L. Wood
Council Members Absent:
Rosemary Wilson husband ill
October 16, 2012
-2-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
2013 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
4:00 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms welcomed Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager. Mr. Matthias expressed his
appreciation to City Council for their continued support in preparing the 2013 Legislative Agenda. A
copy of the Draft Version of the Legislative Agenda General Assembly Session 2013, dated October 5,
2012, is attached to and made part of this record.
Mr. Matthias advised the majority of these are return items; however, there are a few items of interest to
discuss during today's Briefing. First item is the post Labor Day Opening for Schools and we will get the
factual information for schools in Virginia. The next item is the Sustainable Transportation Funding,
sponsored by Mayor Sessoms, requesting a long-term sustainable source of additional revenue for
transportation of at least$1.5-Billion per year. The Moratorium on Uranium Mining is co-sponsored by
Mayor Sessoms and Vice Mayor Jones, in support of the Resolution Reaffirming the City of Virginia
Beach's Opposition to the Mining of Uranium in the Commonwealth of Virginia, adopted by City Council
on June 12, 2012. The next item is to remove the Lynnhaven and the Elizabeth Rivers from the James
River Basin for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, sponsored by Council Lady Henley. This is to include
claming language: `for the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, State agencies will not consider the
Lynnhaven or Elizabeth River Basins as a part of the James River Basin." Number 8 is the Deed
Restriction Relief— Camp GROM, sponsored by Councilman Uhrin. The City seeks relief during the
2013 General Assembly from the deed restriction to pursue this opportunities. Vice Mayor Jones and
Councilman Wood are co-sponsoring the request for Mining sand for Beach Replenishment for
Chesapeake Beach and clarification of local Wetlands Board Jurisdiction. Council Lady Henley is
sponsoring Number 11, the use of locally adopted lighting standards on State/Federal Funded Programs.
Councilman Wood is the sponsor of the request for Police personnel to have access to the prescription
monitoring profile. Councilman Moss sponsors the request to create a separate classification for
Property Tax Classification for Motor Vehicles Leased to the City and Constitutional Officers. Mr.
Matthias advised the General Assembly, in years past, borrowed money from the Transportation Fund
and, as such, Councilman DeSteph is the sponsor of the Transportation Funding Double Lockbox,
prohibiting the funds from being reduced.
October 16, 2012
11
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION 2013s � � � �'
-, „_"'‘.4.. gxe ,----,..--,-2. ._-_,-.0-
, : . ' f
:."'''',:;i114'-':;..- -
i
•
.t1
* - s,v11 '"'Lt -" txa x 'x t : xr?. " y 3r ”� ,.� 4,. x t ' -"'+.i`.�si ` " 714r
.^a . b�
-,.,...p.,.. :. -- . -, •. •._,
j n se* 0E
� 1 t
��
4
141 7 8k-41t ,
41-49 .:-1,!,-.F::-.---:: ,', ..;.;,:.4.14--. . .'.7-.,,, ,
t.
I4. t J
F H N aro
October 5, 2012
I
- >; Legislative Agenda
Y` w- 1 General Assembly Session 2013 2
PREFACE
As we approach the upcoming 2013 General Assembly Session, we are aware of several issues that
need to be addressed. Although the Commonwealth has ended the fiscal year with a relatively
small surplus, K-12 Education is funded at approximately the same level as in 2008. Another
financial concern is the repayment of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) fund debt. Among a
multitude of other issues, is the unprecedented requirement that the General Assembly has placed
on localities to provide local aid to state governments in the amount of over$50 million a year.
During the 2012 session, the General Assembly did attempt to,address the long-term financial
stability of the VRS. Those changes will certainly assist making VRS more financially viable in the
out years. However, it will have a relatively small impact for thenext decade and beyond. Still, the
General Assembly is to be congratulated for this effort.
The General Assembly has yet to address the issue of transportation funding with a stream of
reliable revenue enhancements. Certainly,tolls will have to be part of transportation financing
moving forward. However, the pushback from the public over the: Elizabeth River Crossing
Project, the proposed tolls on I-95 in Southside, and the doubling of tolls on the Dulles Greenway
to pay for the Metrorail extension in Northern Virginia, show tolls are not the only solution. The
City has been working with the Urban Crescentlocalities to identify the needs for transportation
funding. This effort has provided evidence that 80% of the income tax and sales tax is generated
from a relatively small portion of the state. This area has a crumbling transportation
infrastructure,which is demonstrated to the extreme in the state of repair of the interstate system
in Hampton Roads and the lack of capacity coming in and out of the region, the need to improve
major facilities, such as I-264, the widening of I-64 on the Peninsula, providing additional
crossings in Hampton Roads, I-64 in Chesapeake from Battlefield Boulevard to Bowers Hill, and
multiple other projects. In our best years, Virginia Beach received up to $30 million a year for the
urban road program. This money went to constructing urban roads, such as London Bridge Road,
Dam Neck Road, and Birdneck Road. Today we only receive funding from the Commonwealth for
local road maintenance. As we have discussed in the past, roadway maintenance statewide costs
increase by $50 million a year. A one-cent increase in the gas tax would provide $50 million per
year. Also, there is over $500 million currently being diverted from the construction fund to pay
for maintenance as required by the Virginia Constitution. Thus, it would take an increase of ten-
cents per gallon in the gas tax to restore funds taken from construction and used for maintenance.
Also, unless the gas tax is indexed for inflation, the process of the $50 million increase in
maintenance cost absorbing dollars from the roadway construction accounts would continue.
• Eaa41 Y.
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 ._
City Council has specific requests regarding transportation as part of their legislative agenda that
will require a multitude of revenue enhancements in order to provide the transportation system
that the Commonwealth must have to compete in the global economy and to promote vital tourism
efforts in Virginia Beach and throughout the state.
Finally, the City remains appreciative of the Governor's funding of the Commonwealth's $7.5
million share of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. In agreement with the
Commonwealth,we believe we must keep our commitments and maintain positive momentum we
have jointly built with the military. Through a resolution, City Council has previously requested
funding in the amount of$7.5 million for the second year of the biennium.
City Council wishes the very best for the General Assembly Members during the upcoming 2013
session as they make decisions that will affect all Virginians and influence our future prosperity.
11
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 4
CONTENTS
Preface 2
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH— CITY COUNCIL 7
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH— GENERAL ASSEMBLY DELEGATION 7
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 8
1. POST LABOR DAY OPENING FOR SCHOOLS 8
Sponsored by Council Member John E.LThrin
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 9
2. EXPANSION OF THE VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 9
Sponsored by Mayor William D.Sessoms,Jr.
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 10
3. EQUALIZATION OF LODGING TAXES 10
Sponsored by Council Member John E.Uhrin
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 11
4. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING 11
Sponsored by Mayor William D. Sessoms,Jr.
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 14
5. MORATORIUM ON URANIUM MINING 14
Co-Sponsored by Mayor William D. Sessoms,Jr.
&Vice Mayor Louis R.Jones
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 16
6. AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER(ASD)INITIATIVE
Sponsored by Mayor William D. Sessoms,Jr.
11
Legislative Agenda
.-.. General Assembly Session 2013 I 5
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 17.
7. REMOVE THE LYNNHAVEN AND THE ELIZABETH RIVERS FROM THE JAMES RIVER BASIN
FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL 17
Sponsored by Council Member Barbara M.Henley
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes __._. 18
8. DEED RESTRICTION RELIEF—CAMP GROM 18
Sponsored by Council Member John E.Uhrin
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 19
9. MINING SAND FOR BEACH REPLENISHMENT FOR CHESAPEAKE BEACH 19
Co-Sponsored by Vice Mayor Louis R.Jones
and Council Member James L.Wood
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 20
10. CLARIFICATION OF LOCAL WETLANDS BOARD
JURISDICTION 20
Co-Sponsored by Council Member James L.Wood
&Vice Mayor Louis R.Jones
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 21
11. USE OF LOCALLY ADOPTED LIGHTING STANDARDS ON
STATE/FEDERAL FUNDED ROADWAYS 21
Sponsored by Council Member Barbara M.Henley
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 22
12. ACCESS TO THE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROFILE 22
Sponsored by Council Member James L.Wood
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 23
13. TRESPASSING 23
Sponsored by Council Member James L.Wood
I
fl
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 ( 6
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 24
14. PROPERTY TAX CLASSIFICATION FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
LEASED TO THE CITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 24
Sponsored by Council Member John D.Moss
City of Virginia Beach Requested Code Changes 26
15. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING DOUBLE LOCKBOX 26
Sponsored by Council Member Bill R.DeSteph
City of Virginia Beach Requested Charter Changes 27
1. CITY CHARTER LIMITATION ON THE ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC 27
FACILITY REVENUE BONDS
Sponsored by Council Member John D.Moss
City of Virginia Beach Funding Items 30
1. CONTINUED FUNDING FOR BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE(BRAC)EFFORT 30
Sponsored by The City of Virginia Beach
City Council
APPENDIX: DRAFTS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION — 31
KEYED TO REQUESTED CODE CHANGE
AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS
LEGISLATIVE ITEM#11 32
USE OF LOCALLY ADOPTED LIGHTING STANDARDS ON STATE/FEDERAL FUNDED
ROADWAYS
Sponsored by Council Member Barbara M.Henley
LEGISLATIVE ITEM#12 33
ACCESS TO THE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROFILE
Sponsored by Council Member James L.Wood
RESOLUTION-URANIUM MINING 36
BRAC CORRESPONDENCE TO GOVERNOR MCDONNELL 46
£... ..,t' Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I i
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH— CITY COUNCIL
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.
Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones-Bayside
Glenn R. Davis - Rose Hall
Bill R. DeSteph- At Large
Harry E. Diezel - Kempsville
Bob Dyer- Centerville
Barbara M. Barbara M. Henley- Princess Anne
John D. Moss -At Large
John E. E. Uhrin- Beach
Rosemary Wilson-At Large
James L. Wood- Lynnhaven
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH— GENERAL ASSEMBLY DELEGATION
Senator Harry B. Blevins-Senate District 14
Delegate Algie T. Howell, Jr. —House District 90
Delegate Salvatore R. laquinto—House District 84
Delegate Barry D. Knight—House District 81
Senator Jeffrey L. McWaters- Senate District 8
Senator Ralph S.Northam— Senate District 6
Delegate Harry R. Purkey—House District 82
Delegate Christopher P. Stolle—House District 83
Delegate Robert Tata—House District 85
Delegate Ronald A. Villaneuva—House District 21
Senator Frank W. Wagner—Senator District 7
I d'
;;. Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 18
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
1. POST LABOR DAY OPENING FOR SCHOOLS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN E. UHRIN
Background Information:
The total spending from the tourism industry in Virginia Beach for calendar year 2010 was $1.129
billion, stimulating 11,560 jobs. Starting schools in Virginia Beach and other localities in the
Commonwealth prior to Labor Day would have significant financial consequences in the long-
term. Beginning schools prior to Labor Day,would effectively reduce the available vacation time in
August by two weeks, which is prime family vacation time that cannot be replaced. If the Virginia
Beach school system begins before Labor Day and other localities follow our lead, it will have a
negative effect on the economic impact of the tourism industry. To a lesser extent, this will also
have an impact on this industry by affecting the labor pool available prior to Labor Day.
Request:
The General Assembly is requested to maintain the existing legislation concerning post Labor Day
opening of schools. This allows all schools to open after Labor Day except those given exemptions
by the State Board of Education.
I
•
g t;
` ,, ; = Legislative Agenda
y' General Assembly Session 2013 l a
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
2. EXPANSION OF THE VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
SPONSORED BY MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR.
Background Information:
The Virginia Human Rights Act (Va. Code § 2.2-3900 et seq.) currently prohibits discrimination
based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical
conditions, age, marital status, or disability. The City of Virginia Beach has prohibited the
aforementioned since 1994.
Request:
The City requests that the General Assembly amend the Virginia Human Rights Act to also prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Legislative Agenda
t General Assembly Session 2013 110
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
3. EQUALIZATION OF LODGING TAXES
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN E. UHRIN
Background Information:
During the 2011 General Assembly Session,legislation (Senate Bill 972 -Whipple) was introduced
that would have the retail sales and hotel taxes on transient rooms (hotel rooms) be computed
based on the total charge or price paid. Currently,when a customer reserves a room online from a
hotel website, they pay the full sales tax for that room. However, when the Online Travel
Companies (OTCs) rent rooms, the sales on the entire price is not paid. The OTCs buy blocks of
unused rooms and resell them. However, the hotel tax is hidden within a service fee charged that
shows up on the customer's credit card bill. This is not a new tax, but a fair collection of existing
taxes. Major hotel chains such as the Marriot and Hilton supported this legislation during the 2011
session. Several states have approved legislation such as this proposal and it has been upheld in
the courts.
Request:
The General Assembly is requested to amend section § 58.1-602, etc. as was proposed in Senate
Bill 972 from the 2011 session. When a hotel or similar establishment contracts with an
intermediary to facilitate the sale of the room and the intermediary charges the customer for the
room, the bill would require the intermediary to separately state the taxes on the bill or invoice
provided to the customer and to collect the taxes based on the total charges or the total price paid
for the use or possession of the room. It is suggested the bill have a delayed implementation date
of January 1, 2014. This would allow the OTCs time to accommodate the change into their billing
practice.
4Z
11
Legislative Agenda
" w '' General Assembly Session 2013 111
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
4. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
SPONSORED BY MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR.
Background Information:
State transportation funding is required for three purposes:
• Maintenance of our existing infrastructure investment and;
• Construction of new roadway,transit, airport, and port projects to meet existing and future
mobility and economic development needs and;
• Provide adequate funding to provide the state match for available federal transportation
funding.
Transportation funding in Virginia is not close tomeeting these needs and the trend is negative in
all categories.
Since 1986, vehicle miles traveledhas increased by approximately 40%. Population has grown
approximately by 30%; however, lane miles of roadway have only increased by approximately
10%. To make matters worse, the purchasingpower of the Virginia gas tax of 17.5 cents per
gallon in 1987 is now equivalent to atax of only eight-cents per gallon in 2012. Obviously, that
purchasing power will continue to decline over time. Virginia has a much lower state gas tax than
its surrounding competitor states such as Maryland (23.5 cents), North Carolina (35.3 cents), West
Virginia (39.2 cents), and Kentucky (33.4 cents). As of July 1, 2011, the national average for
federal and state gas tax per gallon was 48.9 cents. With the exception of Northern Virginia,
Virginia's total federal and state gas tax of 38.4 cents is currently 10.5 cents per gallon below the
national average.
