FEBRUARY 10, 2015 WORKSHOP MINUTES -1-
40,c,e4I-Stics 1%,
`tors r
°
�F OUR 141,'"°
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
February 10, 2015
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., called to order the CITY COUNCIL'S WORKSHOP in the City Council
Conference Room, Tuesday, February 10, 2015, at 4:00 P.M.
Council Members Present:
M. Benjamin Davenport, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice
Mayor Louis R. Jones, Shannon DS Kane, Amelia N. Ross-Hammond,
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., John E. Uhrin, Rosemary Wilson and
James L. Wood
Council Members Absent:
John D. Moss
February 10, 2015
-2-
CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING
MILITARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE(MEDAC)
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES
4:00 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms welcomed Rear Admiral Mark Gemmill, USN (Ret) - Chair, Military Economic
Development Advisory Committee (MEDAC). Admiral Gemmill expressed his appreciation to City
Council for their continued support:
Military Economic
Development Advisory -
Committee (MEDAL)
Admiral Gemmill acknowledged the Members in attendance:
February 10, 2015
-3-
CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING
MILITARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE(MEDAC)
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
Below are the purpose and goals of MEDAC. Over the past two (2)years alone, the City has hired at
least sixty-six (66) Veterans. The goal is to keep the City, Regional, State and Federal Leaders informed
of key Military-related issues:
Ft' 4144
Below are a few of MEDAC's accomplishments from this past year:
. /
February 10, 2015
-4-
CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING
MILITARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE(MEDAC)
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
Admiral Gemmill advised the Committee reached out to the Local Military Commands to identify those
issues of most importance to them and their sailors. The Area Command Briefings enhanced the Local
Commands of what the City is doing to improve their quality of life and to bring any concerns or
comments back to the City:
• Ili/
7.7
r
February 10, 2015
-5-
CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING
MILITARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE(MEDAC)
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES
(Continued)
Below are the Committee's 2015-2016 Initiatives:
Mayor Sessoms thanked Admiral Gemmill and the entire Committee for their countless hours of work and
dedication to the City and the Military Community.
February 10, 2015
-6-
CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING
ELECTORAL BOARD—
NEW VOTING MACHINE PURCHASE
4:20 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms welcomed Donna Patterson, General Registrar. Ms. Patterson expressed her
appreciation to City Council for their continued support. The City received the Governor's proposed
Budget on December 15th that included funding for new Voting Machines; however, her office was
already in the process of negotiations with a vendor. Unfortunately, as of Sunday, the State Funding has
been removed from the Proposed Budget and Ms. Patterson requested authorization to move forward
with the vendor so the City can be prepared should there be a June Primary.
Mayor Sessoms advised the vote machines cannot fail when Citizens go to vote. Although it would be
great if the State would fund the new machines, it does not appear that is going to happen. Mayor
Sessoms asked for any objection to the General Registrar moving forward in the procurement process.
Hearing none, he instructed Ms. Patterson to move forward.
February 10, 2015
-7-
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY and
DISABLED TASK FORCE
4:25 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms expressed his appreciation to Council Lady Henley and the work of the Tax Relief for the
Elderly and Disabled Task Force. Mayor Sessoms asked Catherine Whitesell to explain the information
that she distributed to City Council, a copy of which is made a part of this record.
Ms. Whitesell provided two documents to City Council, copies of which are attached and made a part of
this record. Ms. Whitesell advised the recommendation of the Task Force is the one page document that
has the "blue slide". The document containing the "orange slides" are options suggested by City
Council Members and/or Staff. However, at the request of City Council, only Slide Nos. 3 and 6 will be
considered and discussed. Slide 3 is recommended by Councilmen Davenport and Moss and Slide 6 is
recommended by Council Lady Henley.
Slide 3 proposes changing the thresholds to 60% of median household income. This would result in a
savings of$3.6-Million; however, 1,400 current participants would no longer qualf for the program.
Councilman Wood asked Ms. Whitesell to clam what one cent on the Real Estate Tax equates to and Ms.
Whitesell advised it is approximately$4-Million.
Council Lady Kane asked if the Task Force recommended a cap and Ms. Whitesell advised they did not
recommend including the value of the home at all.
Council Lady Henley advised the reason for using the Median Household Income is to lower the number
of participants that would no longer qualify if the Task Force recommendation is adopted.
