SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 FORMAL SESSION MINUTES a
k .
r
iaapIV
OF UR O %.(4
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
September 3, 2019
Mayor Robert M. Dyer called to order the CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFINGS in in the City Council
Conference Room, Tuesday, September 3, 2019, at 2:30 P.M
Council Members Present:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R.Rouse, Guy K Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
2
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
DRAFT 2020 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
ITEM#69544
2:31 P.M.
Mayor Dyer welcomed Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager for Government and Military
Affairs. Mr. Matthias expressed his appreciation to City Council for their continued support:
DRAFT LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2020 SESSION
Presented to Virginia Beach City Council
September 3, 2019
Presented By.Robert Matthias
Here are the Long-Term Policy Positions:
LONG-TERM POLICY POSITIONS 2
VOTING RIGHTS
2 SOLUTION TO COASTAL FLOODING, REGIONAL
GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE
HIGH SPEED RAIL
4. MENHADEN FISHING REGULATION
5 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC NEED
6. EXPANSION OF THE VIRGINIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
r. FULL FUNDING TO THE STEP-VA PROGRAM
a COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COMMUNICATIONS TAX
UPDATE
September 3, 2019
3
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
DRAFT 2020 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
ITEM#69544
(Continued)
Here are the New Initiatives:
NEW INITIATIVES 3
HEART DISEASE PRESUMPTION FOR SALARIED EMS PERSONNEL
1c. EQUALIZE "HOUSE BILL 599" FUNDING
Sponsored by Vice-.
ti RESIGN TO RUN FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL OTHER THAN MAYOR
3porrstdret by ti a y
PAYMENTS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR CERTAIN
COURSES TAKEN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Here is an overview of the Adoption Schedule:
ADOPTION SCHEDULE 4
Friday,August 30-First Draft of Legislative Agenda Provided to
City Council in your Friday Package
Tuesday, September 3-Briefing to City Council
Tuesday, October 1 -Public Hearing on Legislative Agenda
Tuesday,October 15-Final Adoption by City Council
Wednesday, January 8-First Day of 2020 General Assembly
Session
September 3, 2019
4
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
DRAFT 2020 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
ITEM#69544
(Continued)
Here is the 2020 General Assembly Schedule:
2020 GENERAL ASSEMBLY SCHEDULE 5
November 18, 2019 — Pre-filing Begins
January 8, 2020 — 2020 Session Begins
March 7, 2020 — Session Ends
6
DISCUSSION
AND THANK YOU!
Mayor Dyer expressed his appreciation to Mr. Matthias for the presentation.
September 3, 2019
5
ADD ON
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
HURRICANE DORIAN- UPDATE
ITEM#69545
2:58 P.M.
Mayor Dyer welcomed Erin Sutton, Emergency Manager—Emergency Management. Ms. Sutton
expressed her appreciation to City Council for their continued support:
Hurricane Update
Erin Sutton,Emergency Manager
September 3,2019
Below is a map of the current location of Hurricane Dorian with expected impact to the City as early as
Friday at 8:00 A.M. Effects of the storm are dependent on the wind speed and direction it takes. The
current predictions are; 3-6 inches of rain, wind speeds between 35-45mph with gusts of 60-70 mph,
storm surge of three(3)feet or more and moderate to major coastal flooding:
Q Note:The cone contains the probable path of the storm center but does not show -
the size of the Storm-Hazardous Conditions can occur outside of the cone.;
vB AM Sun
SAMF
\8 AM Sat
35N .aim '._,0
6114 Wed
y Q
8 AM ihitt AMTue
25N , .,...
•
90W 85W ..SOW'x..,75W;--70W 65W 60W 55W 50W 45W
Hurricane Dorian Current information:x Forecast positions:
Tuesday Sepenrber 03.2019 Center localan 27.1 N 78.6 W 119Tropica:Cy,.-re 0 PosiPoteneal TC
11 AM EDT Advisory at Maim um sustained reed 110 mph Sustained romds D<39 mph
NWS National Humane Center Movement NW at 2 mph S 39.73 mph H 74.110 mph M>110 mph
Potential track area: Watches: Warnings: Current wind extent:
(:::,,Day I QDav 4.5 itncare hop Sim 11110w0cane imp Stm IllHwncane Trap Stm
September 3, 2019
6
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
HURRICANE DORIAN- UPDATE
ITEM#69545
(Continued)
Here are the Key Decision Points:
(4) Emergency Declaration
EOC Activation possibly Thursday(and(IC)
Pre-Storm Preparations in process
Keyr4 Shelter Discussion
Decision
Evacuation Possibility(zone A)
Points
G Resource Positioning
Damage Assessment
Debris Management
Mayor Dyer expressed his appreciation to Ms. Sutton for the presentation.
September 3, 2019
7
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
VB STRONG CENTER
ITEM#69546
3:15 P.M.
Mayor Dyer welcomed Danielle Progen, Emergency Planner—Emergency Management. Ms. Progen
expressed her appreciation to City Council for their continued support:
VB Strong Center
itt
Danielle Progen
Virginia Beach Office of Emergency Management
Here is an overview of the VB Strong Center:
What is the VB Strong Center?
Long-term recovery center to provide victims,their families,
first responders,and the community support through:
Traditional and non-traditional mental health services
Connections with community resources
- Education and awareness
Funded by the Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance
Program(AEAP)through the U.S. Department of Justice Office
for Victims of Crime
September 3, 2019
8
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
VB STRONG CENTER
ITEM#69546
(Continued)
The City has partnered with Sentara who will provide management and staff:
VB Strong Partnership
Sentara signed MOU and service provider agreement
with the City to manage and staff the Center
Ongoing coordination efforts between City and Sentara
staff continue through weekly committee meetings
City staff will work with Sentara to ensure the
effectiveness of services to victims
Here is the location:
VB Strong Location
The Center will be located in the Offices at Landstown
Commons off Princess Anne Rd.
The just under 7,000 sq ft space includes offices for
individual consultations along with a mix of small,
medium,and large group spaces.
September 3, 2019
9
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
VB STRONG CENTER
ITEM#69546
(Continued)
Here is an overview of VB Strong Programming:
VB Strong Programming
Long-term service provision includes:
Case management and service referral
Website and 24/7 crisis hotline
Mental health counseling
Facilitated gatherings and support groups
Alternative therapies
Support for trauma suffered by first responders
On-site child supervision for parents to utilize while receiving services
Services rendered at the Center are free of charge.
VB Strong Opening
Opening scheduled for October.
September 3, 2019
10
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
VB STRONG CENTER
ITEM#69546
(Continued)
Questions .
Mayor Dyer expressed his appreciation to Ms. Progen for the presentation.
September 3, 2019
11
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2O19 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
3:45 P.M.
Mayor Dyer welcomed Jeff Rodarmel, Risk Manager—Finance. Mr. Rodarmel expressed his
appreciation to City Council for their continued support:
3‘141A BE,4y-%
b oyez,
U. Eu
c��o• r::°�' Finance
Risk Management
FISCAL YEAR 2019
BRIEFING
The next several slides provide an overview of the Risk Management Division and Functions:
FY2019 Risk Management
Risk Management Division
• Division of Finance
• The City has been self-insured since 1976
• The Risk Management fund is an internal service fund
• Payments are charged back to individual departments based upon
exposure
• Serves as the internal insurance company for the City
• Purchases various insurances for all City owned real property
• Works with Occupational Health and Safety on Enterprise Risk
Management
September 3, 2019
12
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2019 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
(Continued)
FY2019 Risk Management
Risk Division Functions
• Oversight of Third Party Administrator handling Workers'
Compensation claims
• Manage and processes Auto&General liability claims
• Administer vehicle titles
• Coordinate city-wide disaster recoveries
• Pursue Subrogation(financial recovery)from damages to City vehicles
or other property
3
FY2019 Risk Management
Insurance Policies
• Property
• $1 Billion in assets
• Excess Liability
• $2 Million Self Insured Retention
• Excess Workers'Compensation
• $1.25 Million Self Insured Retention
• Crime
• Fiduciary Liability
• Deferred Compensation
4
September 3, 2019
13
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2019 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
(Continued)
FY2019 Risk Management
Insurance Policies(continued)
• Hull&Marina
• Covers Boats&Public Marina's
• Medical Professional
• Human Services—Med/Nurse
• Aviation/UAV
• Equine
• Farmer's Market
• Cyber*NEW*
5
Here is a breakdown of Expenses for the FY2019 Risk Management Function:
Expenses of the FY2019 Risk
Management Function
(in Millions)
Total Expenses 15.1M•
General and
Auto Liability Administrative Costs
Claims 23% 8%
St.2M
Insurance. _ Workers'
Premiums compensation
18% claims 5t%
CEO
.WC .,e o,a ee parmenr:me.
by cove,Coe.expenses
^saw %.s w s cesee "'"a""" yew m"mna e000em�.