System Maintenance:
The cost of existing roadway maintenance continues to grow by approximately $50 million a year.
This increased funding requirement is a function of new roadways being added to the system,
secondary road maintenance, and increasing maintenance costs for segments of the interstate
system, which are now aging. Since 2002, funds for maintenance have had to be transferred from
the Commonwealth Transportation Fund, which was envisioned in 1986 as purely for new
11
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 1 1 2
roadway construction. In fact, in 2012, over $500 million will be transferred from the
construction fund to the maintenance fund. As mentioned previously, that figure increases
approximately$50 million a year (based on current estimates).
The consequences of this diversion of construction funds to meet maintenance needs means that
in Virginia Beach, where only a few years ago, the City received up to $30 million a year for the
urban road program, we now only receive funding for local road maintenance. The same is true
for secondary construction in the counties. State dollars that were available to the City for
constructing roads such as London Bridge Road, Dam Neck Road, and Birdneck Road, are no
longer provided.
Because of the diminishing value of the gas tax due to more efficient automobiles and the growth
in construction costs, there is not one measure that will be the "silver-bullet"for transportation
funding. However, the City Council believes that sustainable long-term sources of new revenue to
help meet critical transportation needs should be pursued immediately. The Council leaves it up
to the General Assembly as to what source(s) would best be utilized. However, the lack of a
sustainable long-term transportation funding stream will leave Virginia lagging woefully behind
its regional and international competitors. It will also cause a decrease in the quality of life to our
residents through the cost of congestion, degraded air quality; and the reduced desirability of the
Commonwealth for future economic growth.
New Roadway Construction:
The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) has identified $30 billion in
regional construction needs over the next twenty years. However, only$13.6 billion in traditional
federal and state funding are envisioned to be available. Maintenance requirements are projected
at $12.35 billion over that timeframe, and, therefore, would leave only $1.25 billion left for
construction of regional capacity improvement projects. To put that in perspective, the needed
improvements to T-264 in Virginia Beach are projected at $2.5 billion. Improvements to I-64 in
Chesapeake are estimated at $2 billion and improvements to 1-64 on the Peninsula are $2 billion
or more. Although tolls can certainly be used for funding a portion of the transportation program
needs,there are serious downsides to depending exclusively on tolling.
Although we are very grateful to the Governor and the General Assembly for the approximately$3
billion in new roadway construction funding previously approved, $1.8 billion of those funds are
bonds that will be serviced by future federal transportation appropriations.
Request:
The General Assembly is requested to create a long-term sustainable source of additional revenue
for transportation of at least $1.5 billion per year. This revenue stream should be indexed for
inflation and could use innovative forms of revenue generation and could include tolls, vehicle
miles traveled fees, gas taxes, sales taxes, etc. Furthermore, these funds should not come at the
expense of existing revenue streams.
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 13
Below are potential funding solutions as proposed by the Urban Crescent Coalition:
(1) Gas Tax Increase - a one-cent per gallon gasoline tax increase would generate
approximately$50 million a year for transportation.
(2) Increase the Sales Tax on Vehicle Purchase - a one-percent increase in the Motor
Vehicle Sale and Use Tax would generate about$141 million.
(3) Increase the General Sales Tax - a one-percentage point increase in the state sales tax
would generate between $800 million and $1 billion if dedicated to transportation (of
course,potential revenue generated will depend on the economic conditions in the state).
(4) Vehicle Registration Fees - any increases in Motor Vehicle Registration fees will have a
minimal impact to revenue generation for the transportation fund.
(5) Indexing- index the motor vehicle fuels tax to inflation and deposit the additional funding
generated to the Highway Maintenance and' Operation Fund. This could generate $10
million by 2014 and $125 million by 2018.
(6) Tolls- use tolls to help finance highway construction.
s i=: Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 14
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
5. MORATORIUM ON URANIUM MINING
CO-SPONSORED BY MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR.
&VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES
Background Information:
Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since the 1980s. A large deposit of mineable
ore has been found in Pittsylvania County. This deposit is upstream of the John H. Kerr Reservoir,
which provides 93% of the inflow to Lake Gaston,which provides water directly to Virginia Beach,
and indirectly to most of southside Hampton Roads. A study prepared by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) indicates that uranium tailings disposal cells represent long-term risks for
contamination, that limited data exist to confirm the long-term effectiveness of those disposal
cells, and that extreme natural events combined with human errors have the potential to lead to
the release of contaminants. The NAS study concludes that Virginia has no experience with
uranium mining,the federal government has little or no experience with wet climates and extreme
precipitation events, and gaps in legal and regulatory coverage for uranium mining and steep
hurdles to be overcome before mining could be established in Virginia within a regulatory
framework that is protective of health,safety,and the environment.
The City contracted with nationally prominent experts to prepare a study of the downstream
water quality impacts that would occur from a hypothetical, catastrophic breach of an above-
grade, uranium mine tailings disposal cell. The study indicates that in the aftermath of an
assumed catastrophe, radioactivity in the main body of Lake Gaston would remain above state and
federal regulatory levels for up to two months during wet years and six to sixteen months during
dry years. The only practical response during this time would be to shut down the Lake Gaston
project. Depending upon the weather, this could have significant consequences to all of southside
Hampton Roads,but particularly, Chesapeake, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach.
The Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and the Hampton Roads Planning
District Commission (HRPDC) have all passed resolutions opposing uranium mining in Virginia
and lifting the legislative moratorium on uranium mining.
Legislative Agenda
.-.. General Assembly Session 2013 � ���
Request:
The General Assembly of Virginia is requested to maintain the existing moratorium on uranium
mining in Virginia.
See Appendix Item #3 (page 36) for text of the requested legislative change.
j} ;,: Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 16
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
6. AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER (ASD) INITIATIVE
SPONSORED BY MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR.
Background Information:
With the anticipated increase of special education graduates with autism requiring community
services offered by Community Services Boards (CSBs) and private providers, it is essential to
identify the number of individuals projected to need post-high school services and the types of
services required. Specifically, utilizing available school system data reflecting the number of
projected special education graduates with a diagnosis of autism, a Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Committee (JLARC) study would focus on identifying specific service needs to be
addressed including day support, employment and residential support. This information would
be invaluable to advocates,service providers and members of the General Assembly.
Request:
Support a JLARC study to assess the service needs for those students with autism who are
transitioning out of the school system in order to adequately prepare for the residential,
employment and day support needs of this steadily increasing population.
d
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 17
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
7. REMOVE THE LYNNHAVEN AND THE ELIZABETH RIVERS
FROM THE JAMES RIVER BASIN FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
TMDL
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARBARA M. HENLEY
Background Information:
This request is for the General Assembly to help clarify watershed boundaries with respect to the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL. As it stands,the Lynnhaven River basin, and the Elizabeth River basin, are
both included in the James River basin. Clearly the Lynnhaven and the Elizabeth Rivers are not
within the James River basin,they both discharge into the Chesapeake Bay without any connection
to the James. If left unchanged, Virginia Beach will be punished for pollution issues occurring
outside of our boundaries, and
our
good work in the Lynnhaven will not be given adequate credit
or consideration in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. Solutions for the James
River may inappropriately impose on the Lynnhaven and Elizabeth River watersheds.
Request:
We ask for simple, clarifying language: "for the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, state
agencies 'will not consider the Lynnhaven or Elizabeth River basins as part of the James River
basin."
Legislative Agenda
'=y General Assembly Session 2013 18
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
8. DEED RESTRICTION RELIEF— CAMP GROM
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN E. UHRIN
Background Information:
The City of Virginia Beach ("the City") acquired a parcel of land from the Commonwealth of
Virginia in 2002 identified,as GPIN parcel 2416-70-8636 (131.9 acres). This parcel contains holds
a deed restriction limiting its use. The City is considering an opportunity to partner with a non-
profit organization to develop a portion of the property and operate a camp for children with
special needs and disabled veterans. The current legal interpretation is that the deed restriction
on the property would not allow such a use to occur.
Request:
The City seeks relief during the 2013 General Assembly from the deed restriction to pursue this
opportunity. Any such uses would be subject to review and approval of the U.S. Department of
Navy to ensure compatibility with the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) regulations.
tyz- _ Legislative Agenda
• General Assembly Session 2013 19
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
9. MINING SAND FOR BEACH REPLENISHMENT FOR
CHESAPEAKE BEACH
CO-SPONSORED BY VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES
AND COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES L.WOOD
Background Information:
This legislative request relates to Chesapeake Beach, where long-term and continuing erosion has
reached the point where the City is now preparing to embark on a beach restoration and
maintenance program to protect public and private infrastructure from storm damage. The most
efficient and practical method of restoring Chesapeake Beach is by mining sand from nearby
sources in the Chesapeake Bay and directly pumping the sand on the beach using a cutter-suction
hydraulic dredge process.
Obtaining environmental permits for mining sand from the Chesapeake Bay can be extremely
difficult and protracted, involving at least two state agencies and a consolidated federal permit
issued by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.
Request:
In that the need for beach restoration is immediate, we would be appreciative of legislative
guidance to the state agencies instructing them to streamline the process and to expedite the
approval process to allow sand mining and placement on our Bay beaches.
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 20
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
10. CLARIFICATION OF LOCAL WETLANDS BOARD
JURISDICTION
CO-SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES L. WOOD
&VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES
Background Information:
This request is for a minor tweak to the local wetlands board's jurisdictional limitations as defined
in State Code. City projects are considered 'public projects' in the State Code and are therefore
currently exempt from local wetlands board jurisdiction. However, that exemption in State Code
is limited to projects on property that is 'owned or leased' by the City. This limitation has put the
City in the position of having to obtain a local wetlands board permit in addition to obtaining a
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) permit. In addition, our local wetlands board has
adopted an in-lieu fee mitigation program for impacts to non-vegetated wetlands, mudflats, at the
rate of $12.50 per square foot. However, this in-lieu fee program has not been accepted by
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Corps of Engineers, such that any mitigation
payments to the local wetlands board for such impacts will not be honored by the state and the
federal government, potentially creating a circumstance where impacts will be required to be
mitigated twice.
Request:
In that the local wetlands board is exercising identical and delegated jurisdiction from VMRC, the
extra step of being subjected to local wetlands board review is both redundant and creates a
significant financial impact as well as a detrimental double standard whereby taxpayers (the
source of funding) may have to fund mitigation costs twice. Our request would be to strike or
modify the 'owned or leased' clause to clarify that all City projects are exempt from local, Council-
appointed, board review (28.2-1302, section 3, item 10), regardless of whether the City has full
title or a lease for all of the lands involved in the project.
II
r = Legislative Agenda
�.v General Assembly Session 2013 12 1
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
11. USE OF LOCALLY ADOPTED LIGHTING STANDARDS ON
STATE/FEDERAL FUNDED ROADWAYS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARBARA M. HENLEY
Background Information:
The Virginia Code currently requires all new state and federally funded roadways to use
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting.
These lighting standards (RP-8) are approximately 30% brighter than the City Council approved
lighting specifications for the City of Virginia Beach. Once installed, the long-term energy costs
will also be proportionately higher. In order to save energy costs while still providing safe lighting
levels and uniformity, the City would like the ability to use locally adopted lighting standards on
all state/federally funded roadway projects located within City boundaries.
Request:
The request is to amend section § 24VAC30-151-420 of the Code of Virginia to make it possible for
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to fund lighting installation costs, based on locally
adopted lighting standards,at project expense.
See Appendix Item #1 (page 32) for text of the requested legislative change.
Legislative Agenda
='f General Assembly Session 2013 22
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
12. ACCESS TO THE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROFILE
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES L. WOOD
Background Information:
The Prescription Monitoring Profile is a tool to help law enforcement officers detect and divert
fraudulent prescriptions. The state code only allows the State Police access to the Prescription
Monitoring Profile. Limiting access to State Police unnecessarily delays local police diversion
investigations and ties up State Police personnel by involving them in local investigations for the
sole purpose of using the Profile.
Request:
The request is to amend section § 54.1-2523 of the Code of Virginia to make the profile accessible
for local police personnel for the purpose of investigating prescription fraud and related offenses.
See Appendix Item #2 (page 33) for text of the requested legislative change.
[ Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 23
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
13. TRESPASSING
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES L. WOOD
Background Information:
In November of 2009 in Baker v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 656, 685 S.E.2d 661 the Virginia Supreme
Court dismissed a trespassing charge against a defendant holding that evidence that a "No
Trespassing" sign was posted on the property, without evidence that the sign was posted by a
person authorized under the trespassing statute, was not sufficient evidence to prove a violation
of trespassing. Many lower courts have extended this holding to Code of Virginia Section 15.2-
1717.1 and require the "person lawfully in charge of the property" that designates the local law-
enforcement agency with the authority to forbid another to go or remain upon their property, to
come to court and testify to such authorization after they have already made the designation in
writing.
Request:
The request is to amend Code of Virginia Section § 15.2-1717.1 to include a provision stating there
is a rebuttable presumption that any such document designating the local law enforcement agency
with the authority to provide notice to persons trespassing on specified property and to enforce
the trespassing law was executed by a person lawfully in charge of the specified property. It is
also requested that this code section further provide that the defendant shall bear the burden to
overcome this presumption.
11
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 124
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
14. PROPERTY TAX CLASSIFICATION FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
LEASED TO THE CITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL'MEMBER JOHN D. Moss
Background Information:
The Virginia Code provides the owner of personal property is responsible for the property taxes
on such property. When property is leased, the Code and opinions of the Virginia Attorney
General provide that the determination of ownership of leased personal property for purposes of
taxation depends upon whether the lease shifts the risk-of-loss from the lessor to the lessee. If the
lease, often a lease-purchase, shifts the risk of loss to the City,the City is classified as the owner of
the leased property for tax purposes, and the property is exempt. 'If the lease does not shift the
risk of loss, the property owner for purposes of local property taxes is the lessor. In most
commercial leases, the lessor will require the lessee pay the property taxes.