Mayor Sessoms advised he thinks it is best to keep the Freeze and/or Deferral component of the Program
as a "safety net". He believes the City will get the money eventually, the question is when. He suggested
asking the City Treasurer for the average interest rate on CDs and use same. The goal is not to force
anyone out of their home.
Council Lady Henley expressed concern with the 1,400 Citizens that would no longer qualify if the City
goes with Slide 3. Also, those that opt into the Deferral Program will be the ones to pay the highest tax.
The reason so few opt into the Deferral is due to the exemption being so high. What she hears most is
people do not want to go into Deferral because they do not want to leave property on which there is a lien
to their heirs. She stated her reply to that comment is "the heirs could be helping pay the taxes". She
understands this is a hard issue to fix all while trying not to hurt Citizens. But if this is not addressed, the
Program will not be sustainable.
February 10, 2015
-8-
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY and
DISABLED TASK FORCE
(Continued)
Councilman Uhrin concurs with Council Lady Henley and a lot of what is being discussed is the Real
Estate Tax, based on what someone owns, and their ability to pay. In regard to Slide 3, to cap the value
before someone qualifies does not take into account the underlying issue of their ability to pay. Over the
last thirty (30)years, there have been major changes in real estate values and that is why the cap causes
him concern. There is value in real estate property and there will be, at some point, the ability for
someone to pay the taxes, when it is ultimately sold or passed to an heir. Having the Deferral Program
will not negatively impact someone that has a challenge to meet the income level.
Ms. Whitesell advised many cities have their programs from $0 to $68-Million with requirements to
qualify for the Deferral Program.
Mayor Sessoms reiterated: with a Deferral Program, the City will eventually get the money owed with a
reasonable interest rate.
Councilman Wood advised he is trying to understand the mechanics of the Deferral Program since no
one is advocating for the Freeze Program. Does the Deferral Program put a tax lien on the property?
Ms. Whitesell advised yes it puts a tax lien on the property and adjusts each year based on the Deferred
Taxes. She stated this has not been an issue because there has always been just a few people in the
Deferral Program.
Councilman Wood expressed concern should the City start pushing people towards the Deferral Program
where a Tax Lien is placed on the property? Would the property owner then be in default of their
mortgage? He advised generally speaking, the mortgage company is the first to be repaid and liens are
next.
City Attorney Stiles advised a Tax Lien has priority for the first 10% of sales price. For example, if a
property sold for$500,000, the lien would have priority for the first$50,000; however, after the 10%, all
other liens take priority.
Councilman Wood asked if the City would drop to the bottom.
City Attorney Stiles stated that is correct.
Ms. Whitesell advised this is the very reason the Task Force did not recommend the Deferral Program.
February 10, 2015
-9-
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY and
DISABLED TASK FORCE
(Continued)
Council Lady Henley feels it is important to discuss the Freeze Program as everything has pros and cons.
Council Lady asked the City Attorney what happens with the people that have been in the Freeze
Program (approximately 50)for this year.
City Attorney Stiles advised for the years someone took the Freeze, it was done so with the understanding
their taxes would be frozen at that amount for the future. Now if the City does away with that option, the
property owner will no longer have that benefit.
Mayor Sessoms asked if those property owners could be "grandfathered" in order to maintain their
status and Council Lady Henley advised she has been told No.
City Attorney Stiles stated the law is not clear and he would want to get a written opinion from the
Attorney General on the State Code that sets this up and authorizes this program before saying yes. He
believes the concern is the City would be treating similarly situated taxpayers dissimilarly and does not
feel confident they could be grandfathered.
Mayor Sessoms stated those property owners would go into the Deferral Program most likely.
Council Lady Henley believes it will be hard to predict. At least with the Freeze Program, property
owners pay every year. The Task Force feels the Freeze Program is a good "safety net"so the City is not
taxing people out of their homes should assessments or tax rates increase. This could be a pretty long-
term program as people are living longer. Council Lady Henley advised the State used to say how high
the City could go and it is her understanding the State has no authority on the program as long as they
are not a Veteran and at the age of entry, which is sixty-five (65).
Councilman Wood asked how the participants qualify and Ms. Whitesell advised the Commissioner of the
Revenue qualifies the participants.
Council Lady Henley stated the process is a very extensive operation for the Commissioner of the
Revenue and from her conversations, each application is touched at a minimum offour(4) times.