6
September 3, 2019
14
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2019 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
(Continued)
Here are the Payments by Cost Element:
FY2019 Workers' Compensation
Payments by Cost Element
Inactive
Active clnsctle'
4
$- S1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 T,c.isa-.rs
Active Inactive
Si Total 13,040,977 54,655,710
7
Here is the downward trend line of Worker's Compensation Claims for the last five (5)fiscal years:
FY2019 Workers' Compensation
Claims History FY15- FY19
$16
$14
$12 ._....._.
$10 32$ Claims from 531
$8 _
$6
$4
$2
50
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
#of New Claims in FY 1186 1066 1160 1164 1375
#of Claims Paid in FY 1369 1297 1165 1048 1355
Total Paid in FY 612,551,989 $10,749,469 $9,859,842 $7,648,700 $7,687,241
e
September 3, 2019
15
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2019 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
(Continued)
As of today, there have been 440 claims submitted from the May 31'tragedy. Corvel, the City's Third
Party Administrator, will calculate expenses based on one event with a total cost of$1.25-Million versus
$1.25-Million for each claim:
FY2019 Workers' Compensation
5/31 Event
• To date,there have been 440 reported claims
• Over 1/4 of a years workload from one event
• The City has stop gap insurance
• The insurance company sees this as one event
• They will apply one self insured retention for the event and not per employee
• Corvel,the City's Third Party Administrator is handling those claims with Risk
Management oversight
• Corvel has been able to review all reported claims to date
• Additional assistance through Antiterrorism&Emergency Assistance Program
(AEAP)grant
.168Z3..1,_14..r.,6 is*.a3,n v....a_u.9i+4
9
Here is an overview of Payments by Top 10 Departments:
FY2019 Workers' Compensation
Payments by Top 10 Departments
Department FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
Police $ 4,050,268 $ 3,719,395 $ 3,782,284 $ 3,071,449 $2,613,177
Public Works 1,633,722 1,578,010 1,305,410 1,325,739 1,108,050
Fire 2,920,448 1,488,519 1,324,482 887,816 1,025,555
Sheriff 863,230 909,318 978,718 570,360 688,012
Public Utilities 617,959 629,921 510,306 295,343 612,471
Human Services 787,186 571,652 629,436 447,531 540,087
Parks&Recreation 998,002 1,132,819 673,983 541,415 469,725
EMS 333,929 311,107 325,898 212,391 162,522
Museums&Aquariums 84,124 29,793 55,985 8,419 126,159
Housing&Neighborhood Day 35,915 93,370 9,373 68,807 76,381
Remaining Departments 214,081 285,566 263,966 219,430 265,101
Total $12,538,864 $10,749,469 $9,859,842 $7,648,700 $7,687,241
,�.c^cr ,..la. _-.._, ,. •The N39[op]0 total makes up 9]%o/the departnent wide cast
September 3, 2019
16
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2019 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
(Continued)
Here is an overview of paid Auto/General Liability Claims:
FY2019 Risk Management
Auto/General Liability Claims
1.800,000
1,600,000
I 1.400,000
S 1,100,000
ig 1,000,000
• 800,000
9.• 600,000
4, 400,000
200,000
Economic Ponce Public Utilities Public Works Parks end EMS Remaining
Development Recreation Departments
n$Total Paid 1,689,6% 1,092,674 236,931 205,328 52,674 48,519 161,801
•of Claims 1 42 25 49 31 7 22
Here are the number of Auto & General Liability claims for FY2019:
FY2019 Auto & General Liability
Total Claims Total Paid
104,35% •Auto Liability - Auto Liability
/9D,65% •General Liability General Liability
September 3, 2019
17
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2019 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
(Continued)
Here is an overview of the Risk Management Fund History:
FY2019 Risk Management
Fund History
ACCRUED Increase/
FISCAL YEAR ENDING NET %CASH TO
'actuary year ACTUARIAL AVAILABLE CASH pOSTRON (Decrease) ���,
LIABILITY in Net Position
2008 $17,642,752 $ 5,507,393 $(12,732,220) $ 700,810 31.22%
2009 $19,338,015 $ 6,232,378 $(13,511,281) $ (779,061) 32.23%
2010 $24,672,106 $ 6,704,262 $(18,327,228) $(4,815,947) 27.17%
2011* $24,217,251 $ 13,653,705 $(10,807,857) $7,519,371 56.38%
2012 $23,584,444 $ 12,060,174 $(12,505,425) $(1,697,568) 51.14%
2013* $25,462,274 $ 10,494,027 $(15,610,324) $(3,104,899) 41.21%
2014 $25,462,274 $ 6,905,910 $(19,216,625) $(3,606,301) 27.12%
2015* $30,857,594 $ 8,390,709 $(23,292,837) $(4,076,212) 27.19%
2016 $31,100,210 $ 9,717,902 $(22,374,235) $ 918,602 31.25%
2017* $37,732,500 $ 15,996,234 $(22,232,614) $ 141,621 42.39%
2018 $40,902,030 $23,154,879 $(18,284,316) $ 3,948,299 56.61%
2019* $41,453,521 $30,011,077 $(11,688,229) $ 6,596,087 72.40%
2019 figures are unaudited numbers,subject to change.Amounts updated 8/07/19.
t3
Here are a few of the ways Risk Management is working to manage costs:
FY2019 Risk Management
What Are We Doing To Manage Costs?
• Use of Enterprise Risk Management to effectively utilize resources
and expenses properly on each claim
• HB 378-Directs the Workers'Compensation Commission to set a
fee schedule to medical treatment,effective January 1,2018.
• Proactive measures such as the Return-To-Work Program
• Cost Allocation Model
• Detailed training for larger departments
• Regular claims sessions
• Workplace safety and employee health initiatives
t4
September 3, 2019
18
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
FY2019 RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ITEM#69547
(Continued)
Questions
yam;
Mayor Dyer expressed his appreciation to Mr. Rodarmel for the presentation.
September 3, 2019
19
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
CITY MANAGER SELECTION APPOINTMENT PROCESS
ITEM#69548
4:11 P.M.