The State Tax Code provides that the owner of personal property leased to federal, state, or local
governments is subject to the local property tax.1 This provision is consistent with other
requirements that place the burden of taxation upon the owner of property. However, this
requirement does not acknowledge that shifting the tax burden to the lessee is commonplace even
when the lessee is a branch of the government,which would be exempt if it owned the property.
While not an exemption, the General Assembly could provide a separate tax classification for
motor vehicles leased to a locality or Constitutional Officer when the terms of the lease obligate
the lessee to pay the property taxes. The State Tax Code currently provides a separate tax
classification for property leased by members of a voluntary rescue squad or voluntary fire
department when the terms of the lease obligate the lessee to pay the property taxes.2 Should the
General Assembly provide a similar classification for motor vehicles leased to a locality, the City
Council may levy the tax for this classification of property at a low rate.
1 Va.Code§58.1-3501.
2 Va.Code§58.1-3506(A)(15).
I II
AT,
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 25
Request:
The City Council requests the General Assembly create a separate classification of personal
property for motor vehicles leased to a locality or a Constitutional Officer when the terms of the
lease obligate the lessee to pay the property taxes. This tax classification is necessary to permit
the City to impose a nominal tax rate that will have the effect of exempting a motor vehicle leased
to a municipality from being subject to the payment of personal property taxes for the duration of
the term of the lease with the municipality.
11
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 26
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CODE CHANGES
15. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING DOUBLE LOCKBOX
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILL R. DESTEPH
Background Information:
The City Council desires the General Assembly to impose two restrictions upon its appropriation
authority for transportation funding. The Council believes that the citizens of the State are willing
to support additional transportation funding if there are assurances that the funding will be used
for transportation and not siphoned from transportation to other priorities.
The first level of restriction is upon the use of funds. All moneys deposited in the
Commonwealth's Transportation Funds (e.g. the Commonwealth Transportation Fund, the
Transportation Trust Fund, the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund, and the Priority
Transportation Fund) should be used for the financing, acquiring, constructing, improving,
maintaining,and operating the transportation systems and projects in the Commonwealth.
The second level of restriction is to prohibit the displacement of current transportation funding
with new revenues raised for transportation. The City is aware of the example of lottery funds
being provided to K-12 Education. While this use of lottery funds is required by the Virginia
Constitution, the General Assembly has allowed the lottery funds to displace other General Fund
revenues for K-12 Education. Therefore, a second level of restriction is needed to insure that new
transportation revenue streams do not displace any of the current transportation revenue
streams.
Request:
The City requests the General Assembly provide a mechanism by which the revenues raised for
transportation are restricted to transportation purposes. This mechanism should have two
"lockbox" features. First, funds raised for transportation should be restricted to transportation
uses. Second, when the General Assembly increases one or more of the current revenue streams
or establishes a new revenue stream for transportation purposes, these new revenue streams
should not displace any of the current revenue streams. Because this is a limitation on the General
Assembly's appropriation power, the appropriate approach is an amendment to the Virginia
Constitution.
,fB is
;•t=---'41,7 Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 27
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTED CHARTER CHANGES
1. CITY CHARTER LIMITATION ON THE ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC
FACILITY REVENUE BONDS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN D. Moss
Background Information:
When the City Charter was conceived by the late Mr. Sidney Kellam and colleagues, the intent was
to impose barriers on the issuance of general obligation debt without either the public's approval
in a referendum or a supermajority vote of the Council. In 1962 founders of the City could not
have anticipated that the intent of the City Charter's public debt issuance restrictions would be
circumvented by issuing debt by a third party.
The public debt issued by the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) on behalf of the City
is subject to annual appropriation; therefore, this debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of
the City, which denies it the status of general obligation debt, but its effect on the City's bond
rating is the same.
Debt issued by the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) does not require a
supermajority vote of City Council; therefore, the issuance of Public Facility Revenue Bonds for
City facilities and other debts circumvents the intent of the protection the General Assembly
extended to Beach property owners/taxpayers in the Charter granted to residents of Virginia
Beach.
z5. fc Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 28
Public Facility Revenue Bonds issued by year and the issuance total:
Issuance and year Issuance Total(new money only)
1998(Human Services Bldg Lease) $9,800,000
2002 PFRB Issue $23,855,000
2004 PFRB Issue $165,000,000
2005 PFRB Issue $103,900,000
2007 PFRB Issue $100,865,000
2010 PFRB Issue $17,985,000
2012 PFRB Issue $19,095,000
Total $440,500,000
Public Facility Revenue Bonds debt service payments, principal to be retired, annual interest
payment,and end of year outstanding debt for outstanding Public Facility Revenue Bonds:
Fiscal Debt Service Principal Retired Interest Payment End of Year
Year Outstanding Debt
2012 $34,663,551 $19,350,000 $15,313,551 $326,530,000
2013 $35,318,948 $20,335,000 $14,983,948 $306,195,000
2014 $36,834,778 $22,745,000 $14,089,778 $283,450,000
2015 $36,660,310 $23,610,000 $13,050,310 $259,840,000
2016 $33,925,030 $21,835,000 $12,090,030 $238,005,000
2017 $33,805,610 $22,865,000 $10,940,610 $215,140,000
2018 $33,849,491 $24,035,000 $9,814,491 $191,105,000
2019 $33,199,062 $24,560,000 $8,639,062 $166,545,000
2020 $33,390,255 $25,845,000 $7,545,255 $140,700,000
Total $311,647,037 $205,180,000 $106,467,037
;t Legislative Agenda
.,r General Assembly Session 2013 I 3
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FUNDING ITEMS
1. CONTINUED FUNDING FOR BASE REALIGNMENT AND
CLOSURE (BRAC) EFFORT
SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL
Background Information:
Since January, 2007, the City of Virginia Beach and the Commonwealth of Virginia have been
partnering to address the concerns that were raised by the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Commission in 2005. This partnership has involved the cost sharing of $15 million annually to
purchase properties in the APZ-1 and Clear Zone areas around Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana and
in the Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA) between Oceana and the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field
Fentress. The City has established a policy of spending $7.5 million per year to comply with the
BRAC Order, with the expectation that the Commonwealth will provide matching funds for
expenses associated with the acquisition of land in the APZ-1 and Clear Zone areas around Oceana
and in the ITA.
The City will keep its commitment to the military by to continuing its policy of spending $7.5
million each year to protect NAS Oceana and requests that the General Assembly provide a
matching amount for FY 2013-14.
Request:
Request that the General Assembly provide $7.5 million in annual funding through the Military
Strategic Response Fund in FY 2013-14 to the City of Virginia Beach to meet the requirements of
the BRAC Compliance Plan. Providing these funds will reinforce our joint commitment and
reinforce our message to the U.S. Navy that the Commonwealth and City of Virginia Beach are
dedicated to preserving Naval Air Station Oceana.
This positive message and the results we have achieved through the Commonwealth/City
partnership will benefit not only the preservation of NAS Oceana but send a clear signal to the
military about Virginia's support of all bases throughout the state.
See Appendix Item #4 (page 46) for text of the requested legislative change.
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 131
A.P EN I : DRAFTS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION -
KEYED TO REQUESTED CODE CHANGE
AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 132
LEGISLATIVE ITEM#11
USE OF LOCALLY ADOPTED LIGHTING STANDARDS ON STATE/FEDERAL FUNDED
ROADWAYS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARBARA M. HENLEY
24VAC30-151-420. Lighting facilities.
B. Design of roadway lighting facilities shall be based upon the specifications developed by the
Illuminating Engineering Society in the manual, American National Standard Practice for Roadway
Lighting (see 24VAC30-151-760) or locally adopted lighting standards if available. The Roadway
Lighting Design Guide by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) (see 24VAC30-151-760)may be used as a supplemental guide.
r: Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 133
LEGISLATIVE ITEM#12
ACCESS TO THE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING PROFILE
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES L. WOOD
(change(s)highlighted)
§ 54.1-2523. Confidentiality of data; disclosure of information; discretionary authority of Director
A. All data, records, and reports relating to the prescribing and dispensing of covered substances to
recipients and any abstracts from such data, records, and reports that are in the possession of the
Prescription Monitoring program pursuant to this chapter and any material relating to the operation or
security of the program shall be confidential and shall be exempt from the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.) pursuant to subdivision 15 of § 2.2-3705.5. Further, the Director
shall only have discretion to disclose any such information as provided in subsections B and C.
B. Upon receiving a request for information in accordance with the Department's regulations and in
compliance with applicable federal law and regulations,the Director shall disclose the following:
1. Information relevant to a specific investigation of a specific recipient or of a specific dispenser or
prescriber to an agent designated by the superintendent of the Department of State Police, any Police
Chief or Sheriff to conduct drug diversion investigations pursuant to § 54.1-3405.
2. Information relevant to an investigation or inspection of or allegation of misconduct by a specific
person licensed, certified, or registered by or an applicant for licensure, certification, or registration by a
health regulatory board; information relevant to a disciplinary proceeding before a health regulatory
board or in any subsequent trial or appeal of an action or board order to designated employees of the
Department of Health Professions; or to designated persons operating the Health Practitioners'
Intervention Program pursuant to Chapter 25.1 (§ 54.1-2515 et seq.)of this title.
3. Information relevant to the proceedings of any investigatory grand jury or special grand jury that has
been properly impaneled in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (§ 19.2-191 et seq.) of Title
19.2.
4. Information relevant to a specific investigation of a specific dispenser or specific prescriber to an
agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration with authority to conduct drug diversion
investigations.
C. In accordance with the Department's regulations and applicable federal law and regulations, the
Director may, in his discretion, disclose:
:2: a
Legislative Agenda
e ft General Assembly Session 2013 134
1. Information in the possession of the program concerning a recipient who is over the age of 18 to that
recipient.
2. Information on a specific recipient to a prescriber, as defined in this chapter, for the purpose of
establishing the treatment history of the specific recipient when such recipient is either under care and
treatment by the prescriber or the prescriber is initiating treatment of such recipient, and the prescriber
has obtained written consent to such disclosure from the recipient.
3. Information on a specific recipient to a dispenser for the purpose of establishing a prescription history
to assist the dispenser in determining the validity of a prescription in accordance with § 54.1-3303 when
the recipient is seeking a covered substance from the dispenser or the facility in which the dispenser
practices. Dispensers shall provide notice to patients, in a manner specified by the Director in regulation,
that such information may be requested by them from the Prescription Monitoring Program.
4. Information relevant to an investigation or regulatory proceeding of a specific dispenser or prescriber
to other regulatory authorities concerned with granting, limiting or denying licenses, certificates or
registrations to practice a health profession when such regulatory authority licenses such dispenser or
prescriber or such dispenser or prescriber is seeking licensure by such other regulatory authority.
5. Information relevant to an investigation relating to a specific dispenser or prescriber who is a
participating provider in the Virginia Medicaid program or information relevant to an investigation
relating to a specific recipient who is currently eligible for and receiving or who has been eligible for
and has received medical assistance services to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Office of the
Attorney General or to designated employees of the Department of Medical Assistance Services, as
appropriate.
6. Information relevant to determination of the cause of death of a specific recipient to the designated
employees of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
7. Information for the purpose of bona fide research or education to qualified personnel; however, data
elements that would reasonably identify a specific recipient, prescriber, or dispenser shall be deleted or
redacted from such information prior to disclosure. Further, release of the information shall only be
made pursuant to a written agreement between such qualified personnel and the Director in order to
ensure compliance with this subdivision.
D. This section shall not be construed to supersede the provisions of § 54.1-3406 concerning the
divulging of confidential records relating to investigative information.
E. Confidential information that has been received, maintained or developed by any board or disclosed
by the board pursuant to subsection A shall not, under any circumstances, be available for discovery or
court subpoena or introduced into evidence in any medical malpractice suit or other action for damages
arising out of the provision of or failure to provide services. However, this subsection shall not be
construed to inhibit any investigation or prosecution conducted pursuant to Article 1 (§ 18.2-247 et seq.)
of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2.
(2002, c. 481; 2004, c. 690; 2005, cc. 637, 678.)