Mayor asked City Manager Spore to provide his thoughts and recommendations.
February 10, 2015
-10-
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY and
DISABLED TASK FORCE
(Continued)
City Manager Spore advised the challenge comes no matter what decision is made with the City Council
being able to explain it to the public. He likes the Task Force recommendation, as it is a "true up". He
feels this recommendation is fair and those that participated in the past five (5)years reaped the benefit;
however, the program has to be brought back to its original intent.
Vice-Mayor Jones asked if those in the Deferral Program take out a "Reverse Mortgage". Mayor
Sessoms advised should the property owner choose to take out a Reverse Mortgage, the mortgage
company would pay all liens on the property and the property owners would no longer qualify for the
program based on their income. Vice Mayor Jones expressed concern as a Reverse Mortgage can
quickly eat up any equity in a home.
Councilman Wood asked if the majority of participants own their homes with no mortgage since under a
traditional mortgage, the taxes and insurance are escrowed. Commission of the Revenue stated he does
not have the information but can get gather it and send same to City Council. Mayor Sessoms agrees that
if there is a mortgage, then the taxes should be current. Ms. Whitesell stated from her understanding,
older mortgages may not have an escrow account. Mayor Sessoms stated with the vast majority of
mortgages, taxes and insurance is escrowed.
Councilman Wood feels the Deferral Program provides the best "safety net". Mayor Sessoms agrees and
stated it helps citizens.
Council Lady Ross-Hammond asked the Commissioner of the Revenue to explain how someone qualifies
for this Program. Mr. Kellam advised his office is 2/3 of the way thru a tri-annual review. Mr. Kellam
feels the City Council and the Task Force deserve great credit for, quite frankly, the "earnest" review of
this program. The City Manager's suggestion to go to the "true-up" numbers — that decision is very
defendable,fair-minded and responsible. Mr. Kellam stated Council Lady Henley's suggestions looks at
something that is not an abrupt change but a deliberate change. The City has to get control of this
program, be fair and keep as many people in the program as possible. The Deferral and Freeze
Programs has been nominally used over the years because the City Council has provided such a generous
exemption option. Mr. Kellam suggests City Council consider the Deferral and/or the Freeze Programs,
but, at least, the Deferral Program for the next few years. Over the past eight (8)yeas, 103 participated
in the Deferral Program with only thirteen (13)participants this year. Mr. Kellam does not think there
will be a mass exodus to the Deferral Program even though there appears to be approximately 1,400
property owners that could opt into the Deferral Program, but that does not guarantee that decision. The
February 10, 2015
-11-
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY and
DISABLED TASK FORCE
(Continued)
individuals that are dealing with this issue are part of a generation that is very prideful. They pride
themselves on paying their bills, as best they can, not wanting to pass on debt to their children. The
Deferral gives them a "net"and allows the City to collect the taxes eventually.
Councilman Davenport asked if the City continued the Deferral Program and there was a large increase,
could the City Council review it next year or wait three (3)years. Mr. Kellam advised he could provide a
report next year.
Mayor Sessoms suggests Slide 6 be amended to include the Deferral Program. Mayor Sessoms asked if
anyone objected to scheduling a Public Hearing for next Tuesday to give the citizens an opportunity to
voice their opinions. Hearing no objections, Mayor Sessoms asked that a Public Hearing be placed on
the City Council's February 17, 2015, Agenda.
Councilman Wood advised he is leaning towards the City Manager's recommendation because the goal is
to impact the least number of citizens. This recommendation basically, according to calculations, allows
that citizens may be shifted around but everyone would still quali. Should the 203 no longer qualms
under slide 6 be allowed to go into Deferral Program., he would be agreeable.
Council Lady Kane feels the total number impacted is less in Slide 6. The Task Force recommendation
impacts less on the citizens that need the program the most.
Councilman Wood asked if the Deferral Program is added to Slide 6, what would be the impact on the
amount of savings. Currently, Slide 6 estimates $2.9-Million in savings and if that amount is greatly
reduced, he suggests the City Council consider another recommendation.
Mr. Spore advised whether City Council adopts the recommendation of the Task force or Slide 6, the cap
at the Median Household Income is a good idea in terms of fairness to working families that are
struggling and that is defendable. Mr. Spore also suggested eliminating the automatic adjustment feature
to keep this situation from happening again. Mr. Spore asked City Council if possible to provide a
decision by March 3rd in order to prepare an accurate proposed Budget for FY2015/2016.