Mayor Dyer welcomed Regina Hillard, Director — Human Resources. Ms. Hillard expressed her
appreciation to City Council for their continued support and provided information used in the 2015 City
Manager recruitment and selection process:
2015 City Manager
Recruitment
September 3,2019
Here are the Recruitment Process Components:
2015 City Manager Recruitment
Process
Recruitment Process Components
• Solicitation for Executive Recruiter
• Feedback Process
• Interview/Selection Timeframes
September 3, 2019
20
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
CITY MANAGER SELECTION APPOINTMENT PROCESS
ITEM#69548
(Continued)
Waters and Company was selected as the Executive Recruiter in 2015:
2015 City Manager Recruitment
Process
Solicitation for Executive Recruiter
• Request for Quotes advertised July 16—July 24,2015
• Five quotes received and evaluated
• Selected firm began work August 15,2015
The next three(3)slides provide an overview of the extensive Feedback Process which included employee
and citizen engagement:
2015 City Manager Recruitment
Process
Feedback Process
• Mayor meetings with Employee Focus Groups
• Six focus groups
• Five employee groups(20 per group)
• One group consisted of Directors/Constitutional Officers
• 96 employees provided input
• Coordinated by Human Resources/Member Communications
• Facilitated by the Mayor
• All meetings held between September 11 and October 2, [ 4
2015 J
September 3, 2019
21
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
CITY MANAGER SELECTION APPOINTMENT PROCESS
ITEM#69548
(Continued)
2015 City Manager Recruitment
Process
Feedback Process
• Four Town Hall Meetings
• Meetings coordinated by City Council Members
• Most facilitated by executive recruiter firm
• Approximately 100 citizens(total)attended
• All meetings held between September 16 and September 24,
2015
2015 City Manager Recruitment
Process
Feedback Process
• Virtual Town Hall
• Coordinated by Communications Office
• 68 comments were provided
Open from September 10—30,2015
September 3, 2019
22
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
CITY MANAGER SELECTION APPOINTMENT PROCESS
ITEM#69548
(Continued)
Twenty-seven (27)applications were received with seven (7) chosen to interview:
2015 City Manager Recruitment
Process
Interview/Selection Timeframes
• Position advertised through November 10,2015
• Interviews conducted early through mid December
• City Council voted on selection January 26,2016
Council Members identified the following to consider in the selection process:
• Using a d fferent recruitment company
• More focus groups/town hall meetings to be held in each district with employees, citizens and key
stake holders
• Include national,private sector and local citizens in search
• Include more use of social media such as Facebook Live
• City Council to define the criteria in the RFP
• City Council to score all applications to determine who is interviewed
Mayor Dyer expressed his appreciation to Ms. Hillard and Council Members for the discussion and
requested to have a draft of the RFP made available at the City Council Retreat on September 10, 2019,
to continue discussion.
September 3, 2019
23
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
ITEM#69549
4:34 P.M.
Council Member Moss advised the Virginia Beach Community Development Corporation (VBCDC)
membership is below quorum. Council Member Moss requested Council Members assist in finding
citizens who would like to serve on the VBCDC, adding it has been challenging given the amount of work
performed by the board. Council Member Moss suggested to have City employees temporarily augment
the board so the VBCDC can conduct formal meetings and official business.
September 3, 2019
24
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
ITEM#69550
4:35 P.M.
Council Member Abbott advised Bird Scooter Company will have all scooters off the street tomorrow in
preparation for the storm.
September 3, 2019
25
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
ITEM#69551
(Continued)
Council Member Henley distributed a draft Ordinance pertaining to the Boards and Commissions
appointment process, attached hereto and made a part of the record. Council Member Henley advised the
proposed appointment process will be a two-step process where the citizen is nominated during the
Executive/Closed Session Meeting and then appointed at the next Formal Session Meeting. Council
Member Henley advised the proposed process would allow Council Members time to review the required
Talent Bank Application, background and experience of the applicant.
September 3, 2019
REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER HENLEY
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION
2 2-3 REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS
3 AND COMMISSIONS
4
5 Sec. 2-3. - Limitation on terms of members of boards and commissions;
6 for-appointment of such members.
7
8 (a) Any person appointed to a board or commission of the city shall be limited to:
9 (1) Eight (8) consecutive one-year terms.
10 (2) Four (4) consecutive two-year terms.
11 (3) Three (3) consecutive three-year terms.
12 (4) Two (2) consecutive four-year terms.
13 (5) Two (2) consecutive five-year terms.
14
15 The council shall limit its selections to those persons who have submitted applications
16 on forms approved by the council and on file with the city clerk. Each member of the
17 council may review the applications fifteen (15) days prior to the appointment.
18
19 Any candidate for appointment shall be publicly nominated during a formal Council
20 meeting, and the candidate's name shall be added to the agenda for an appointment vote
21 during a subsequent meeting.
22
23 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) above, city council may, by an
24 affirmative vote of a majority of all of the councilmembers, reappoint a person to an
25 additional term beyond that permitted by subsection (a) when, by virtue of the unique
26 qualifications of the position or other extenuating circumstances, doing so would
27 serve the best interests of the city.
28
29 (c) Term limits shall not apply to appointees of the board of building code appeals. The
30 members of each division of the board of building code appeals shall serve at the
31 pleasure of city council.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day
of , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's Office
CA 14830
R-1
September 3, 2019
26
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
ITEM#69552
(Continued)
Council Member Moss advised he reviewed the Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of Wireless
Service Authority and distributed his letter with comments and recommendations,attached hereto and made
a part of the record. Council Member Moss requested Council Members review and provide feedback.
September 3, 2019
4�1NIA BFAc�ti
v City<47
®f Virginia Beach
Lyc �. . 4.
8 Up OUR NA�0*
VBgov.com
JCOUNCIILLMAN O AT-LARGE HN MSS September 3, 2019 PHONE
MOSSJOHNOCOX.NET
HONORABLE MAYOR
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
Dear Colleagues,
Included with this letter are comments and recommendations based on my assessment of the
proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of Wireless Service Authority, as briefed to
us at the Tuesday, August 20, 2019 City Council Meeting. If you have not already reviewed the
proposed agreement, I highly recommend you take the time to give it a close look As it is written
I cannot support it, nor can I recommend it to the residents we serve. The document, as written,
will invite a petition for a referendum. I find it hard to believe that our peers on other City
Councils would accept this proposal upon close examination.
I will be sharing my comments with the Council Members on the City Councils that are included
in the proposal to be members. Once we go down this road a check value closes; therefore, we
cannot assume goodness. We have to anticipate the actions we want to preclude and be clear
about creating accountability to the public. As well, we need to explicitly state what the
Authority cannot do, and if a power or purpose is not explicitly authorized then it is prohibited
We all too often get briefs and proposals from staff, but never take sufficient time to truly vet
them and come to a decision. Creation of any Authority is serious business and deserves robust
vetting. Many of my comments and recommendations are applicable to any Authority created
under the enabling state statue. As we contemplate a CDA for the Dome Site, the attached
assessment provides insight into items we need to consider.
Your time and effort in consideration of my thoughts being shared here and in the assessment is
appreciated I am looking for a discussion in the near future on this document so Council, as a
body, can communicate direction to the staff regarding the changes required to proceed to
public comment. The document as presented to us invites organized effort to require a
referendum, and that should not be our objective.
Sincerely,
j 14_ ti
John D. Moss
4109 RICHARDSON ROAD.VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 23455
September 3,2019
Page 2
Cc:
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
FOIA Officer
Virginia Beach City Council Member John D.Moss,At-Large Comments and Recommendations
On the Proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority
Briefed to City Council on 20 August 2019
1 City of Virginia Beach,Virginia Council Member John Moss's,At-large,comments on the draft
2 Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority,briefed to the Virginia Beach
3 City Council on Tuesday,August 16, 2019 in its informal session and transmitted to City Council by way
4 of a forwarding letter from the Virginia Beach City Manager,Mr.Dave Hansen,on 16 August 2019 with
5 the subject: Regional Broadband Initiative Updated. From here on the Comprehensive Agreement for
6 Formation of a Wireless Service Authority will be referred to as the"Document"and the Wireless Service
7 Authority here on will be referred to as the"Authority."
8
9 Comment 1: The document as provided was not annotated or watermarked as"Draft". The omission
10 constitutes a material representation flaw and unintentionally at best represents that the drafting staff sees
11 the Document as all but adopted. The latter is a poor assumption indeed.
12 Comment 1 Recommendation: All versions of this of the Document should carry a watermark of Draft
13 until such time as at least for the purposes of Virginia Beach,until the Virginia Beach City Council has
14 agreed that its content is ready for publishing for Virginia Beach residents to review.
15 Comment 2: The document was not provided electronically in Word to permit elected officials to
16 comment and suggest edits in track changes and thus creating a disincentive for elected leaders and the
17 later the public to seriously review the document.
18 Comment 2 Recommendation: The document should be provided to each proposed member
19 municipality in Word electronically so that council members can use track changes to document their
20 concerns and proposed changes.
21 Comment 3(General Comments):
22 1. The document must permit any participating locality to withdraw from the authority unilaterally
23 subject to assuming or otherwise as to specified liquidating debt obligations incurred while a
24 member of the authority.