� Legislative Agenda
,:;:',6,.,......„../..:. General Assembly Session 2013 5
Sections: Previous 54.1-2519 54.12520 54.12521 54. 54.1---
1_252., 23 54.12523.1 54.1-
2524 54.1-2525 Next
Last modified:April 16, 2009
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 136
1 A RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE CITY OF
2 VIRGINIA BEACH'S OPPOSITION TO THE MINING
3 OF URANIUM IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF
4 VIRGINIA
5
6
7 WHEREAS, in December 2008, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach adopted
8 a Resolution stating its opposition to uranium mining in Virginia and to lifting the existing
9 legislative moratorium on uranium mining unless it could be demonstrated, to a
10 reasonable degree of certainty, that there would be no significant release of radioactive
11 sediments downstream of the site under any circumstances; and
12
13 WHEREAS, in the three and one-half years since the adoption of that Resolution,
14 there have been a number of studies relating to uranium mining in Virginia, several of
15 which have dealt specifically with the proposed Virginia Uranium, Inc. mine and milling
16 facility at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County, upstream of the John H. Kerr Reservoir and
17 Lake Gaston; and
18
19 WHEREAS, two of the studies consisted of economic assessments of the
20 proposed Coles Hill project, and both such studies found that one large, or several
21 small, accidents or releases would significantly reverse the economic benefit of the
22 project, even if no serious harm to people or the environment occurred; and
23
24 WHEREAS, at the request of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, the
25 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) has completed a study entitled "Uranium Mining
26 in Virginia: Scientific, Technical, Environmental, Human Health and Safety, and
27 Regulatory Aspects of Uranium Mining and Processing in Virginia" (the "NAS Study"),
28 the purpose of which was to address a series of detailed questions about uranium
29 mining, processing, and reclamation in order to assist the Commonwealth of Virginia in
30 making decisions concerning the proposed uranium mining project; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the NAS study indicates that: (1) disposal cells in which radioactive
33 tailings are stored represent significant long-term risks for radiological and other
34 contamination; (2) limited data exist to confirm the long-term effectiveness of uranium
35 tailings disposal cells; and (3) extreme natural events combined with human error have
36 the potential to result in the release of contaminants if disposal cells are not designed,
37 constructed or maintained properly, or if such cells fail to perform as envisioned; and
38
39 WHEREAS, the NAS study concluded that the Commonwealth of Virginia has no
40 experience with uranium mining, that the federal government has little or no experience
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 137
41 applying existing laws and regulations to states with wet climates and extreme
42 precipitation events, and that "there are gaps in legal and regulatory coverage for
43 activities involved in uranium mining, processing, reclamation, and long-term
44 stewardship . . [and] . . . steep hurdles to be surmounted before mining and/or
45 processing could be established within a regulatory environment that is appropriately
46 protective of the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment"; and
47
48 WHEREAS, Michael Baker Engineers and the National Center for Computational
49 Hydroscience and Engineering, under contract to the City of Virginia Beach, have
50 completed a study (the "Michael Baker Study") of the downstream water quality impacts
51 that would occur from a hypothetical, catastrophic breach of a single, above-grade
52 uranium mine tailings disposal cell located near Coles Hill; and
53
54 WHEREAS, it is acknowledged that if all of the tailings are secured in properly
55 designed, constructed, and maintained below-grade disposal cells, the likelihood of a
56 major release of tailings to surface water is significantly reduced; and
57
58 WHEREAS, although existing regulations indicate that below-grade disposal of
59 uranium tailings is preferable to above-grade disposal, exceptions have been made for
60 environmental reasons, such as conflict with groundwater conditions, or for reasons of
61 economic feasibility, both of which may exist at the Coles Hill site or at heretofore
62 undiscovered uranium mining sites; and
63
64 WHEREAS, the NAS Study specifically dismissed the notion that below-grade
65 disposal of tailings would automatically be required, noting that the first mine and mill
66 permit to be issued in more than three decades allowed partially above-grade disposal
67 cells, notwithstanding the fact that the safest and most environmentally sound solution
68 was below-grade disposal; and
69
70 WHEREAS, the Michael Baker Study indicates that in the aftermath of an
71 assumed catastrophe, radioactivity in the main body of Lake Gaston would remain
72 above state and federal regulatory levels for up to two months during wet years and six
73 to sixteen months during dry years; and
74
75 WHEREAS, for a number of legal, regulatory, political, institutional and technical
76 reasons, it is highly likely that a major release of tailings downstream from the Coles Hill
77 site would force the City of Virginia Beach to discontinue pumping of the Lake Gaston
78 Water Supply Project, at least until contaminant levels had dropped well below state and
79 federal regulatory levels; and
80
2
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 I 38
81 WHEREAS, during droughts, the Lake Gaston Project provides up to one-third of
82 the water in the Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake water systems, and the loss of
83 the Lake Gaston project for an extended period of time could result in water shortages
84 far greater than those occurring in the 1980-81 drought; and
85
86 WHEREAS, a release of radioactive tailings such as that modeled in the Michael
87 Baker Study would have devastating adverse economic and other effects upon the City
88 of Virginia Beach, the Hampton Roads Region, and the localities near to and
89 downstream of the Coles Hill site; and
90
91 WHEREAS, operations vital to maintaining the nation's defense readiness at the
92 various military installations located in Hampton Roads could be adversely impacted by
93 water shortages that could result from a significant release of tailings, especially during a
94 dry period; and
•
95
96 WHEREAS, even a release of radioactive tailings of lesser proportions than the
97 worst case scenario modeled in the Michael Baker Study would result in serious
98 economic impacts to those areas even after radioactivity levels declined to levels within
99 legal limits because of the inevitability of negative public perceptions and the resultant
100 damage to the regions' images and reputations as attractive business and vacation
101 destinations; and
102
103 WHEREAS, it is absolutely clear, based upon the National Academy of Sciences
104 and other studies, that it cannot be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty
105 that there would be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream of the
106 Coles Hill site under any circumstances, and therefore that the criteria in the Resolution
107 adopted by City Council in December 2008 have clearly not been satisfied; and
108
109 WHEREAS, while the probability of a major tailings release is small, the adverse
110 consequences of such a release would be enormous and unacceptable;
111
112 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
113 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
114
115 That the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach hereby reaffirms its opposition
116 to uranium mining in Virginia, including the proposed Virginia Uranium, Inc. project at
117 Coles Hill, and to the elimination of the existing legislative moratorium on uranium
118 mining in Virginia.
119
3
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013139
120 The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to
121 each member of the City's Congressional and General Assembly Delegations.
122
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the I 2 tiay of
June , 2012.
CA-12301
June 6, 2012
R-1
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
atais:014
Department of Public Utilities City Attorney's Office
•
•
•
4
Legislative Agenda
• General Assembly Session 2013 140
tfrA 7.‘ t 'V
(-2,9_,..,___,___'_,111;11br'1 ..*
CA
rs ,, z Report
Policy
Uranium Mining in Virginia
Background: In December 2008, City Council enacted a resolution stating that unless it
could be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there would be no
significant release of radioactive sediments downstream under any circumstances, including,
but not limited to, a direct hit on the mining facilities by a Probable Maximum Precipitation
(PMP) storm event, the City of Virginia Beach was opposed to 1) uranium mining in Virginia,
2)the elimination of the existing legislative moratorium on uranium mining, and 3) any
attempt to develop a regulatory framework for uranium mining. Although the General
Assembly has not considered any legislation that would alter the existing moratorium on
uranium mining, the Governor has appointed a taskforce to develop the regulatory framework.
. for uranium mining with instructions that they complete that work by 2013.
In the three and one-half years since City Council's resolution, there have been a number of
studies relating to uranium mining in Virginia, several of which dealt specifically with.the
proposed Virginia Uranium Inc. mine and milling facility at Coles Hill, upstream of the John H.
Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston. Four studies of particular relevance are:
• The Socioeconomic Impact of Uranium Mining and Milling—Chmura, November 2011
• Proposed Coles Hill Uranium Mine and Mill — RTI, International, March 2012
• Uranium Mining In Virginia— National Academies of Sciences (NAS), December 2011
• Potential Impacts of Uranium Mining in Virginia on Drinking Water Sources— Michael
Baker Engineers (under contract to Virginia Beach), February 2012 (Phase II)
Considerations: The two economic studies indicate that if the Coles Hill mine and mill were
to go forward as currently proposed by Virginia Uranium, the net economic impact in and
around Pittsylvania County would be about$150 million per year and 1,000 jobs (direct and
indirect)for 20 to 35 years. They also indicate that even if the project is compliant with all
environmental regulations, there will be moderate and measurable air, water and soil
contamination and impacts close to the facility. Finally, they conclude that one large, or
several small accidents/spills would significantly reverse the economic benefit even if no
serious harm to people or the environment occurred
The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) Study: This study was commissioned by the
Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, a legislative commission of the General Assembly, for
the purpose of informing the Commonwealth of Virginia with respect to uranium mining in this
state. The NAS study confirmed that there are significant deposits of uranium in the Blue
1 of 5
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 141
Ridge/Piedmont provinces, although the Coles Hill site is the only economically viable site
that has been discovered to date. The study recognized that Virginia experiences extreme
and unpredictable natural events, including catastrophic precipitation events, earthquakes,
tornadoes, and debris flows which must be considered with respect to determining if any
particular site is appropriate for uranium mining.
The NAS study indicated that uranium mining in Virginia has the potential to significantly
impact air quality, surface and ground water quality, and the environment. The near and
medium-term impacts may be substantially reduced if world-wide best practices are
rigorously and sustainably adhered to with respect to the regulatory framework, the design,
construction, and operation of the facilities, and monitoring and enforcement.
The study indicated that tailings disposal cells represented significant long-term risks for
radiological and other contamination: Although significant improvements have been made in
recent years to tailings management practices to isolate mine waste from the environment,
limited data exist to confirm the long-term effectiveness of uranium tailings management
facilities . . . Significant potential environmental risks are associated with extreme natural
events and failures in management practices. Extreme natural events . . . have the potential
to lead to the release of contaminants if facilities are not designed and constructed to
withstand such an event, or fail to perform as designed."NAS study at page 145.
The NAS study discussed the City's computer model of a hypothetical, above-grade tailings
disposal cell failure at Coles Hill, as well as the primary criticism of the City's model that the
tailings would be disposed of below grade, thereby eliminating the possibility of large-scale
release downstream. However, the NAS study specifically dismissed this argument noting
that Colorado recently licensed a uranium mine and mill with partially above-grade disposal
cells, even though below-grade disposal was the best option.
The study concluded that "there are gaps in legal and regulatory coverage for activities
involved in uranium mining,processing, reclamation, and long-term stewardship." NAS study
at page 179. It also concluded that Virginia has no experience with uranium mining, and that
the federal government has little or no experience applying existing laws and regulations to
states with wet climates and extreme precipitation events. The study noted that Colorado
and Canada have developed rigorous and sustainable uranium mining and milling regulatory
programs based upon world-wide best practices. These programs stress fully empowered
and funded agencies with strong data-gathering, inspection and enforcement powers.
The NAS study was silent on whether Virginia should, or should not lift the existing
moratorium on uranium mining, but it did provide a single overarching conclusion: "if the
Commonwealth of Virginia rescinds the existing moratorium on uranium mining, there are
steep hurdles to be surmounted before mining and/or processing could be established within
a regulatory environment that is appropriately protective of the health and safety of workers,
the public, and the environment. There is only limited experience with modern underground
and open pit uranium mining and processing practices in the wider United States, and no
such experience in Virginia. At the same time, there exist internationally accepted best
practices, founded on principles of openness, transparency, and public involvement in
oversight and decision-making, that could provide a starting point for the Commonwealth of
Virginia were it to decide that the moratorium should be lifted. After extensive scientific and
technical briefings, substantial public input, reviewing numerous documents, and extensive
2 of 5
I
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 142
deliberations, the committee is convinced that the adoption and rigorous implementation of
such practices would be necessary if uranium mining, processing, and reclamation were to
be undertaken in the Commonwealth of Virginia."NAS study at page 223, emphasis added.
The Virginia Beach/Michael Baker Study: The City's study is a computer simulation of
downstream water quality impacts from a hypothetical, catastrophic breach of a single, above
grade, uranium mine tailings disposal cell. It was prepared by Michael Baker Engineers and
the National Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering- The model does not
simulate how or why a disposal cell might fail — it simulates the outcome if one did as a result
of a catastrophic precipitation event. It is a worst case simulation for a single, above grade
cell failure in the Banister River watershed. It is a very unlikely event that technology and
regulations should prevent.
VUl and its consultants have questioned certain aspects of the City's study. The only
question with any merit is the argument that the tailings will be stored below grade. The
computer simulation is based upon the breach of an above-grade disposal cell. The threat to
surface water would be dramatically reduced if the tailings were stored below grade.
However, the NAS study specifically dismissed the automatic presumption of below-grade
disposal noting that the first.mine and mill licensed in more than three decades allowed
partially above-grade disposal cells, even though the best solution was below-grade disposal.
The original Marline-Union Carbide engineering study of the Coles Hill site in 1983 ruled out
below-grade disposal because of groundwater conditions. There have been no groundwater
studies to support the feasibility of below-grade disposal, and presentations made to the NAS
by the USGS indicated that groundwater in the region was shallow and mobile, although data
was limited. VUI is not bound by any plan or statement of intentions in existence today.
Mining economics, the price of uranium, and what regulations allow at the time of application
will dictate the mining and tailings disposal methods ultimately pursued. It is important to
note that VUI's own consultant put the likelihood of below-grade disposal at only 50%.
The Phase II results are similar in scope to the Phase I results, although far more detailed
with,respect to the theoretical contamination of Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston, following an
assumed catastrophe. Ten to twenty percent of the radioactivity would remain in the water
column and flow downstream, passing through Kerr and Gaston. Eighty to ninety percent
would settle in the river and reservoirs, mostly in the Banister River. Of the three
contaminants modeled, uranium, thorium, and radium, the_latter has the most impact in the
water column in terms of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) and Clean
Water Act(CWA). Radioactivity in the sediments is a more significant and longer-term
environmental problem than. in the water column.
The computer simulation indicates that in the aftermath of an assumed catastrophe, radium
radioactivity in the main body of Lake Gaston would remain above the SDWA and CWA
levels for up to two months during wet years and six to sixteen months during dry years. See
attached graph. In the absence of flood control operations, tributaries and coves in both
reservoirs would not experience the contamination that would occur in the main body of the
two reservoirs. However, flood control operations in Kerr Reservoir would cause
contamination to intrude into some of its tributaries and coves. This would not happen in
Lake Gaston because Lake Gaston is not operated for flood control.
3of5
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 143
In contrast to the other water supply intakes in Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston, the Virginia
Beach and Chesapeake intake is located in Pea Hill Creek, the largest tributary of Lake
Gaston. Under normal conditions, there is a small net flow of water from Pea Hill Creek to
the main body of Lake Gaston. However, operation of the Gaston pump station reverses the
normal flow of Pea Hill Creek and pulls water from the main body of Lake Gaston into the
tributary. At normal operation, the pump station will pull about 5,000 acre-feet of water per
month from the main body of the lake into Pea Hill Creek. The volume of water between the
intake and the main body of the lake is about 15,000 acre-feet, so it would take about three
months for water from the main body of the lake to reach the intake.
Most water treatment plants are capable of removing 50-90% of the three radiological
contaminants in the City's study. However, this may be a moot issue. Significant resistance
to drawing radioactive contaminants into Pea Hill Creek would be expected from the adjacent
homeowners and jurisdictions, if not North Carolina. Also, the pipeline discharges into a
waterway and lake in Isle of Wight and Suffolk. Adjacent property owners, and perhaps Isle
of Wight and Suffolk, would also be expected to object. The City does not have any state
and federal permits required by the Clean Water Act to discharge radioactive pollutants into
these waterways. Furthermore, it is not clear that the citizens of Chesapeake, Norfolk, or
Virginia Beach —or their respective City Councils—would support co-mingling contaminated
water with the regional water supplies, even if the directors of utilities recommended it.
For these reasons, it is assumed that the response to a catastrophic release of tailings would
be to discontinue operation of the Lake Gaston project until the contamination dropped well
below state and federal regulatory levels.
Alternatives: The alternatives are to leave the existing moratorium in place, rescind it, or
update and reaffirm it.