Mayor Sessoms thanked everyone for this thoughtful discussion.
Mayor Sessoms advised he will be out of the Country with his family next week. This trip was planned
when City Council met on the 2nd and 4d' Tuesdays.
February 10, 2015
that follows illustrates how the possible changes to the program might affect the current participants.
Key in this illustration is the assumption that participants would still be able to get some level of tax
relief, although it may not be the same as the level of tax relief they are currently receiving.
Changes to Income Thresholds:
The Taskforce discussed various options to adjust the income thresholds of the program (these are
shown in the appendix section of this report).They felt that truing up the current income thresholds
based on the decreases in home value was the most appropriate.The Taskforce concluded that
adjusting the maximum income threshold for 100%exemption to the level it would have been had the
decline in home values been taken into account and then adjust remaining levels of the program upward
from that amount by$3,000 would true-up the program and put it on a more sustainable path while
minimizing the impact to current participants.
Current Income Current Proposed
Income Limits Thresholds Participants jj Proposed Participants
100% Exemption $0-$48,009 5,722 $0—$38,668 4,083
80% Exemption $48,009- $52,188 484 $38,669—$41,668 446
60% Exemption $52,188-$56,367 428 $41,669—$44,668 463
40% Exemption $56,367-$60,546 350 $44,669—$47,668 480
20% Exemption $60,546- $64,675 206 ! $47,669-$50,668 375
Freeze Program $0-$68,293 46 $0-$68,293 1,355
Deferral Program $0 $68,29313 Not offered
Adjusting the income thresholds bases to the limits illustrated above, the program cost would reduce by
approximately$3.3 million. 1,355 individuals, due to their income would have to move to the Freeze
program (the 13 in the Deferral Program would also have to move to one of the other programs.). Under
this option,the number of participants in the 100%exemption level would decrease by 1,639 but they
would move to other levels in the Exemption Program or into the Freeze Program.
12
Assumptions for the following analysis:
• All thresholds are set against the median household income as reported by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis or$62,855 for 2013 which is the most recent year available.
• The income thresholds are set$3,000 apart, with the exception of scenario 6 which is set$7,856
apart.
• The figures citing a "home value cap" assume the program will apply to the first$247,200 of the
home's value. Homes assessed above this cap would be responsible for the remaining taxes
without reduction.
• The net worth of$350,000 remains the same as the current program (excludes the home and 10
acres of land).
• The Freeze and Deferral Programs are eliminated.
1. Income Thresholds at 50%of Median Household Income ($62,855)
Income Limits Current Income Current Pro•osed Proposed
Thresholds Partici•ants Partici•ants
100%Exemption $0-$48,009 5,722 $0-$31,428 2,913
80%Exemption $48,009- $52,188 484 $31,429-$34,428 493
60%Exemptio $52,188-$56,367 428 $34,429-$37,428 497
40%Exemption $56,367 - $60,546 350 $37,429-$40,428 435
20%Exemption= : $60,546-$64,675 206 $40,429-$43,428 476
Freeze Program $0-$68,293 46 Not offered 0
Deferral Program $0- $68,293 13 Not offered 0
Total Participants ' 7,190 4,814
Savings from changing the thresholds to 50%of median household income is$5.6 million. If combined
with capping the home value to$247,200 the savings would be$6.1 million. 2,376 participants would no
longer qualify for the tax relief program.
2. Income Thresholds at 55%of Median Household Income ($62,855)
Income Limits Current Income Current Propose. " Proposed
Partici Partici• -
100%Exemption 4 $0-$48,009 5,722 $0-$34,570 3,435
80%Exemption $48,009- $52,188 484 $34,571-$37,570 488
60%Exemptio $52,188- $56,367 428 $37,571-$40,570 438
40%Exemptio a $56,367-$60,546 350 $40,571-$43,570 471
20%Exemption `• $60,546-$64,675 206 $43,571 -$46,570 469
Freeze Program $0-$68,293 46 Not offered 0
Deferral Program;` $0-$68,293 13 Not offered 0
Total Participants 7,190 5,301
Savings from changing the thresholds to 55%of median household income is$4.6 million. If combined
with capping the home value to $247,200 the savings would be $5.2 million. 1,889 participants would no
longer qualify for the tax relief program.