25 a. As written the Document requires a joining member of their authority to surrender its
26 sovereignty to the Authority
27 2. It needs to be explicitly stated in the Document that the Authority does not possess the power of
28 eminent domain and hold no ownership title to any land parcel in a member municipality without
29 the approval of said municipal without a public vote by said municipality elected governing body.
30 a. The Act enabling the Authority does not preclude the Authority from having the power of
31 eminent domain,and it is unclear if the proposed Authority is approved that it could not
32 independently modify its Articles to include the power of eminent domain. Therefore,
33 the Articles need to specifically state that the Board of Directors does not possess the
34 authority to initiate,adopt or otherwise pursue obtaining the power eminent domain.
35 Furthermore, shall any member or alternate to the Board of Directors or the Board of
36 Directors or employees of the Authority initiate, adopt,or otherwise pursue obtaining the
37 power of eminent domain any resident of legal age in any municipality that is a member
38 of the Authority upon showing evidence of the same shall have standing to seek an
39 judicial injunction against the member or the Board of Directors to cease and desist such
40 activities. If an injunction is issued and not complied with the judge issuing the
41 injunction shall without discretion issue a judicial order that removes the member or
42 members to include alternates in violation of the issued injunction.
1
Virginia Beach City Council Member John D.Moss,At-Large Comments and Recommendations
On the Proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority
Briefed to City Council on 20 August 2019
43 i. Restrictions without sanctions and without providing standing to residents to seek
44 the imposition of sanctions are hollow.
45 3. The Document needs to explicitly state that primary and alternate voting member of the Authority
46 for each member must be an elected official and must be appointed by a public vote by their
47 respective governing body of which they are a member.
48 4. The Document needs to explicitly state that only a municipality can be a member of the
49 Authority.
50 5. The powers of the Authority to adopt revenue measures need to be explicitly enumerated. If the
51 authority has no authority to levy fees,or other revenue earning activities that should be explicitly
52 stated in the Document. Any opportunity for ambiguity must be eliminated.
53 6. The Authority shall have no authority to require annual revenues/funding from a locality that it
54 does not agree to,except for its share of debt service that has been incurred while a locality has
55 been a member.
56 7. It shall take a unanimous vote of the Authority to authorize and issue bonded debt instruments to
57 include leases greater than three years to include lease options.
58 8. The Authority contrary to page 4 Article II—Initial Projects 2.,the Authority shall not have the
59 power to construct projects in a member's locality with that member's approval of the governing
60 body. Section/paragraph 2 as written makes the decisions of the Authority superior to that of the
61 member locality, and thus represents a material diminishment of that locality's sovereignty under
62 its Charter that belongs to the people not the governing body.
63 a. If this section holds,then the agreement must require a referendum to be ratified.
64 Only voters have the right to decide to diminish their sovereignty to a non-elected
65 regional authority.
66 b. There is an ambiguity between this section and Article IV—Legal Status of the Authority
67 2. Subject to Police Power on page 4.
68 9. The Chairman shall be able to call a"Special Meeting"upon a twenty-four hour notice to the
69 members, notification of all established local area television stations, established local and
70 electronic news services,established local area newspapers,the City Clerks of all the member
71 municipalities,and the web site and social media forums maintained by the Authority,in addition
72 to all members and alternates of the Authority. The notification shall contain the scope and
73 purpose of the meeting and the Authority shall not consider any other business other than what is
74 prescribed in the Special Meeting notice.
75 10. Any modification of the Articles as specified in the Comprehensive Agreement at the time of its
76 initial adoption cannot be change without going through the entire process as provided by Chapter
77 54.1 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended to include public's right to initiate a
78 qualifying petition for a referendum.
79 11. Revenue requirements adopted by the Board of Directors for allocation to the Board subject to
80 other comments and recommendations made shall not be determined on a per capita or a per land
81 unit of measure of any kind.
82 12. Modification of the Agreement post its initial adoption that change representation on the Board of
83 Directions other than one-vote per member as established in the initial agreement shall require a
84 unanimous vote by all members of the Board of Directors and such a vote shall be preceded by 30
85 day publicly published notice and a public hearing ten days prior to a vote.
86 13. The authority within twelve months of operation shall have establish an online checkbook that
87 enables the public by signing into the Authority's accounting system to see all invoices,contracts,
88 and disbursements made by the Authority. All audits conducted on the Authority's finance and
2
Virginia Beach City Council Member John D. Moss,At-Large Comments and Recommendations
On the Proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority
Briefed to City Council on 20 August 2019
89 accounting system shall be briefed to the Authority's Board of Directors in a public session and
90 shall be available and accessible to the public on-line within ten-working days of the audits
91 completion or day before the Board of Directors of the Authority is briefed.
92 Comment 4: Page 2—Article I Creation and Initial Structure Section 1.Procedure c. The syntax
93 constructing this referenced item under Article 1 —Creation and Initial Structure requires substantial
94 modification to give operational meaning to the power granted to the voters of a given municipality the
95 power to preclude their participation in the Authority.
96 Comment 4 Recommendation: The effective date of any given governing body's affirmative vote to
97 become a member shall not be effective for ninety days from the date of their vote unless the voters
98 pursuant to applicable submit a petition of 10%of the voters of that locality petition the Circuit Court for
99 such jurisdiction for a writ of election to hold a referendum on forming the Authority. The ninety-day
100 delay in effective date enables registered voters of a given locality meaningful time to exercise the power
101 granted to them under the statue enabling the creation of the Authority.
102 Comment 5: Page 3—Article I Creation and Initial Structure Section 2 Anticipated Date of Creation.
103 This entire paragraph needs to be restructured to align with the intent of remarks made in Comment 4 and
104 Comment 4 Recommendations.
105 Comment 5 Recommendation: Completely rewrite this paragraph and resubmit for review.The date
106 November 1,2019 needs to be stricken and brought into alignment with recommendations made under
107 General Comments of this documents on pages 1 and 2 as applicable.
108 Comment 6: Page 3. See Comment 3—General Comments pages 1 and 2 of this document.
109 Comment 6 Recommendations: Incorporate the necessary edits to incorporate the applicable
110 recommendations made under Comment 3 —General Comments of this document on pages 1 and 2.
111 Comment 7: Page 5 Article IV—Legal Status of the Authority 5. Freedom of Information,etc. is not
112 explicit enough to establish unambiguously the Authority's compliance requirements.
113 Comment 7 Recommendation: The Authority shall maintain all their documents in electronic mediums
114 that enable all documentation not exempted from the Commonwealth's Freedom of Information Act or
115 otherwise required to be made public by any other statue or regulation of the Commonwealth or judicial
116 precedent to be posted in any means to allow direct access by the public via the web or in-person. The
117 Director of the Authority shall be required to file a statement of Economic Interests as required by elected
118 officials serving as voting members of the Authority. Minutes of all meetings subject to the
119 Commonwealth's open meeting statue shall be made available to the public and posted to the web within
120 ten working days. Furthermore,all meetings of the Authority subject to the open meetings act shall be
121 live streamed and shall be stored for a period for four years in a manner that provides for direct and
122 unfiltered access by the public.
123 Comment 8: Page 3 -Article I—Creation and Initial Structure Section 2.Anticipated Date of Creation.
124 The last sentence that begins"In the event of a referendum..."and end"... of the concurrent
125 Resolutions."as a bias to the Authority creations versus a bias to preserving the right to a referendum
126 reserved to and preserved for the voters of each municipality by the State Statue enabling the creation of
127 the authority.
3
Virginia Beach City Council Member John D.Moss,At-Large Comments and Recommendations
On the Proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority
Briefed to City Council on 20 August 2019
128 Comment 8 Recommendation: The last sentence should be modified to read-No municipality
129 anticipated to be a member and holding a public hearing on the creation of the referenced authority after
130 duly publishing the proposed articles of the Comprehensive Agreement for the Formation of a Wireless
131 Service Authority and proposed adopting Resolution by the respective named municipality of the
132 Agreement shall not vote to adopt their published Resolution and published agreement until after 120
133 days after that proposed municipality's named in the Agreement date of their public hearing. The 120 day
134 pause between a given municipality's public hearing as required by the applicable state statue(Chapter
135 54.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended)and the formal vote to adopt or reject the published
136 Agreement and Resolution of adoption provides the voters of a given municipality a meaningful time to
137 consider whether to initiate a petition and to collect the required percentage of signatures as required by
138 the applicable status.