Recommendations: The Coles Hill project would have significant benefits to the local
economy unless there was one big accident or several small ones. Uranium mining in
Virginia could possibly be done safely but the necessary regulatory framework is not in place
today and there are "steep hurdles" to overcome before it would be. Although unlikely,
extreme natural events combined with human errors could result in a significant tailings
release from above grade tailing disposal cells and this would require the Gaston pipeline to
shut down for a period of months to more than one year. The latter could cause water
shortages in southside Hampton Roads far greater than what occurred in the 1980-81
drought.
Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be the regulator of tailings disposal, federal
regulators give great weight to the hosting state in all aspects of the regulatory process.
Historically, Virginia has not had the regulatory philosophy identified by the NAS as being
critical to safely mine uranium in Virginia. It is a valid question to ask if it ever would. While
the probability of a major tailings release is small, the consequences are great.
It is recommended that City Council reaffirm its opposition to uranium mining and to the lifting
of the exiting legislative moratorium on uranium mining.
4of5
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 l 44
iA6rav r y a 6 lPrepared By.
Director of Public Utilities Date
Reviewed By: 1VAA1_.^ (— ✓ re_
fton
—
ttor - Date
Via; C.1. ' LS Y. c'�,
Deputy Ct.'. anager Date !!
Approved B 4.� L `AL1► * : b t,I12,
Ilieager Date
5of5
Water Column Radium Concentration(G—Main07) Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 l 45
1000 -
Dry Year
Wet Year
--- Radium MCL
100 -
U
a.
C
10 - •
0
3
0-1
0.01 -1 1 I 1 I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Days
Water Column Radioactivity(G—Main07)
1000 - 1 _ __I-
,
—.._�.:.-.... — --- —7..__--_
I F
pry Year
j1 NI Wet Year
1
--- Gross Alpha Activity MCL
i 1
U- i. ... i
a i 1•
I
t'
a • I • l s
w
"r 4xft u'1 -^ 1 . i A 3 C l i
ia _ haw i
i l i i
i l 1
I l �. I 1
0.01 1 1 1 1 1 I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
•
Days
•
Water Column Uranium Concentration(G—Main07)
_._
1000 --—.._.__._._.__ . - Dry Year
1 a Wet Year
--- Uranium MCL
.,1too - _ "..._........ ..-._....--..."........... .......... ......_..._..... i i --•---......._...;
m
C1
O ,
;; 20
G
m
O
y
d
L Y ,� •
•
0.01 I I I f I - 1 - I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Days
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 146
0.141-"Edi c
r
City of Vir-girzia _I-mach
rya � .---- 2
o .F , z=
X99 4'�
e •
°F OUR Nal'O
November 15, 2011
The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell
Office of the Governor
Patrick Henry Building, 3`d Floor
1111 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Subject: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Compliance Program
Dear Governor McDonnell:
Congratulations on the recent General Assembly elections. A supermajority in the
House of Delegates and a working majority in the Senate will allow you to leave a
lasting impression on the Commonwealth. The City Council of Virginia Beach .
respectfully requests that as part of that legacy that you include in your soon to be
revealed budget for the next biennium funding for the Oceana Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) compliance program.
Our request would be for $7,5 million a year in both years of the biennium. This funding
will allow the partnership that we have enjoyed, since the BRAC issue came to the
forefront in 2005, to continue to move forward. Previously, we provided you with our
report for the FY 2012 funds. As you can see from that report, we have obligated all of
the funding available through June 30, 2012. We also have a number of properties
ready to be purchased when, hopefully, new funding becomes available in the next
biennium.
Legislative Agenda
General Assembly Session 2013 1 47
The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell
Subject: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Compliance Program
November 15, 2011
Page 2
Our successful partnership in protecting Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana has become a
national model. Your leadership on this issue has also been exemplary. We sincerely
hope that even in these resource constricted times that you can fund the full $7.5 million
proposed for each year of the next biennium. We look forward to continue working with
you in making Virginia an even greater Commonwealth.
Respectfully,
41,1,14""#' ' .
William D. Sessoms, Jr. Louis R. Jone
Mayor Vice-Mayor
St, 469/Lk
Glenn R. Davis, Jr. rl 7447 l eStep Harry = Diezel
Council Member Council Member Councq Member
Robert M. Dyer Barbara M. He ley 'o§n E. Uhrin
Council Member Council Member ouncil Member
�it/,+1:
Rosemary iTPilson zs . Wood i,hn D. Moss
Council Member S• cii Member +Pouncil Member
cc: Virginia Beach General Assembly Delegation
The Honorable Mark Warner, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Jim Webb, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Congressman Scott Rigell, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Terry Suit, Secretary of Veterans Affairs & Homeland Security
Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr., Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command
II
-3-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
4:29 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms welcomed David L. Hansen, Deputy City Manager. Mr. Hansen expressed his
appreciation to City Council for their continued support:
�
may,
,+ z
tt?
. e f
.�a
Waste Management Update
Open Session Briefing
To
City Council
DCM Dave Hansen
16 October 2012
Below is the Agenda for today's Briefing and the focus will be on two significant areas of Waste
Management:
AGENDA
Virginia Beach Landfill#2
Post 2018 Waste Disposal
October 16, 2012
1
-4-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Mr. Hansen likes to provide the "Bottom Line Up Front" to help formulate ideas and suggestions which
is set out below:
BLUF
(Bottom Line Up Front)
Pursue membership in a Post 2018 SPSA
Do not expand/do not acquire the HRRC site
v Retain current Virginia Beach Landfill#2
Participate in new Use and Support
Agreements with the Post 2018 SPSA
> Negotiate regional WTE contract or landfill
strategy using the SPSA facility in Suffolk
➢Avoid MSW in the VB Landfill #2
Below is the strategy discussions regarding Waste Management and the City Landfill:
4�--- y Strategy Discussions Regarding
'''�t._,.; � Waste Management
and
The City Landfill
This is where we were 10 months ago
r Orientation&Background
A- Capacity
r Land Acquisition Scenarios
i- HRRC Request for Encroachment
r Condemnation Ordinance
Closed Session Briefing
December 13,2011
October 16, 2012
-5-
CITY MANAGER'S
SOLSTE POST 2018BRIEFING OPTIONS
ID WA
(Continued)
The yellow highlighted area in the slide below are the current dimensions of landfill in the Centerville
Area:
� ; x
STRATEGY DURATION YE
20-45
Short Term d'
+ ..„ ' y, Mid Term 45-75 �,
I
Long Term 75-100+
`, �w MSW vs ASH
.� d'` �.. `` o
RC ' 1
S L pr.3�, , a' y. ,'y
Below is the scenario development of the Landfill showing the specific Cells associated with the current
property:
Scenario Development
s
'i-.:a ' * .,
A w �' iitcCF
•
��. v It. co� T 9awxr`Su ,.
� cau as "t
1
C.41
�. a r:e«• zrt�` ��.,;
wiz ,
October 16, 2012
-6-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
The study took six(6)scenarios for City to consider. The first two scenarios are City only with scenarios
three (3) and four(4)from HRRC:
Potential Capacity
and
Years of Service
YEARS OF CAPACITY
Citizen Drop off MSW&Citizen Drop
Air Space Cumulative Air &Ash Off
Scenario DESCRIPTION (MCY) Space(MC?) (260,000 CY/YR) (400,000 CY/YR)
1 VBLF CURRENT 3.4 3.4 13 9 1_ City
2 VBLF POTENTIAL 8.1 11.5 44 29 1
3 HRRC BELOW GRADE 7.1 18.6 72 47
4 HRRC ABOVE GRADE 4.2 22.8 88 57 HRRC
5 HRRC VALLEY 4.0 26.8 103 67 .:.(.,...._.....
6 TOWER PROPERTY 11.4 38.2 147 96 "-'!TOwer
Below is specific information for Scenarios 1 and 2:
Available Air
^,.,,h Scenario PHASE STATUS Space x.
1 PHASE 1 NEAR FILLED 150,000 u„q,,,„,•
CELL 2A BUILT;SOME ASH PLACED 750,000
PHASE4 PERMITTED;NOT BUILT _ 2,400,0W
Scenario 1 Subtotal 3,400,000
2 CELL 2B&3 NOT PERMITTED;NOT BUILT 8,100,000
GRAND TOTAL 1L5MCY
Current permitted -. '��/�
Height elevatfn.183', ��` \ '.''
B` `�
l l ��
`,', Height 216'
e r.
SCENARIO 1
• Phase/Cell I:almost full ;` a SCENARIO 2
• Cell 2A:constructed and being used ' • City owned property
• Phase IV:permitted but not built • Cells 28 and 3(currently not permitted)
• Increased capacity:3.4 MCY wpm• Increased capacity:8.1 MCY
• Adds 9 years life for MSW • Adds 20 years life for MSW
• Adds 13 years life for Ash • Adds 31 years life for Ash
• Creates value:$56M to$93M • Creates value:$135M to$223M
October 16, 2012
-7-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is specific information for Scenarios 1 and 2:
Scenario 3
• Requires an immediate acquisition
• HRRC ceases filling cells to grade
• Includes City borrow area
• Capacity is below grade to elev.70
• Increased capacity:7.1 MCY SCENARIOS 3&4
• Adds 18 years life for MSW
• Adds 28 years life for Ash
• Creates value:$118M to.$195M
• Allows increased capacity+elev.70(Scenario#4)
• Allows increased capacity in valley(Scenario#5)
Scenario 4
• HRRC has filled all 8 cells to grade and added
an acceptable slope(runoff and settlement)
r • Acquisition height:70 ft
.ffi ` r•� Anticipated duration for them to fill:18-24 yrs
• Creates ability to use mound above elev.70
„....,...‘...\::".. Permitted height of 206 ft
i
/�\\�\'� Includes:::::::rowarea,\ :� Increasety:4.2MCY
C� `�• Adds10e for MSW
• Adds 16 ears life for Ash
_ 1 _ Y
--��� • Creates value:$70M to$115M
— — • Allows increased capacity in valley(Scenario#5)
Below is the specific information for Scenarios:
296' /4-zaIiiv.
216'w ,`",o / ....,...._
®
s 2000' \\_
ECIpl1 A—A
SCENARIO 5
SCENARIO 5
� �•k Y City�����/G Valle between HRRC and G LF
Height 2•08 •- • Predicated on HRRC acquisition
j' Immediately,
/ At ,
/ •i !t4tOM
CYSWsh66M to$110M
October 16, 2012
-8-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is the specific information for Scenario6:
+l-600'
294'• ��•
.'� / v4185''
216' T-
.a.�.."20R1..wil _
w__ _ 5!-2000' \
SECTION A-A \- ..:
W SCENARIO 6 -
�� • Radio Tower properties-3 parcels
�� -SVA„ M (mdudes SW BMP pond)
���(`, ,, fi, ', • Additional small base area allows for
- -Height 294 significant increased elevation&
??)y/ s , ,, overall volume
V -, � � • Increased capaclty;.11.4MCY
,' • Immediate relocation of towers will
likely be verydifficult and expensive
\ '\ • Future technology may reduce tower
\, dependency
�- �(��-_ �/ / Adds 29 years life for MSW
ej• Adds 44 years life for Ash
-----'-'-'7,------ ---77-7---- ' • Created value:$188M to$313M
Below are the Strategy Options:
Strategy Options
Scenarios
and
Years of Capacity
YEARS OF CAPACITY
Citizen Drop off MSW&Citizen Drop
Air Space Cumulative Air &Ash Off
Scenario DESCRIPTION (MCY) Space(MCY) (260,000 CY/YR) (400,000 CY/YR)
1 VBLF CURRENT 3.4 3.4 13 9 r-I Short 1
2 VBLF POTENTIAL 8.1 113 44 29
3 HRRC BELOW GRADE 7.1 18.6 72 47
4 HRRC ABOVE GRADE 4.2 22.8 88 57 ' Medium
5 HRRC VALLEY 4.0 26.8 103 67 I .
6 TOWER PROPERTY 11.4 38.2 147 96 Long
Staff recommendation on 13 December 2011
1. Acquire HRRC at elevation 70(Scenario#4)
2. Negotiate a long term payment agreement
3. Reevaluate Tower site acquisition in 10 years
October 16, 2012
-9-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Potential HRRC Acquisition
A On May 6 the City received the Hampton Roads
Recovery Center(HRRC), LLC proposal
HRRC has operated the CDD Landfill since 2009
A Total permitted capacity 9.8 mcy
Y Cells 1,2 and 3 constructed of 8 planned cells
y Disposed tonnage (As of 2011): 278,000 tons
y Used airspace:463,000 cy(-5%)
fr Investment thru 2011): $20.7 million
Y Expected waste intake: 120,000 tons/yr
fr Average tipping fees:$46.4/ton
y Unit weight in place:0.6 tcy
HRRC Proposal
➢Offer to sell site to the City once hole is filled
v This would require their constructing all 8 cells&
once filled,top covered at elev 70'
fr Total volume to fill the hole 4 mcy(@40%)
Approximately 29 years till turned over to City
Cumulative DNPV:$44.5 million
fr Forfeited Value:$90.4 million
y Cumulative CAPEX:$31.1million
fr Additional CAPEX:4.5 million
Purchase Price:$126 million
Paid in 15 years($10.7 million/year)
October 16, 2012
II I 11
-10-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is Staff's Recommendation:
Staff Recommendation
y Pursue membership in a Post 2018 SPSA
y Do not expand/do not acquire HRRC site at this time
N Retain current Virginia Beach Landfill#2 for the
foreseeable future
Participate in new Use and Support Agreements with
the Post 2018 SPSA
y Negotiate regional WTE contract or landfill strategy
using the SPSA facility in Suffolk
Avoid MSW in the VB Landfill#2:allow only in
emergency situations
The next portion of today's Briefing is Post SPSA—2018 Waste Disposal:
.,sem,.,
i
"�>> POST SPSA-2018
WASTE DISPOSAL
Information Briefing
to
City Council
DCM Dave Hansen
16 October 2012
October 16, 2012
I II
-11-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is the Agenda for this portion of today's Briefing:
AGENDA
r Current Operations
A='City Alternatives Analysis—Arcadis-Malcolm
Pirnie (Steve Nesbitt)
Regional Alternatives Analysis—SCS Engineers
(Bob Gardner)
0>Risk Scenarios
Staff Recommendation
Way Forward
r Council Discussion
Below is a breakdown of the funds spent during FY12 for Waste Management Program:
FY12 Operations
SPSA(Disposal)
$10.5M
Program Support VB LF
$1M $2.2M
Recycling
$5.8M
Yard Waste/HHW
$1.8M
Collections
$14.5 M
$35.8M
October 16, 2012
II 111
-12-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
SPSA MSW TIPPING FEES
FY11-$56.01 $ 8.9M
• FY12-$65.35 $10.5M
- FY13-$65.35 $10.5M
A, FY14-$65.35 $10.5M
> FY15-$65.35 $10.5M
> FY16-$87.67 $14.0M(1)
> FY17-$110.00 $17.6M
> FY18-$97.50 $15.6M(2)
(1) Ash&Residue Agreement expires December 31,2015
(2) Use and Support Agreement expires January 23,2018
As a member of SPSA, the City enjoys a "capped contract"; however, that ends in middle of FY16:
Waste
Management $47M
Operating Costs
S,o
ve 'r"9
QgSa�cas 4��eeGSP�
� S
PP�yo L01c' a ✓a„� P*e444o.�
$35.8M e °8 $40.8M
LaQ QFee 2016-2018
ee% Projected
(Best Case)
2012 2018
Actual Goal
I4,1*9 5°a rate ctli ,annual 65,1811"
October 16, 2012
-13-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is the recent SPSA history:
Recent SPSA History
• 4 years ago uncertain if SPSA would remain in business
SPSA organization and finances were in disarray
• SPSA reorganized
WTE sold to Wheelabrator in 2010
i- Finances stabilized
➢Post 2018 discussions under way
Below is the City's alternatives analysis:
Virginia Beach
Alternatives Analysis
=Arcadis-Malcolm Pirnie-Steve Nesbitt
• Engaged five years ago by VB Public Works
Developed short,medium and long range alternatives
Calculated capacity of VB Landfill
October 16, 2012
-14-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Arcadis-Malcolm Pirnie Study Final Report was issued June 2008:
Arcadis-Malcolm Pirnie Study
Final Report June 2008
Identified and evaluated 9 alternatives based on VB going it
alone in a non-SPSA environment
Developed short,intermediate and long term planning
horizons:
V Continued MSW Disposal into VB Landfill No.2.