3. Income Thresholds at 60%of Median Household Income ($62,855)
Income Limits Current Income Current Proposed Proposed
Thresholds rtici•ants Participants
100%Exemption $0-$48,009 5,722 $0-$37,713 3,940
80%Exemption $48,009 -$52,188 484 $37,714-$40,713 437
60%Exemptio '` $52,188-$56,367 428 $40,714-$43,713 475
40%Exemption $56,367-$60,546 350 $43,714-$46,713 469
20%Exemption $60,546-$64,675 206 $46,714-$49,713 429
Freeze Program $0-$68,293 46 Not offered 0
Deferral Program $0-$68,293 13 Not offered 0
Total Participants 7,190 5,750
Savings from changing the thresholds to 60%of median household income is$3.6 million. If combined
with capping the home value to$247,200 the savings would be$4.3 million. 1,440 participants would no
longer qualify for the tax relief program.
4. Income Thresholds at 70%of Median Household Income ($62,855)
Income Limits Current Income Current •ropose• Proposed
Partici Particip.
100%Exemption r' $0-$48,009 5,722 $0-$43,999 4,889
80%Exemptio $48,009 -$52,188 484 $44,000-$46,999 494
60%Exemption $52,188-$56,367 428 $47,000-$49,999 397
40%Exemption $56,367-$60,546 350 $50,000-$52,999 325
20%Exemption $60,546-$64,675 206 $53,000-$55,999 323
Freeze Program $0-$68,293 46 Not offered 0
Deferral Program $0-$68,293 13 Not offered 0
Total Participants 7,190 6,428
Savings from changing the thresholds to 70%of median household income is$1.8 million. If combined
with capping the home value to$247,200 the savings would be $2.8 million. 762 participants would no
longer qualify for the tax relief program.
5. Income Thresholds at 80%of Median Household Income ($62,855)
Income Limits Current Income Current Proposed Proposed
esholds Partici'ants Participants
100%Exemption ' $0-$48,009 5,722 $0-$50,284 5,816
80%Exemption ' $48,009- $52,188 484 $50,285-$53,284 319
60%Exemption $52,188- $56,367 428 $53,285-$56,284 316
40%Exemption $56,367 -$60,546 350 $56,285-$59,284 263
20%Exemption $60,546-$64,675 206 $59,285- $62,284 226
Freeze Program``` $0- $68,293 46 Not offered 0
Deferral Program $0-$68,293 13 Not offered 0
Total Participants 7,190 6,940
Note that in this scenario,the 100%exemption threshold is higher than the current program
allowing more participants to qualify for a full exemption to their tax bill.The reduction of 250
participants from the program results from the 60%exemption,40%exemption and 20%exemption
levels being slightly lower than the current levels. Savings from changing the thresholds to 80%of
the median household income would be $310,000. If combined with capping the home value to
$247,200,the savings would be $1.4 million.
6. Income thresholds are set at a maximum value for 100%exemption at 50%of the median household
income and for 20%at the median household value ($62,855). Threshold in between adjust by
$7,856.
me "tii� s °` ur`ren °ncornea r=n" .rOposed • Proposed
100%Exemption $0-$48,009 5,722 $0—$31,428 2,913
80%Exemption $48,009-$52,188 484 $31,429—$39,285 1,273
60%Exemption `` $52,188-$56,367 428 $39,286—$47,142 1,218
40%Exemption $56,367- $60,546 350 $47,143—$54,999 923
20%Exemption I $60,546-$64,675 206 $55,000-$62,855 660
Freeze Program f' $0-$68,293 46 Not offered 0
Deferral Program $0-$68,293 13 Not offered 0
Total Participants 7,190 6,987
Savings from changing the thresholds the maximum income being the median household income
($62,855) and the maximum income for 100%relief being 50%of that is$2.9 million. If combined with
capping the home value to$247,200 the savings would be$3.4 million. 203 participants would no longer
qualify for the tax relief program if the Freeze and Deferral Programs are eliminated.
-12-
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
LYNNHAVEN AQUACULTURE CENTER
PROCESS
5:06 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms advised Councilman Moss'requested this item be removed from the Agenda since he was
unable to attend.
February 10, 2015
-13-
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 5:07 P.M.
Amanda Finley-Barnes, CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-
'uth Hodges F aser, MMC
City Clerk
February 10, 2015