139 Comment 9: Page 3 -Article I—Creation and Initial Structure Section 4.Authority of the Board of
140 Directors to Provide for Structure and Employees. This section provides no maximum of total annual
141 revenues that may be expended on compensation nor the maximum annual salary that may be paid nor the
142 maximum total compensation that may be paid to an employee nor does it preclude members and
143 alternates from receiving compensation. The Section provides no parameters on what constitutes a
144 condition that would qualify contracting for services with an entity other than another governmental entity
145 and specifies no requirement that the Board publicly by a formal vote after a public hearing adopt a
146 criterion and a process for making that determination.
147 Comment 9 Recommendation: No employee of the Authority shall receive an annual salary excess of
148 Cabinet Offices of the Federal Government directly appointed by the President of the United States,
149 currently$210,700,and no employee shall receive a total annual compensation directly payable to
150 employee or on behalf of the employee not exclusively to include car allowances,payments to retirement
151 accounts,performance bonuses,retention bonuses, overtime,etc. in excess of one-hundred and fifteen
152 percent of the annual salary cap previously defined.
153 All employees shall be hired with a defined contribution pension plan where the Authority shall make a
154 three percent contribution without an employee match and shall match dollar for dollar contribution by
155 the employee up to five percent of an employee's annual salary for a maximum total contribution of eight
156 percent. Pension contributions made by the Authority to employees within the formerly specified
157 percentage do not count against the annual salary limit. The former restrictions cannot be modified by the
158 Authority without going the same procedures required by state law to initially establish the Authority.
159 Total personnel costs to include a comprehensive accounting of benefits costs shall not exceed fifteen
160 percent of the Authority's total revenues.
161 No member or alternate member of the Authority may receive compensation from the Authority for their
162 service on the Authority's Board. Members of the Authority shall authorize by a formal vote all
163 expenditures for members' travel necessary to conduct the business of the Authority. Such approvals are
164 conditioned on an appropriation being available in the Authority's adopted budget. However,no
165 member shall receive reimbursement for meals consumed within Virginia Beach—Norfolk Standard
166 Statistical Metropolitan Area.
167 Travel expenditures to be incurred by the Chief Administrative or Executive Officer and compensated by
168 the Authority shall be approved in advance by the Chairperson of the Board of directors only if said funds
169 are appropriated and available in the Board of Director's adopted budget for the Authority.
4
Virginia Beach City Council Member John D. Moss,At-Large Comments and Recommendations
On the Proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority
Briefed to City Council on 20 August 2019
170 Comment 10: Page 4—Article II—Initial Projects Section 2. If all members are to share equally in the
171 cost created by decisions of the Authority then the authorization of Additional Projects should require a
172 unanimous vote of all members or their respective alternates when serving as a voting member to
173 approve.
174 Comment 10 Recommendation: Insert a sentence to read-The authorization of any additional projects
175 by the Authority shall require a formal unanimous vote of approval by the Board of Directors of the
176 Authority.
177 Comment 11: Page 4—Article III—Initial Contributions. The expression"of reasonably equal
178 proportion"lacks specificity to convey to the public nor to a court of law,I would suggest,as to what it
179 means. The ambiguity was clearly purposefully chosen. Therefore,the purpose should be declared in a
180 footnote as well a concise and measurable definition of what of the expression"reasonably equal
181 proportion." The financing of the Authority is a material condition of the Agreement;thus,ambiguity of
182 terms and phrases dealing with funding are unacceptable.
183 a. The sentence second sentence of this Article that follows the one containing the expression
184 "... contributions ... of reasonably equal proportion..."contains the following phrase of like
185 ambiguity"...shall provide contributions of roughly equal value." The latter phrase
186 translates to a specific value within some unspecified range of values that would equate to
187 roughly. Equal proportion has no direct translation to equal value. Since neither phrase is
188 sufficiently defined as to have operational meaning,the two expressions are not compatible
189 with each other. The construction of the Article III is materially flawed.
190 Comment 11 Recommendation: A proposed budget for the authority and the methodology and
191 reasoning for the methodology should be made an addendum for the agreement and part of the published
192 notice and shall serve as the approved budget for the Authority until such time as the Board of Directors
193 supplants it with a budget they have adopted per the requirements of this Agreement. A new Article III
194 needs to be written without ambiguity and inconsistencies.
195 Comment 12: Page 4—Article IV Legal Status of the Authority Section 3—The word"shall"in the first
196 sentence conveys an entitlement that is superior to a municipality in which it seeks easement access. This
197 sentence without further qualification is broad a grant. Furthermore,the expression in the same sentence
198 that reads"...access to ...other infrastructure useful for its corporate purposes..."provides no operational
199 definition of what constitutes other infrastructure. Therefore,the current defective syntax grants to the
200 Board of Directors the exclusive right to define in its own judgment what other infrastructure it wants
201 access to. The earlier"shall"term establishes in the Authority a superior right to the"other
202 infrastructure" in a locality. If the flow of logic is a misinterpretation of the Article,then the Article
203 needs to be rewritten to provide clarity and operational definitions by footnotes to establish the meaning
204 of phrases in the Article.
205 Comment 13: Page 5—Article IV Legal Status of the Authority Section 5 Freedom of Information Act.
206 In Comment 3 -General Comments on pages 1 and 2 of this document,I have already addressed the
207 reasoning for modifying this section.
208 Comment 13 Recommendation: Incorporate the comments applicable to this section made on pages 1
209 and 2 of this documents applicable to the Section referenced in Comment 13 above.
210
5
Virginia Beach City Council Member John D.Moss,At-Large Comments and Recommendations
On the Proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority
Briefed to City Council on 20 August 2019
211 Comment 14: Page 5—Article V New and Withdrawing Members Section 2—This section needs a lot
212 of work to ensure this Agreement does enable discretion to undo what the intended limitations on the
213 Authority,undue the covenant it represented at the time of adoption,and sustain the accountability of the
214 Authority to member municipalities and their residents on the same terms on which their initial consent
215 was granted.
216 Comment 15: Page 5—Article V New and Withdrawing Members Section 3 Contributions to the
217 Authority. First sentence reads,"Members joining the Authority will be expected to make contributions
218 to the Authority on a similar basis as its existing members." The expression"expected"is not concrete
219 and like other terms used in other parts of the proposed agreement has no enforceable operational
220 meaning. The term"proportional sufficiency"in the last sentence of Section 3 is vague to be kind and
221 absent an operational definition and the criteria by which it is determine whether the operational
222 definition has been met makes the expression meaningless.
223 Comment 15 Recommendation: The word"expected"in the first sentence of Section 3 described in
224 Comment 15 above must be stricken and replaced with shall. Additionally syntax to should be added to
225 Section 3 to the effect,"Furthermore,the adopted budget in place prior to the inclusion of new member
226 shall be modified to reflect the impact of accepting a new member and be approved subject to proposed
227 new members acceptance to include a contribution at the time of joining equal to the budgetary impact
228 their acceptance as member creates for the Authority."In subsequent budgets the joining member's future
229 contribution will be determine by the same methodology as any other member of the authority. At least
230 in a footnote to the expression"proportional sufficiency"define what it means in operational enforceable
231 language and specify the factors and methodology that will be used to determine that the definition of
232 "proportional sufficiency"has been met.
233 Comment 16: Page 6—Article V New and Withdrawing Members Section 4 Withdrawal from the
234 Authority. This section as written is totally unacceptable. Even our SPSA agreement created on this very
235 same act does require the unanimous consent of the Board of Directors for a participating municipality to
236 withdraw its membership. An agreement that does not preserve to a member is sovereign right to
237 withdrawal its membership of the Authority subject to one-year notice and liquidating its financial
238 obligations in a to be described manner is an unacceptable agreement. The governing bodies of the
239 proposed members are being asked to consent to grant the Board of Directors of the Authority the"sole
240 discretion"in the case of a withdrawal on what assets in a withdrawing member's locality are essential to
241 the Authority's operation. This is not czarist Russia. No governing body's decisions should be beyond
242 judicial review or the provision of a process of arbitration to resolve differences of judgment between the
243 Authority and withdrawing member governing body. "Sole discretion"is an outdate construct in the
244 context of Section 4.