V Transfer/Remote Disposal Private Sector Vendor
V MSW/MWC Ash'Swap'with Wheelabrator(Ash Disposal
at Landfill No.2)
✓Waste to Energy
Y Alternatives evaluated with respect to following criteria:
V Cost of Service
✓Risk/Constraints&Limitations posed by Driving Forces
Below are the findings of the Study:
Arcadis-Malcolm Pirnie Study
Findings/Summary
Preferred alternatives contemplated continued MSW
management at Landfill No.2
• Intermediate Duration-Full-scale operations within existing property
boundaries for acceptance of unprocessed MSW or MWC Ash
• Long Duration-Expanded landfill OR mass-burn WTE facility
Risk to sustainability is relatively large given proposed facility
location within developing urban area and legitimate need for
nuisance abatement and strict regulatory compliance
Primary challenge-providing fiscally acceptable waste
management with assets located in an urban environment
• Resistance to facility expansion/existence
• Associated constraints/limitations anticipated throughout lifespan
October 16, 2012
11
-15-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is the estimated Cost of Service:
Estimated Cost of Service
10E5otogmcy
Duration No. ktinutilt Daatfioo9094 Cast(S) E91($ PAt Oit9r9 Bi9E9164
1 Landfill No,2Er&OngProperly'StaWsQuo'Conlon
107t1101 [anal Ha2vnthlioeaueImpact Abatement/MNgatimMeasmes 53,900,000 6,983700 26 1
2 EosiinkmiitNiguaatart&a6og#r vtyBodo* 97,90900 '11,305505 42 2
3 lard6fiHo.2w9hNuisance Impact Abatemeot WigatonMeasures
blermedatej301 EdlS:aklmplementhoa[Id Phases 2B&31WahofbstogProperly Bourdarrs 243,210500 18,484000 68 2
64 Transfer&Haul loPrhateSector 2 4ity(30Vears' 371,890800 24,190,050 13 3
1 110 65178806S616461,405456006 225555 7 s 28:905590 66 1
4 LAI No.2withRue love Abatement lMidgationMeasures
full5cakh*mutation[E V.WillumsBorrow Pit&Radio TOW PmpertyExpansion] 490130503 25,820,000, 79 2
long{69-101 5 Nterna6refHyOwned&OpmatedRIB with AbalementyMifigadonMeasles 591524090 32,530000 99 4
6B 56110:4&/41 toP;hHe4alor456 65%15 573800500 30C10sos si 3
8 Qty OvedMass Burn faaTrty5ag 65 0 atelD@01Pn<attSniorVmdor 541,749, 29840520 74 1
Projected Service Life MSWLF No.2
(MSW or MWC Ash Disposal)
.L-
•
aF ur
Does not reflect airspace
expandedfootprint
October 16, 2012
-17-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below shows how solid waste is currently managed in the Region, with the future options the City has to
consider:
Transfer Station
•
Col lection
Residential/Commercial Energy Waste to Energy
• 6 m
y
C rydmg Collect
Residential/Commercial >
I Ash
,d^4-h--'"• StGat SPSA . W...,...
Organics Composting
Mie
Mtti Landfill
Metals Recycling Energy
SPSA currently provides transfer and disposal services to the Regional members. Our evaluation of the
disposal alternatives for the Region considered scenarios where the member communities cooperate and
go it alone:
Disposal Alternatives Evaluated
in SCS Study
?Eastern disposal options(Virginia Beach,
Chesapeake, Norfolk,Suffolk&Portsmouth)
V Landfill MSW at Regional LF
V Contract with Wheelabrator for MSW,dispose of ash
either at SPSA or City of VB
V Contract out for disposal out of region
City of Virginia Beach Only
V Landfill MSW at Virginia Beach LF No.2
V Contract directly or through SPSA with Wheelabrator for
disposal
V Contract for disposal out of region
V Ash disposal contract(separate)with Wheelabrator
V New WTE(either VB only or regional approach)
October 16, 2012
11
-18-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Several special considerations to each community were identified during the analysis:
Special Considerations
for Eastern Division
r City of Virginia Beach
+ VB LF No.2
+ Ash v.MSW disposal
- Expansion issues
i= City of Chesapeake and Norfolk
- No LF
+ Chesapeake shares boundary at VB landfill#2
r City of Portsmouth(proximity to WTE Facility)
:= City of Suffolk(host fee,regional LF location,post-SPSA
disposition of regional LF,access infrastructure)
➢ Commercial waste(excluded)
; Market assumptions
r Integrated solid waste management hierarchy
Below is the Waste Management Hierarchy:
Waste Management Hierarchy
Vit
'':\V"P261922‘'.: r44.;14. itiig*gte 7
Recycling and Composting
\ Resource Recovery /
incrnerauor, /
dfilr g
October 16, 2012
-19-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
The next two slides provide the analysis in pictures to show the impact of what happens after 2015, when
the Ash Disposal Agreement with SPSA expires. At that time, the rate the City pays to SPSA will be the
same as the other Regional Members and then what happens after 2018. These pie charts show the
allocation of SPSA costs to the member communities:
Assumes
WTE/Landfill/ SPSACostAllocations-WYE/landfill/TVs
SPSA Cort AIloations-WTE/landfill/T Transfer Al
FY2012
FY2011
sin�.s Stations
Al
SPSA fees=$39.9M
51O3OW w.mwipa
an SS _ �4 ow 5z zan!w,w
It 4.
."K - u axaoo U55aw.n 55a vmianad SaLM1w Sss Mt
J ��nvt as lWtoeiVvaw
, c s'P°o
SPSA Cost Allocations-WTE/landfill/TS's
SPSA Cost Allocations.WTE/landfitl/TS's (Portsmouth Excluded)
FY 2019 FY 2019
A-1 S"'"'
w e s.r aaa' G-1
Haes.aoo, -tits
slefrenYlon
53.aao ax n"k
ril
ti- Ptx ectad SPSA (D
PsndSPMA
foes $39$39.6M
�,w1AEa, 1d1(,
sua7::zx
SPSA Cost Allocations—Possible WTE Disposal
FY 2019
Suffolk,
$
sazatf , Projected SPSA Fees
yt( $36.2M
- Projected SPSA Fees
=rnra s.ch, $36.OM
€oSt Dec z67S
$13,131,000 Suffolk,
37-19'" 4y $4848000,__
doo 14%
orh
(Portsmouth Excluded)
Scenario G-1
Virginia8each.
,Post Dee 2015
$11,44°°°4b
(Portsmouth Included)
Scenario A-2 10%
October 16, 2012
-20-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
SPSA Cost Allocations—Possible Landfill Disposal
2019
Suffolk,
$1,897,000
lay pec Projected SPSA Fees $14.1M
1,7
Virginia ry
Beach, t Scenario C-2
Dec 2015,
4,60,1A00>
334
Portsmouth,
$1,440,000,
10%
Landfill Disposal Only
Below are the Key Findings of the SCS Study:
Key Findings
of the SCS Study
Regional Landfill and Virginia Beach Landfill have
significant remaining and expandable disposal capacity.
➢ Municipal and/or SPSA controlled landfills provide a
hedge against future disposal costs.
• Closest alternative disposal sites:
❖ Wheelabrator WTE,Portsmouth
❖ WM Bethel LF,Newport News
❖ WM Atlantic Waste LF,Waverly
WTE technology still lagging to where adopting a series
of smaller municipal facilities is not fiscally prudent at
this time
October 16, 2012
11
-21-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Key Findings (continued)
Existing Wheelabrator WTE
+Significant volume reduction (90%vol/70%wt)
+Reduces landfill consumption/dependence
+Generates renewable energy(steam,electrical)
+Recovery(metals)/recyclables
+Existing facility, proven performance,and reliable
- New contract will be required
• Individually
• Eastern Regional Organization
+Ash disposal:multiple options/opportunities
Key Findings (continued)
y Landfill Only Solution
+ Lowest cost
- Less preferred option environmentally
- Limited resource(consumed quicker)
+ Landfill gas Utilization
y WTE
- Higher cost
+ Environmentally preferred option compared to
landfilling
+ Consistent with current practice
+ Conserves landfill disposal capacity
October 16, 2012
II 111
-22-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is the Value of a Regional Landfill:
Value of Regional Landfill
NPV(2018-2047),Virginia Beach @ 4%,2011$ VB WTE Scenarios
$51.Ooo SPSA/WTE ..
E 5900 Scenarios .__landfill Scenarios __... - VB1.F Ash-- - ___--
WTE Scenarios Other
5800
SPSA if Scenarios r�
5200 -
ai
J
C 550o
54005300
5200 _.
5100
A.1 az a.3 e.l a.z SW Management Scenarios
Won Lifespan Risk/Threats/Comments
(Years)
City of Virginia Beach MSWLF No.2
w Nuisance/Impact Abatement& 26-68 30-36
Mitigation Encroachment 8 Sustainability of
MWSLF No.2 in Increasing Urban
Waste for MWC Ash'Swep'w 66 >100 Surroundings
Wheelabrator
Cost Control relative to Wheelabrator a,
City Owned Mass Bum Facility(DBO) WTE _Y
wWheelabrator;MWC Ash at 74 60-70
MSWLF No.2
Cell 7 would reach capacity by
MSW-Rel MSWLF 36-41 22-37 2033/34,Cells 6/9 would need to be
g1Ona developed,and would require
wetland mitigation.
03
n
By the end of 2047 the last phase of
e1
Cali 7 would have been developed.
Transfer/WTE(Wheelabrator)/Ash Cell 8/9 provides additional 12M tons
Disposal(Regional LF) 80 >90 capacity;wetlands mitigation
required.