245 Comment 16 Recommendation: Total rewrite of this section consistent with comments made in
246 Comment 16 above and recommendations made under General Comments of this document on pages 1
247 and 2 as applicable.
248 Comment 17: Pages 6 through 8 Article VI—Financial Policies Sections 1 through 10. This entire
249 Article provides insufficient provisions to assure accountability,visibility,and accessibility with respect
250 to the general public and I suggest the governing bodies of the municipalities that are members of the
251 Agreement.
252
6
Virginia Beach City Council Member John D. Moss,At-Large Comments and Recommendations
•
•
On the Proposed Comprehensive Agreement for Formation of a Wireless Service Authority
Briefed to City Council on 20 August 2019
253 Comment 17 Recommendation: Modify Sections 1 through 10 of Article VI to incorporate all
254 recommendations made under General Comments on pages 1 and 2 of this documents that apply in
255 generally or specifically to Article VI.
7
27
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
ITEM#69553
(Continued)
Council Member Moss advised in a previous discussion concerning the 2020 Bond Referendum for Flood
Mitigation, it was decided to have the specific projects prioritized and he would like to ensure the package
is being worked on to avoid missing the deadline.
September 3, 2019
28
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
ITEM#69554
(Continued)
Vice Mayor Wood advised two members of City Council requested a survey to be completed concerning
police retirement age. As such, copies of results have been placed on the dais for each Council Member,
attached hereto and made a part of the record.
September 3, 2019
cA lle'.BF,1 ,
�4` Lit
04
›
a City of Virginia. Beach
•Pt
9 OF OUR NW°NS
VBgov.COm
JAMES L.WOOD PHONE: (757) 785-4342
COUNCILMAN-DISTRICT 5-LYNNHAVEN FAX (757)340-2082
JLWOOD@VBGOV.COM
September 3, 2019
HONORABLE MAYOR
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
At the request of City Council, a survey was conducted of public safety employees.Attached are the final
results from the Public Safety Retirement Age Survey for City Council discussion and consideration.
Ill '•cerely,
f4
Jim Wi••, Vice Mayor
Me '•e Virginia Beach City Council
• nhaven District
208 ASH AVENUE,SUITE 101,VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 23452
POLICE/SHERIFF ' S
OFFICE
Mandatory Retirement for LEOs
Project Engagement
VIEWS PARTICIPANTS RESPONSES COMMENTS
1,491 693 4,821 359
Should the City continue to have a mandatory retirement age for sworn law enforcement
officers?
2%Not sure
80A
90%Yes
674 respondents
No responses received yet
If you answered yes,at what age should retirement be mandatory?
■ 83%65
■ 8% 70
111111 ■ 7% 67
■ 1% Others
622 respondents
How should the City apply the mandatory retirement age policy?
88%The same age for all sworn police
officers regardless of position
■ 7% There should be no mandatory
retirement age
■ 5% Different ages depending on position(for
example,65 for officers,68 for
supervisors)
666 respondents
What factors should be considered when evaluating changing the mandatory retirement
requirement from age 65 to 70(or any other age)?Check all that apply
64%I One's ability to perform tasks required of the position 388
51,A The need to create opportunities for younger officers to advance 308 se
22% Other(please explain) 131 se
18% Department's ability to retain experienced officers who choose to remain on the 110.e
job past the age of 65
13% To have flexibility for staffing when recruiting new officers is difficult 82 se
This is suddenly an issue with the chief reaching retitrement age.What about all the other officers
in the past who wanted to stay but were forced out.No need to change just for one person.
11 days ago 018 Agree
The policy change would apply to all sworn employees,not just the chief.
7 days ago
Instead of looking to raise the age,look to lower the retirement age.The damage this job does to
a person is unrepairable.A 20 year an out option should be reviewed.
The fact that this is being discussed is self serving,and only seeks to benefit those who think they
are irreplaceable.
Ask yourself this...would you want your families life in the hands of a 70 year old.
11 days ago 014 Agree
Could not have been said better!!
11 days ago 02 Agree
Agreed
10 days ago O* 1 Agree
I agree with several other comments about lowering the retirement age,and believe you should
be able to retire after 20yrs of service.The amount of damage done to an officer mentally and
physically needs to be addressed.And allowing an officer to retire after 20 yrs as they do in the
military should be an option.
11 days ago 012 Agree
Chief Cevera is currently implementing a workforce plan that will directly affect front line
supervisors and kill any morale that is left on this department.I have been with the department
for many years and love my position but I am being forced out.For to long Chief Cervera,who I
have great respect for,has allowed Deputy Chief Zucaro to run this department into the ground.
The morale on the department is at an all time low and will only go lower with the current
executive command staff.This Department has excellent Captains who can turn this department
around and that is the path the city should take.
10 days ago 011 Agree
The physical and mental stress the public safety job has on its employees is high.It seems that
even 65 is too old at times.There aren't too many 65 year olds I would feel comfortable even
assisting if a big physical altercation occurred.The people that want to stay past 65 are the ones
that have nothing to fall back on as another skill set and them sticking around is not allowing the
younger officers to progress.When we all agreed to take this job we knew we had to be out at 65.
No need to change it just because one or two higher ups and a few people in the good old boy
system want to keep a friend around.This would not even be a conversation if an officer wanted
to stay longer.Typical!!
11 days ago O 11 Agree
Completely Agree!!!
11 days ago 0 1 Agree
I have 14 years on now,I wish they would lower the retirement to 20 years so I can get out of this
job.There is no way I would want to stay on this job until I'm 70.This is strictly an ego thing.Plus if
you raise the retirement age,VRS might raise the retirement to 30 years of service.Not sure if
anyone is paying attention to current events but police are not well liked in this country and it'is
not getting better anytime soon.
11 days ago ®* 10 Agree
The current assignment of many officers(Detectives,Community Engagement,Crime Analysts
and other office work)does not require physical exertion most days.When that same officer is
assigned to patrol because of manpower or works the street during a holiday,then it may be
physically demanding.I asked the Chief about growing a beard because I do not work patrol and I
shouldn't need to use a gas mask.He responded that ANY officer at ANY time is expected to do
ANY job on the department.I believe that was a great argument for not allowing facial hair and I
feel it is a great argument for mandatory retirement.
11 days ago 010 Agree
of course the chief will use that argument when it benefits his agenda.But if it means for
him being able to stay and his castle longer and he.finds himself exempt from his own
statement.the survey mentioned raising the age to retain experienced personnel yet they
care nothing about retaining experienced officers.
I 1 days ago ®3 Agree
No reason to make this change just for one officer.Think of all those in the past who have been
forced out.65 was created for a reason and it should stay.
I aays O* 10 Agree
Having different ages for supervisor v.non-supervisors creates an equity issue,the retirement age
should be the same no matter your rank and the age should be 65.
1ldays ago ®10 Agree
How about trying to help with the compression issue for Master Police Officers hired between
2008-2011?I make$3000 less than someone who just literally put on MPO and I've been an MPO
for nearly 4 years!!!Additionally,the need to create opportunities for younger officers to
advance??!!Really??!!I've put my time and hard work in for nearly a decade and I am continually
shot down by Spec Ops for openings due to"lack of specialty experience" how am I supposed
to get specialty experience if I'm not given the chance??!!Officers with less than half my tenure
are routinely approved for training/collateral duties/etc as well as being picked up by specialty
units.How about we worry about maintaining our current experienced officers who can
contribute so much to the development of our newer officers.The newer officers are not leaving
because of pay and pay alone...you think P02 is going to help with retention?After taxes they'll
see what,a measly$50 a paycheck?You think that'll stop these younger officers from getting 2-3
years street experience to put on their applications to federal positions because they have
degrees?There is a serious morale,pay and lack of care for officers with 8-13 years on the
department.We make up the backbone of this department yet we're the most compressed,
depressed,ignored,overlooked and least selected officers for specialty positions even though we
put in our time and have demonstrated all the skills and needs for particular positions.It's the
good ole'boys club when it involves any movement on this department and that just is not right.
Idaysr T. OR Agree
This has nothing to do with the mandatory retirement age,but do you have proof that a
new MPO makes 3k more than you?I think your information is incorrect.
Oz Agree
the information is absolutely correct.An MPO with 8 years is making 56k and a new
MPO with 6 years is making 58k.
10 (D3 Agree
I'm an MPO over 10 yrs and only at$57k.You don't think that's a problem??
10 days ago O 1 Agree
Who in the word above is selling vbpd propaganda?A new MPO is
$58,500.No one is lying when people have printed out their salaries.If
someone isn't making 66k at 16 years,I would love to know who that is
because once again that is the disparity that has been created.I'm on 16
years and at 63k.A 17 year person is at$70k so you tell me how this is
acceptable anymore!
10 days ago ®2 Agree
Absolutely have all proof that the six year officer is making more then anyone who
has 7 to 11 years.If you don't know about this you must under a rock,or in
management and riot caring that this has occurred because you're pay isn't affected.I
am on 16 years and only making$2000 more then a six year officer.Then the Chief
has the audacity to come forward and want to change the age to benefit him even
though he has opted to implement a program that takes skilled experts out of their
positions.
10 days ago CO2 Agree
I am not saying that there are no compression issues,but I am standing next to
MPO of 16 years on the department and his or her base is 66k and change.A
brand new mpo makes 55.6K range.The person who above said he has 10
years on and makes 3k less than a new mpo,that is not true.A new mpo does
not make 58k,the new mpo is lying to you.
Anyways this is about age and not pay as my pay is almost maxed out;)
10 days ago O Agree
A new MPO is making 58k+.I have seen it on their Insite.
6 days ay.
I have been with this Department for many years and have great respect for Chief Cervera.
However officer morale has plummeted under his leadership.The Chief has abdicated his
authority to Deputy Chief Zucaro who no one on this department has an ounce of respect for.The
department needs new leadership and failure to do so will only allow this department to falter
further.Folks you have a MORALE problem failure to address it will be at your own peril.
10 days age O8 Agree
Changing the retirement age for the interest of one person is shameful!!!
11 days agc 08 Agree
An officer,regardless of rank,is still an officer.They are in uniform,driving a police vehicle,and
carrying a weapon.The department has maintained a mandatory retirement age of 65 for years.
Why are we wanting to change that for 1 officer?Do you want a 70 year old as your backup
running into an active scene?I don't want a 65 year old as my backup!Additionally,morale at this
department is at an all time low.Change is a good thing.It's time for someone else to take the
reigns and see if they can turn things around.
11 days ago ()8 Agree
Exactly.Sean Adams should be offered the position.He would breathe new life into this
dying department.
11 days ago 0'y Age e
Keep it 65 years of age.Most retired officers pass away within a few years of retirement.I think it
should be lower than 65 down to 60 and with the ability to retire after 20 years of service not 25
11 days ago ®*8 Agree
Policing is a physically demanding job that requires a heightened level of physical agility.It's
unfortunate that people do not have the self-awareness to know when to retire.Sorry if it hurts
someone's feelings to have to age out,but it's ridiculous to raise the age to 70.I personally would
be uncomfortable with having someone considered elderly as my backup on the street.
11 days ago ®i Ag,ee
The 65 age requirement has been in place for some time.We have had many talented officers
and supervisors retire at this age and the Department has continued to make progress.In recent
years the moral of the department has gone down,not up.It's time to pass the torch to
somebody else and let the department continue to make progress
07 Agree
Retirement should be lowered to 20 years of service.Twenty years of service as an LEO is more
than enough and it should be recognized.Especially with all the physical and mental stress placed
upon officers.
10 daysog. ter t Agree
This is only an issue because the Chief(and others in that realm)would like to remain in his
position and not forced to retire.I will be forced out of my position due to workforce development
in the near future.We should be more concerned at attrition and retaining a qualified workforce.
We lose more well trained officers to other professions because we are lagging behind in being
nationally competitive in pay and benefits.We continually throw short time fixes to pay without
implementing a permanent competitive solution.I see this as a quick fix for a single employee
that has served well in a position for a lengthy period of time.Just as I served well in my position,I
will forced to leave it.This mandatory retirement age will help others to move into positions just
as workforce development is designed to do.We should not be tailoring policies just for one
employee's desire to stay at a high position of pay.The department needs change that is
incorporated in the natural flow of retirement in order to continue to evolve as a living entity and
not stagnate on old guard ideas and status quos.
11 days.og, . Agr_.
A physical fitness standard has to be in place.Age does not matter as much as ability does.You
see these guys hobbling along at part time gigs or working the streets and that does not instill a
sense of safety with the community or with their partners.It's frustrating to see out of shape
(regardless of age)officers/deputies and know that not only will the situation have to be handled,
but other officers/deputies will have to compensate for those that are not physically fit.LEO
should be able to do 20 and be done due to the stress and demands of the job,why prolong that?
Why put these officers/deputies(who have already given so much)through even more?
11 days ago Q* A.Cr-E
I have no argument with this,but as in all things,we are only as fast as our slowest
member.It just so happens that in this profession,the person to the right and left of you
need to be combat effective.And you need to be comfortable that they are.Remember that
this should be looked at from a general perspective and not an individual one.
I will reiterate that I'm fully supportive of that grizzled warrior who can maintain street
effectiveness up to 70.I just think that will be the exception,and not the rule.
I am being impacted by the current age requirement.When I become 65 in December will not
change my quality of,or desire to perform my duties with the department.I would like to
continue to 66,or maybe 67.I've already decided that I will work until I'm 70.I would like to do the
job that I know and enjoy.
11 days ago ®E-Agree
Instead of looking to raise age you should look at 20 year retirement for PD This job takes a toll
on your mental and physical health.I DO NOT WANT AGE RAISED' Its time for youner generation
to move up into leadership rolls
Unfortunately,this survey has been put out without a lot of supporting information.Instead of
looking at the big picture,many are likely responding based upon emotional/personal feelings
regarding a singular person/position.In actuality,there are several officers who will be
immediately impacted based upon this decision(more than the 3 who have been discussed).
These are good officers(not all in supervisory roles)who continue to serve alongside each of us in
an exemplary manner.To spite one person,would you be willing to look at those officers who
wish to stay,are able to mentally and physically perform the job,and say sorry,but you have to go
because there's an arbitrary number that says you're too old now?During the most recent Council
meeting,I was troubled to hear the comments, 'this will only impact a few officers."To those
officers,the outcome of this decision is extremely important and that is a fact which should not
be minimized.While I personally may not choose to work until I'm 70,I don't believe I have the
right to tell someone else(who is physically capable to do so)that they can't or shouldn't.
Additionally,given the current concerns with staffing,we should do all that we can to keep as
many officers as possible.Interestingly,many of these same factors were used as the basis of
Council's decision,which received unanimous approval,to change the age requirement to 70 for
the VBSO in 2015.If they were valid then,why not now?
As for the proposal at hand,currently,the mandatory retirement age for law enforcement officers
under VRS is 70 throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.Our City's policy that sets 65 as the
mandatory retirement age is the exception,not the rule.I believe it is fair and equitable to fall in
line with the policy that guides our retirement system.Should an officer be deemed'not fit for
duty'by OHS regardless of their age,then his/her employment status with our department would
be guided by current City policy.Additionally,changing the age requirement to fall in line with VRS
will not raise the minimum age at which an officer is eligible for retirement.If he/she wants to go
at age 50 with 25 years of service,that's their choice to do so.
Hopefully,this decision is based on a logical review of information rather than emotions and/or
personal feelings.
tt days ago C)5,4y,ree
Well-stated.I don't think most officers understand the policies that are in place to separate
individuals who cannot perform their jobs for health reasons(because they have not
personally experienced this).Offering a 20-year retirement option is a different issue
entirely.Regardless of the retirement benefits offered,the point is should an officer have
the CHOICE of continuing to work if that is what they desire and they are able to do so.In
other non-public safety jobs,it would be ILLEGAL under the law to impose a mandatory
retirement age.Why can't we give sworn employees the ability to make the same choice
that other employees make?