Cost Control
October 16, 2012
-23-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below are the eight(8) conclusions taken from the SCS Study:
8 Conclusions
from the SCS Study
1. City of VB has viable options either on its
own or in cooperation with other cities
a) Regional deal,utilize existing WTE/TS/LF
b) Negotiate with Wheelabrator directly
c) Operate VB LF(ash or MSW)
d) Contract out disposal
e) Negotiate with Suffolk if SPSA disbands
8 Conclusions (continued)
2. Suffolk Regional LF will convey to Suffolk if SPSA
disbands (loss of sunk investment)
3. Western SPSA members going separate way
4. SPSA can effectively continue to operate with
eastern region members
5. Landfill and Transfer Stations can continue to
operate cost effectively by SPSA
October 16, 2012
-24-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
8 Conclusions (continued)
6. Significant benefits to retaining Eastern
Region SPSA transfer and landfill operations
+ Realize value of capital investment at the Regional Landfill
when all debt paid by 2018
+ Existing systems,personnel and operational practices in
place
+ Compliance routines established
+ Communication systems established
+ Low cost alternative available via landfill only
8 Conclusions (continued)
7. Wheelabrator WTE Facility provides benefits
+ Proven reliability
+ Reduce volume landfilled
+ Renewable energy resource
+ Reduce dependence on fossil fuels
+ Facilities and systems in place
+ Potential revenue offsets
8. Disposal costs can be contained in 2018 and
beyond
October 16, 2012
-25-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Criteria for Decision Making
Cost
o Immediate impact to taxpayers
o Fruits of SPSA's investments have not been fully realized
o Fiscal responsibilities of government for long term costs
o Stability of rate structure
o Organizational vs.Contract cost
Environment
o WTE least impacts on environment
o Landfill can be operated in environmentally sound manner
o Both create alternative energy sources
o Hierarchy of"green"determines cost
Level of Service
o SPSA operational performance of past has been reliable
Ease of implementation
Certain assumptions had to be made and are identified below:
Assumptions
A- Landfilling MSW is environmentally less preferred than WTE
➢ Eastern region SPSA provides negotiating strength with
combined volumes and disposal options
Western region SPSA members bifurcate disposal
methodology and likely consistency of fee structure
• Existing system reliable(SPSA&WTE)
:= A retained SPSA organization reaps value via debt free assets
• Landfilling MSW in VB only in emergencies
October 16, 2012
-26-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is the Disposal Alternative 1:
Landfill MSW
Disposal Alternative 1
+ Least costly alternative
- Permitting&CUP approvals
— Perceived as less environmentally friendly
— Neighborhood concerns
+ SPSA Landfill
+ Large amount of capacity
+ Great alternative to maintain price control
+ Good option for ash disposal
+ VB Landfill
+ Viable option for short term,emergency use for MSW
+ Good option for ash disposal
- Centerville SGA development
Below is the Disposal Alternative 2:
Waste to Energy
Disposal Alternative 2
+ Wheelabrator
+ Infrastructure in place
+ Known company
+ Environmentally compliant
— Monopoly
— New facility
— Emerging technologies not fully developed
— Limited MSW to support a 2"d WTE
+ Perceived to be environmentally sound
— Requires major infrastructure investment
October 16, 2012
-27-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Below is the Disposal Alternative 3:
Contract Disposal
Disposal Alternative 3
+ Contractor decides where/how to dispose
— Limited competitive landfill options
— Least price stability over the long term—
subject to short term contract periods
— Market rates
+ Creates competition
Below are the risk scenarios:
Risk Scenarios
r Failure to form alliance
r' SPSA folds and disposes of assets
— SPSA Landfill
— Transfer stations
— Transfer/hauling equipment sold
Monopoly is able to negotiate with individual localities
Without Regional and VB Landfills
— Reduced bargaining power
• Tipping fee
• Contract Durations
• Ash for trash leverage
— Potential long distance truck haul to out of region landfill
October 16, 2012
II
-28-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
After months of work, below is the Staff's Recommendation:
Staff Recommendation
• Retain SPSA with adjustments
+ Debt cleared by 2018
+ Membership firmed up
+ New use&support agreements
+ Equal tipping fees for all Eastern members
+ Obtain Comprehensive CUP for SPSA Landfill
• Eastern SPSA members
✓Chesapeake
✓Norfolk
✓Portsmouth
✓Suffolk
✓Virginia Beach
• Negotiations determine disposal method
❖Take a hard look at landfilling vs.good rates for WTE
Post 2018 SPSA Meetings
✓ 10/6/11 Final Report—Update to Solid r 5/24/12 CAO Meeting;Virginia Beach
Waste Management for Southside Hampton makes presentation;Technical Committee
Roads Planning Horizon 2011-2047;by SCS formed
Engineers
r 6/11/12 Technical Committee meeting
✓ 10/18/11 Presentation of Final Report to
Virginia Beach City Council by Bob Gardner of r 7/19/12 CAO Meeting;presentation of
SCS Engineers findings to date
11/30/11 Virginia Beach City Staff meeting r 8/16/12 Technical Committee meeting
✓ 12/20/11 Virginia Beach City Staff meeting 9/10/12 Technical Committee meeting
• 1/24/12 Virginia Beach City Staff meeting r 10/16/12 Virginia Beach City Council
presentation by staff
• Feb 2012 City Manager update briefing to
Mayor and Vice Mayor r 10/18/12 CAO Meeting at HRPDC
S/1/12 Virginia Beach City Staff met with
IPSO Executive Director
October 16, 2012
-29-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Way Forward
w Engage SPSA member CAOs regarding viability and
structure of future cooperative organization
+ Relook SPSA mission,services,administration,debt and
oversight
+ Obtain Council/Board Resolutions&Develop MOA
+ Pursue comprehensive SPSA landfill CUP
+ Develop long-term/best value disposal strategy
+ Establish equal fee arrangements
+ Draft new use and support agreements
+ Enter negotiations with Wheelabrator
Preliminary Matrix of Deal Points
Preliminary Matrixcf OealPcl:ris (
SePtembe:10.2622 # l { s `�
�-,
al�a7aaaaa
X2.7
s aaa
as
Llrsue�s...racrcaa�2aa aa
—aa as
o......., ,a._
a. aha
Paaaalaaala
aaaaaala_a
ANIMaaaalal�aala
x..a. —a—ralaa
a,aaaaMM1ala
an. ................s.4 .=Baf aalalia:a al
Baa-1aalaala
=c," La. - 1a6•1011.111111..MINIMINI
--. aha
3 aaa
likrua....u.LiMi.A1110111116•111,71111J1U
October 16, 2012
11 II
-30-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Next Steps
• 18 Oct 12:CAO's receive Technical Committee Progress Report
4'h Qtr CY12:Provide briefings to respective Councils/Boards
r 1"Qtr CY13:Obtain Council/Board Resolutions regarding membership
commitment to a Post 2018 SPSA
r 2nd Qtr CY13:Draft MOA and obtain legal reviews
▪ 3'd Qtr CY13:Municipality ratification of the MOA
✓ 4th Qtr CY13:SPSA Board submission of a comprehensive Landfill CUP application
r 1"Qtr CY14:Draft Use and Support Agreements for the Post 2018 SPSA
1"Qtr CY15:Municipality ratification of Use&Support Agreements
• 3rd Qtr CY15:Commence negotiations with Wheelabrator for a WTE proposal
• 3rd Qtr CY16:Finalize decision on Post 2018 Disposal Strategy
1"Qtr CY17:Municipality ratification of the Post 2018 Disposal Strategy
✓ 1'Qtr CY 18:Stand up Post 2018 SPSA
Staff Recommendation
Y Pursue membership in a Post 2018 SPSA
Do not expand/do not acquire HRRC site at this time
y Retain current Virginia Beach Landfill#2 for the
foreseeable future
Participate in new Use and Support Agreements with
the Post 2018 SPSA
y Negotiate regional WTE contract or landfill strategy
using the SPSA facility in Suffolk
Avoid MSW in the VB Landfill#2:allow only in
emergency situations
y Draft City Council Resolution
October 16, 2012
-31-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
SOLID WASTE POST 2018 OPTIONS
(Continued)
Council Discussion
Mayor Sessoms expressed his appreciation to Mr. Hansen and the entire Team for the tremendous work
on this project.
October 16, 2012
-32-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PENDING PLANNING ITEMS
5:25 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms welcomed Jack Whitney — Director, Planning Department. Mr. Whitney expressed his
appreciation to City Council for their continued support. Mr. Whitney presented the attached Briefing,
which is made a part of this record.
There are five (5) items scheduled to be heard on November 13`x':
MPB
Archangel Enterprises
City of Virginia Beach (Little Island Park)
Colonial Collision Center/Rick Hendrick Collision Center
BRAVA,LLC
There are four(4) items scheduled to be heard on November 27th:
Mount Olympus Fitness
City of Virginia Beach (Pleasure House Point)
Ramona and Robert Castner
City of Virginia Beach (Lake Lawson/Lake Smith Natural Area)
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
October 16, 2012
1 III
N
O
N
O
' 1
C'
;p ,'-
w + 4
(/)
N
` U o r.t p
c m •`a s :. a S ANNE R
CL s
o v ami ar p¢1NG
t.
E MU am C = co 0
MWId JoO JIEI
o � c U0 � J -
na �Z
N Q `�jc2 ,_ OoO o
rDO � na U oY1 D
d E) OO P 1Q I OIUU m r/f
kY . •
h ;"
g. *' N
T-
O
Nti
Y*
`a ^ �,F gyp / i 's j �' •wra�i
Wiz= ,. A l' f ---4- (s y� ➢ �tl
:� IE = r Yy OnL�S sf
W Z --al 11
y�, f
Z A } �-,N
, Itk. 81
3 EI
ZZ% a
;T
`
�
I V, '0.
a
t. ' 3 ' .1 #
I II
C\1
CNS
.1--
C:)O
N
CO
N-
6-
,—
,
—
O
, s , L
`� I . J
o®t r1 / I �I"'
II41� ' �9 otc
111I111
n N
a) O
C
IC 0
i ii
c
D..> O s it p 11111111 2
°fik$
®®® � . ■0 w-
02041Sa R 3 N R cc' E ' N
-o 0 o Cc2. Ei
, a) U caaE,/.. C 'a ; T U F
oam
1,..,i `h `"�„. ' = c a. aa. .-
(.) (13a a ..'x :
0rIV
O E a) a) ( >, o —
ay ,, > v .,F. .5, -0 .0 0
W
46,..), . N -0scar a�
3s -,.01P , N O O a)
C t. O O N . 'a-)
cv O U
L A N -c t
---- -/--' 1 - aam �' cvi-- �
ti
P " t
Ta C ca L
C O O) N cA O
.0 = C C. a) cz ,-,,,,,,--5 i iM 1
F. N = a) Zvi , o +i, /1
■1. M- O L y. :Pa V ',3.
■
/a/� Oo uJ a) 'C t U .r e"
1V C)'O 0 -0 C c s- ` W
Eca -0 ,u ' O v) a U r Z
L _c o U ,,63- vi = u
C � dc, . ca•a � —11
Wow U NO U 3 0 CO -o ca f ':
= N a) °'o coLa) Ea.- J o �
'i cc F= a ccs — a) . li '' 0a.c"c .3 Lic ccs IO
CO >' NFp _c r > C
> co 4-. �, N *-al a to 4) . r ., 1 1 Z
CD U `' c) o aE_ occa � y ■ _� i \I
CD .a.a = o 'x 4- ca y +' 7
/�/ cSf O N a O V �_' ca c rsi
W a) E csi a) a) acv an d ! a
t O • L s a a ■ -
I— 4- O w H c c w 0 a
z
N CO
x-
0 0
N
CO
er ' a
7
S
-::. ,i
+ ge ` /� r,- , - i5
tic 1 x m r e n
i e ,ti V
pirr:�'
k pa
r
IMF L r
i 1,4,4453' ;:-L-kr,-.'.
■
,,'i,,..,`..:"-,...:-,-f,*.-'-a•'.,,n7,",-,7,-'1,-..,,-;'',-,-.'''..
/// 2a _'..`: _''', /
r ,,,, ... •ii,,.
, ‘,,,:.: .,_:„,,,:2.. „...r„.
N N m
fa c 4 ..m 'O O)
CY c'CD y 0 ���' as fns ` 'O
4- NO E E2 c''m (V) a) -
C S ,-"1 'P 0 a.,0 Q C:. U a� C fa O N.n
O.r- -- `s ..-6 i',^�-. ea cu w.Z N a.cn_ N +.., N Q.U y- >
Cort-,7 7,:;j- - 1:- ,V fyC C C1���-a d C Q.t O O N
c z �---1.,._,Ex-_,..s--1;171-7, E 'a w u,,,:,- fU Q (ID) N "U N > m,-p
W C tt,t-'�-1' P 2.. N C C- -a•- t i- p C
Ch,c. pof���g `''� ., ry 'O_Cin ruO7S > ONO Cf6
"d _ a:,,,_.....4-----,1"� S�ac*�.. r Epp 2E-Z15 °4-w°3>..2
p �� 3 V dmN pUmEO3 (U
L rc fJ.. g E = Q.W (n fd >.Y Q ffl L.+ R
Q '/-r1 r+, m I 2. 4TH — moo._fd (n rt, (n vo p d 4°- d V fn
` T =3 gd •' OY °-c - t>6 c:=� LN
� � -1,7-4-.J Lr-----7�s fca �N or.-4_ c 4_ �s N c o'-
u� CO O04-C ypUO -Cd myCDCf4
a WI1� CD
ri . -,--.--,---01yN Ea Q O •ay . U ° m�
... __ii'' A.., aa. - C m C °� a>w a) >
a'". m ?7 W 7a Op aa)UdC N7s.-, mV0 >
m r i_ m m"D•a Nt•[w C 4J m •- U
m - ,k.:-.7_-='A LimN-9., > U 0tin' = .Cysa-i.CQ
s._ q) U L O•- 0 4"' fU d
I-U'o< F- CDm[O =- m >
N d
1-
0
N
0
c-
8
i
Q
i
a
a 6, is ..
,, ,„.„:„,� `$H to 9 -„r <-
,,
1_ Ri a :,f, ,,,,,, i
Cl
i4 rI LI'
he ,I
0
CD
- CA o 0
— 3
,4'S" C '� w
O = s
n'tii >as N V0-
•0 0 Oa •Nw � 0
;313 73
�
_ rVoE a E\ x � 0 _ 7 aC 8.O d ao Ca-4
lj-
)
_ E O o mQO O C)
t) O7 Q. Q N Q ►+
v a o 4. N o O O
Ww, N �. C
r ..l µ rt fAw- N C C5 N d
O C y 0 C tC O
d C d O C
fr . C C � O C i
z cat C >+ V O t s
'.deXew a U v m " N I— F-
II
N LU
x—
CD
N
CD
o r�
a C N d • =0 : "• c •
r �' c
co N fC
CL.';,-co .2 C t µ'.4:� '- k_;„ j -=N
X — tGE o. t6 OZO c w
Cr CU
d�'i C d f4 CON s�+ 1-. N
a+ rr
C2f �_ Nc�� o NwOtC co
¢
I
Pi
y Rac28co 03 4-.
� d1.
in
SO
_:O�- Cwovo rcrn � '0Nc�(IY.(2 = aL •� � 3 �'� Qc �� 3� o c%2 cLN 0 d°C ....9- N2S+N IIa c . ,ic f6 pwp N >,. 0 , II.9 pOO t/ VaLcO aLQ.dC� O fa Nr+ dl dU) dC �d O N •
OOOO = � pQLO � NCOC ..' C � '. . 13 . �il� ,vi, d O10 �CEc2 , CcnNU pp/ _� — C i ��-° = OL N p 4 � � i �r7�� acv _ ,4, v _ r fCDoN �E fc V32aE NcZyAi � 0QLL°iia L ° LL o L. FC— oLLLL (TO —.L I—I—Uf— ,.4-'
CD C1473
ii
o
frt i
f +
84��A
r � 'i \ I
t11.44"it = `�•:;�,,t - I`,
,61
^°g ' :t
w
1 II
N c.1)
v-
O
N
CD
O
O C0) ,_O C_ 06
a 3 Q a)
O dpw
N -_ 0
C m 0 N v ��-. N r OF_
4-
a3 m °'. pias pC-
�LI ��.--- i Q .r U) L c 3 °: 0.
= a ,; / i-. - n- vo o 0_ � � 0).=- )
c � ,� E C _cN cWCwr-O a)•a16.E
_S.12� g -,ila w c) -ate C)a.0 .0 50 =
—.1 1 ',L.;N 1 <N• 0 = 16•� a) top O > d c C as JO t4 a)
U- e'; a 1 i o �� 0-0 c4 L d os ys
s x n'{ %- 1 _ s 1 C id.00 as.+- d .0 a,..= V1 fa O N w-
�_x Q 4- 30 r'-5O dO 0
U) >_ a) c3a)
CR „3Hmrx+aiL, � § 4■i N00) OAC 0d•p0 t6-0N'C
i y■ O
r 4�t L s`'' 1�9=S a) d:�_� O w;, i a) .L•N to
11 � �._ Cn Via.+Y 14 = L a)-a C l4 r V r
as
di /' �. •
R SCD p x 0 L 3 +• ca-c d-5 0 re; V a)
e 1- /`\` n/� •ii
ilil 01 C N c r,C 1-r a).-4- r 0 V) 0
Q.MC oma) Oa) C-0O wC) >+
X30 wc > -sp0^ a).Q0—
a) o 0 a) cro MI_'0 0 V_ -d
s— a� s„ c — a) p-a O•— c 0
f-( U) �Easa3.ou) u) CI)
- 6
c i � , §;
) , -1 :,:-..„-,-
C) 0 "l
, C C a )
C > go 0. �"' a ( r 3
Ma 0 0 ••C
0 r
L
tC ISO ea E .3 c W 1 c
CO R o ._
_ .a 3c p p N0 CIS e Q
O w=!1 -a V Q a
Nam W C .... a)
0
3 E oQ
R O 0 a 0_ Q
E.) a) iv Q. a) s
> 0 -c -0 Op 0
'a N N C cc a) • * x.
c o c E 2 3 3 I . k
.0 o 0 E "- 0 d Ie:t,,. r
O V V C d d
C > N0 s s
G. O m c U F— !— I
(:
N r'
0
N
(0
O
r
IV
C,r 1. 1 1
p rli
xw vaT ,'-'-'•*. _ t
ii
i
;-,\_ iii
3< . s. �f � .1
io�i. 11.. l .�.
—..s..7 .�,"'.'..�...,, uuvlwY�IfPrxwiwOJy 11 .,� N •
7.,=-7.
_ IVWOIIVNY31Nl OOL2 �+P��IPa h.. ,-
7.
3 TS N
( 1 - ' C 0
_ a - r� ,
i • ' = o ° iio
1-, .a 0 _
1,9'.u Gia. , 13 '0 0 C aa)i t4
O O c
CI. CD
■� C
s
I
r a .fid �C O p
{{ >
j 1 •st:. R i > v -0 o 0
i aWuR I �^1 T t 1 i el .1111 1 1 / p ( �F rt (n ui c c N 12
. = (' O, c O d E d
t ; � ,, c c E 3 3
O E -- 0 E w L
j CD CD
/ coo >+ 0 _cs
' ' ',' — U m i I_ I'_
N OD
c—
C:)
N
N.--
.
O
@ d
c « 3 - E - 0/
O ., is �
..0.
6 0) d « _ f
C N o a R c i°
Oc O a' O N — a' _V f9 c0
O O . N O O N N
U of o o 0... x Q-0-,...;-.-
"«.
■� O CO L C O O '0 a) o N w 0
ila T7 C c O C j w .'c a) 'y O
o o O c . o o « v
E o o as •E
° Q o c c;F., 7,-..-
<4
Q a, d O N O- a, o 0 0 0
O 3 ` N •-'
a3 .N O :',5,, U U C f�)
i = —N - « Y 0 0 « O 0 N
sow Of fa c O
+T+ O c Q t 'O O' 3 z.« o Q I . 3
to C.1 N •7 fa fca a3 O O ,� a)
E 8 -O 'i Q o 3 O O > «
N al ,4; ''E't c L c E aS Q ca i".);4;".:-.F4"..).-',41
/� N �O N Q O E LO. U N Q Q c > `
W o O L L) M 0 c f. 10 c o 3
WW 07 d d a3 Q O i= N '3 d Q.:
� CL. � � o cc ° � oEoN � ' € a
c N O Q E °' O U oE d N R ..
6 Q 0 0 O O N a)
O = N N L_.--• w E- U . f6 3 a
6i
•
J4 I p
-it,�t Y pyB �t,.,
.21st S{.fEet h4 -als�` r r
1
t
• i— ooi o �— tl
1 t. '
'., 1 h �: i'3 [tfRl s tl
13
tl€
It N
I•.• 111 i ��t tri tti a it I' j
[ i s 1 It
r � 3 ‹ Ott.
L
i.
E 1
-'. < Y LL L
-k.--z.„•,,
I
Yh
9
'� fs t4>fi 1 'I t Ill Ild
yO~.i�t ;)
♦tni t 'i
i 1 I ! II f !) PI'S ti U q`.E_'c•
.1.4..,,i,!<)44<:),;<4,1Ifit JO 3
C\ C)
1-
0
N
Co
N-
0
T-
0
I it
N
Y
es
O
N ami = a� ,', ' `.`
" T s..
447-
CO C
i
O U) . L d , „c
P, a. ` ,�
N N 0 a E m c 75 k ;
wL N 2 t O a. N L
W C `c-D)
U „`- ea C_) V1 1 p "`
u
L
� m -C S2 (Li; O m L cn _ a
w�• = N c O 3 , -: o
> E E �(( "`GRC'pT Ep e
re Y
Z• Oa. > ) o Baa_ > � , C
C O C w. Z O ! e
O
U Q. I ix I U cnw
Jy
li
.., -.
S Q
LO
r
Ca) 0 • c E 0 ems.. _ ,. r.__� __.
.a O O C L N• O p4 O ,„„--<, rA _
�� Q CU O C O C "' o g c' ®em
• f+ Q � O � C O =u '�'�
cs)- 'O r w O f0 s`C l
O _ 3 d C 0 -O d C Q d o2 m 8t' �a t
O Cit) O c� C z ;; an/ANN
BIM Wes E Q) = M N d @ ` 0 L ' �
C L d ++ C N L Se°'�l a
W
..c`',., '_:2f,j-':'-'r, ',.' all
W OC a a. Q = - c E _ N 2 L1T1I
_ ar N . 0 E ', E L d
— v co v;' C CCC d ' , .0 H
N CJ
T--
N
CD
O
V°'
¢v,, C'� +y r •.te gy %:
C i6 � co k Y x A '\.3
® .- l� i ,F. >x#
t E ji'9 r #., U 0,r C 4. , ' x t
Wili J J+
l \ ' : N
jpppirA2
W p
,Ititli
s, ��} � � {�V tit r ��; ill
0
NcO 3
c
OM s> _
c c Ni 0 pcQa> cw c O= j ca0 8N Ti O p-
c > C> oOQCw c M O N O 0 .a yco. Lawry0 .- C Q. Eo8 'Lo -0 EN �° 0 � , y ° � � R 03 CD E0ca .(73O a)
'5 VO > = • c 0 r cE
15
■00
W Oc o'L'- co Lc ( ° L • LL 5 V YLL > i LN a) OEJ2
iw
•
C
OOQ O a) cQ c 00 cLO = QsC'OQti C E it, L wOa)i � o = E 0 -0_ O = yNN 0 Y 4 V a. 0_ a)ONO ONOd 0 -Eco. O . 0O*i a C N O .Q .C QfCOcd Va� Oc�+ V w ° W C/ m- ui c y dCLO = C -CaOO ca a)> o0 - N cH d Nm 0 O . OaiE O O E ,- t— i O O O CD
CUO m/ Q = C tV c Ca) s a 3 CQOcao >+ s 1-
lez 03 CO ED o•ca E C13 las a) sEa) EI-ssN. N a m L1-sm � � 1- N s m w1- O. .., N
N
c—
CD
N
T
CD
0 .0 _ # !o0".
d ol C o O!0 �.r
Ev � ca 064 O -O0
e 0'L C e0+ +T+ O o L
Q °)N ° m UNE , m°
_ C — V T C G) .0-
Ape NV—mYJtL+ 22QdpN C3Q f:r-t. \
E ° ` T~ T c' ''''''
OM '" ;7, Nom° -
00Ufli
a) IJIflII
i N i ¢.';el,i ..a f yr+ ,r,; i r yYy. u
!n w.4 N._ N,.. .rte....
>
w E
!gym as w › 3� @ . o._
W co c Si) ,—m ocr= N O «
Octs C R 0 L_
E c � � ° m
ccEa�
Q1•01 CL:- - c
N •• U MLL ° N t-.—0 O N Cm C
lam Oa 0 -m E rn a>d v 3 d caU d:al
.cr .c O 00 .— 1 I
1 11n61 1[� --�_
3 n I xL
9 La
7 I Ie F \ a�a
a
xikr
t ItiZv - � - ''a
r!
' `'ith r' I.
ilii 1> x� � IS
'°,
4th_ r/
�' �t. Y p �l�.9 i� )'
;`
I ,3
. 1 }t , F . . 1 ifo, J ` II
> t k:
drr J
e It i
C a'Ie xs [I
.'fl r 1 1 ,[r.- 6 6664.0 pp
. `1 0 I '/ //F r I :5
34 /i '1 Fr _I
f r ; I , i—, _ 1
1.1\''',. his 1
!f i55,�' Sl
s,.
N N
x-
0--
O
N
CO
r-
0 O
f
21
6 •
-Q I
• dq
C.
i• ii `2L> _ - JOltiun `
!xa N p, ba0 a
•
ii > 5 O N N 0_
..c
L
.15 0 OL E _ s- O w 'O
Q X 3 0 , .ct es S + N * odC� cO a) •Jill
O toa) m O Qom = E :.
L O Q,� +-� _y .
ti
amC � 3 � La) Q-
C a. O O d c 6- d "I',
C a) a m `m a 'a > a) ii�M
•
Q. Imo- Q.
H O a 13 -C a
...-(''''. :-:,-T,4,4-4.;.k-:::4-.4-,•:.'.--.,'' - . ri,
k (,- t/ _ m W 1 S
Ch
k `y+r
. . f 1
N
N •
CoV-
NT-
0 0
N
O
a 1 ,{9a®;
I yy
T,.., -._ , i :,. 7,..,1 -. ., ,,... 4P4/,), A. t'
4. -, .-----, :
r.i is
s 1 e
b , ,,
" ¢
at• a.•
•
c. i
:. ./14 _. I
` ..
O j as vOi
to C O C O .L-� N O +'�•+
C Q
O -43
= cn�Y E m o ,o 5>l<
m
■. g U C U a) Q m am 015" w �4 a)
RAN Eox �, o< o = oo E
ow O •
>.= N Off; a L
how o >,'a QxEw �� Q E
w m ° u m Q,,,1-1,> I. Ilio Q 0
E s U RS f4 N
L d d U E •Q O a = Li) U n -a -6 i 0 c .2a
O0- t a) t Q .N E E O a)ss y Y i� ^^ a) rn
CD U C cv cc _ ii C = N0
_ CD0CQM, 0) CU ... Go c ° = a Q
�•_ E d s 6 '0 0 y ..w fC t4 E = Q Q
a) .t) co _ C a) f Y
via y E cE�c`i 0O�2� C `m 2y 0 s .1-.)
mss•: °'o ''s co N , L- t� -' avi o 3 ..-.t..6 `m
fflt °��'c y� L ° T� °o av °o >. > v U o Q a�
_ -_f U o LSO C O-0 c,) N.... W w r o cv
al la >` t0 >'O:=
d'C N C cC = N U (/� N
U w •V-O y E 4-LL C C i a- U d _ •C fC co
Q.O+ D.O U d O a) a) 1C O L C O fE j
'�') R c'>a L o 3 3 m E o o —
'c d. O L d
d oE . 00 � +, a, E a)
sss U a) vi Os a) d s O O C d Q a)
.. ..-(n S s s F-s 3--
1_, O O Q .0 s
lam 0. 0 i-- 03 1— 1—
N
c-
c-
O
N
CO
x-
O
N •
Y 'c'u
N
O m -O o C N C CO
a) N .0 O
-O O OO m O 3 C i c •.- m
mom:2 a Fzrn• E i' d m p o = O
.O Ym0 c >,Naa '- - . co .Q O > 0 g Com.
it ‘t-_, c � - v ° ° o 0 y 0
coa o > 2UCO. a) N m o 'a_ O L rn
Q m m o o v m u .� Q. w
� � m ur2oo Nm0 mQ� cu wt! cg. E - = O
m yY w o CO QC m aO C5 r,y N to
m Ecs, t m o N
L o0 U m c o > .112 .0 �' m O 9 a) cD
O � � L.
d Na� a •Cac cmc _ _ UT Q E
C y 7a) U 0 C s m m O C O).- O
c ;.:-L. 3 Q a._
= rnm do d a c m c .ow d C 0
> p v a) .a o w m ca O O
r_ > Q N y s m Q a c is v E E C >
*i O N U cO N w c 3 o O E OL N i
�_ c w m p :r o m a w 0 n. Q Q. .."'
w� V E CD c v o CZ a c4 2u0 co 0 ca Q N
`V a' r m E N p 0 , e• w N c 1 V r.(1) 7 O -0-
_
d '� � QcoE0 0 W d �. C) 0 C
w d c y Q m N o > m U) V) C C
= O N a y c E m t '- O 0 m C d y CC 4)
CD
. mcg Ua, do o-• Q0_ 5 �
Tiov www » a � m > o � p C E 3 3
. t'- rn o a m d
ge coo d V 'd N d C C -O U p w
a m rn o v C C O
r C) o ` ami o 3 E .0 r o 0 >+ C
rx _, in F- c .... .� QC a C U a U m F- 1-
•
•
•
1Com*
1'4./er
U
� -,0 E c���
� �$ v
k 2 �ti e,
Ro
�e ;n y,
.,,,,,,,.:4,,t,1,.e'.:i.,.'il,,.':.,,,,
5.:
4
":,
,.::,
i ,:., . 1.:1,.. i i
,.,,s::,;.,.,.. tik
L `, l c.." (..:Z-
4.:7-
ya...
4'4 + "o r. t R
' ; i.ia .Baa
ty
a ..4' e 1
� � . 1 �t .}t ti
fir, i - 1 7
5,y v M E 4t7 1 vv vu4a 'e. y r
a 8 t 1 1r r q
II
-33-
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor William D. Sessoms,Jr.,DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 5:39 P.M.
/
-443
Amanda Finley-Barnes, MC
Deputy City Clerk,II
C . v
Ruth. odges Fraser,MMC
City Clerk
October 16, 2012