I"days agc 0 3 Agree
I also believe a 20 year and buy out option should be considered.The mental stress takes a
physical toll on officers and firefighters.This will open up positions not available to young officers,
help with retention,and cost less in the long run with healthcare and salaries.Consider offering
these officers other jobs with the city,even if it's part time,and let them carry concealed to help
protect other city workers.
65 is the age.We have someone wanting to change the age for themselves but still hasn't helped
fight and fix the pay disparity and compression that was recently created in July.Maybe if they
thought of the troops and did want us right for everyone then maybe it would change the
mindset of everyone.
11 days ago 05 r,g ree
Changing a law to support only a few officers in the department is not the reason that should
happen.Most older officers are in positions that lead the department.It is likely their agenda
would not be as progressive as younger people.
It seems most older officers that choose to stay in their positions are probably doing it for their
own good.Simply adding years to increase the dollar amount their monthly retirement checks.
;_-r OE-Agree
Opportunities for advancement of newer officers are less,when long time members hold onto
certain positions and ranks.
Their is currently a plan within VBPD to force supervisors to rotate every 4-6 years and create
opportunities for others.Yet the current Chief has been in his position for nearly 10 years and
looking to stay longer.This is creating a double standard in the eyes of many.
Health and well-being is another concern as a career in law enforcement is known to be taxing on
the body(Heart and Lung Bill).
11 days ago ®5 Ag o e
It should not be changed
O Agree
Imjust here for the comments...
10 days ago (✓4 Agree
Why did the Sheriff have his mandatory retirement age changed to 70 and then,when the Police
wanted to have theirs also increased to 70,he suddenly changed it back to 65??Looks suspicious
If a man/woman can perform the physical,and mental requirements of the position why make
them retire based on an arbitrary age of 65.
What is the reason for the age of 65??Why don't we follow the other cities in the State Retirement
System??
%la Agree
This is definitely from someone in a Captain's position who is also not thinking of everyone
as a whole.Federal law enforcement agencies have a mandatory retirement age at 57 yet
the stress that goes along with the local police departments is by far more egregious.To
compare law enforcement to other state agencies does even make sense.How about
changing the retirement to 20 years with early buyouts.The strain and stress on officers
even at 65 is a proven fact that it increases health issues,mental stress,and family
problems.The concept to change the age to 67 is someone that is out of touch with officers
on the street on a daily basis.To suggest to have a separate age for supervisors goes
against the concept that all officers no matter what position they are in should be held to
the same standards.I sure don't want someone 67 to assist myself or any officers on a case.
The Chief is no different as you never know when he may need to react.Time to go along
with his buddies and let's bring a new fresh start into this Police Department.
The retirement age was not a concern when others were forced to retire.Now that that the Chief
has to retire next year,it's a concern for his personal benefits.The excuse the department could
retain experienced officers if the age was raised is complete nonsense.My advice...drain the
swamp and make VBPD great again t
G 4 Agree
There should be a mandatory 20 year retirement.
Agt
It's obvious this survey is a direct result of the Chief of Police requesting an extension.I feel that
during his 9+years in tenure as Chief he has done a good job,but by his own policy,staying in any
position more than a certain amount of time,limits growth and opportunities for younger or
other tenured Supervisors who would like to move up the ranks.The city is in the process off
initiating a mandatory supervisor rotation after 6 years in position,yet the Chief is fighting to stay
in his supervisory position for well over 10+years.As a leader of the organization this is a clear
example of"Do as I say,not as I do"and just looking out for his own interest,with little or no
regard for his subordinates.There are several Captains currently on the Department that would
move this Department forward in direction more geared to the current times and climate.By
letting the Chief and Deputy Chief stay in position longer than 65 years basically halts any growth
for several leaders and the Department as a whole.
Or 4 Acroe
I find it very odd that the conversation to change the mandatory retirement age has changed
twice in the last 4 years,by the same person.On April 7,2015,one person approached City
Council to have the mandatory retirement age changed from the age of 65 to the age of 70.
Convenient for his 2nd in-line since the man was already two years past the required mandatory
retirement age.The change allowed the man to still serve until his retirement in 2018,which put
him at age 70.His reasoning in 2015 for raising the mandatory retirement age was,per the
archived City Council document,"Mandatory retirements create shortages of skilled and
experienced workers within the Sheriff's Office.Additionally,health and longevity in the United
States has been improving.In fact,data suggests that those in their early sixties today are as
healthy as those in their mid-50s decades ago.Increasing the retirement age promotes
employment of older persons based on their ability to perform the essential functions of the job
rather than eliminate them based on age.Overall improvement in health and abilities of
individuals between the ages of 55 and 65 suggest that mandatory retirement is unfair,
particularly for those who maintain the ability to perform the essential functions of the job and do
so competently.Furthmore,forced retirement of older workers whose skill has been exclusively
with the employer find it harder to secure jobs compared to younger counterparts.They also
suffer large wage reduction upon re-employment.Accordingly,it is in the Sheriff's Office's and the
employees'best interests to increase the retirement age to seventy(70)."
So now that the man that campaigned the change to raise the mandatory retirement age to 70 is
no longer in need for the little 5 year cushion to keep his employee(again who was two years past
the city code anyways),now he wants another change to the same code he made in 2015,but to
reduce it back to 65,now that it doesn't benefit him.
As City Council,members have already stated in the meeting of August 14,this should not be a
one-person bandwagon approach.Let us look at others this change will affect.The"boots on the
street."How about those officers that have been thrown under the bus in a blink of an eye,being
told that they need to pack it up within the next 7 months because they have hit that"magical"
age of 65.Very competent,knowledgeable officers,both physically and mentally.How about
those officers that will be reaching that"magic"number in the next 12 to 24 months?As
Councilwoman Henley stated,we already are having a hard time with recruitment and retention.
04 Agree
It's amazing how the Chief wants to change the age of retirement to suit him.This is so typical of
this department to fight to make changes for selfish reasons.Is amazing a survey quickly is
created with the abuse of power.How about a survey that shows the true issues of pay disparity
and unequal pay that is on going in the police department.Talk about ethics and morals yet the
city officials to include the city managers office and Human Resources,the upper echelon has
been the poster child for unethical practices.So let me get this straight,the Chief Has been in his
position for nine years and wants to fight to make the change to stay another two years but yet
he is implementing a hideous and mind boggling program under the name of Work Force
Development.The irony of it all is that he is forcing sergeants out of a position where they are
well trained and have the knowledge to lead special units after five years just to move somebody
else in there.The horror of that is that the sergeants that are in line for some of the specially
positions that may never had experience or may not have produced Will likely now lead those
same units and create a dangerous and potential environment.This is typical of Virginia Beach
where the good old boy network is alive and well when Dyer wants to fight to keep his good
buddy.Come on city council let's take on a real issue that is more important then saving your
friends.
11 days @* 4 F.gree
The mandatory retirement age should remain 65 regardless what position the individual holds.
11 days ago 04 F.�ree
This is most definitely self serving on the part of the Chief.Morale is at an all time low.He cannot
corral his ops division Deputy Chief.The Chief says one thing,and the DC goes behind his back
and does the opposite.When the Chief gets wind of this,he does nothing which trickles down to
the troops.I concur with others,the Chief is still a sworn officer,and may have to get in the fray at
any moment.This job will beat you up,and if you stay more than 65 years old,its all about ego.
We need new blood,a Chief to more with the times.The current Chief dangles carrots in front of
our faces to appease us,but the problem is internal.The Chief simply cannot run this department
any more.Employee surveys comments says it all.
11 days ago
Bring in Sean Adams.
11 days ago @* 1 7 A; -E
One of the best Supervisors around is Captain Adams.He would make an excellent Chief!
010 Agree
If experienced sergeants with specialized experience are going to be required to leave their
positions so other sergeants can have more opportunities,shouldn't others have an opportunity
to become the chief?
11 days ago 04 Agree
As long as supervisors wear the same uniform,wear the same badge and have the same legal
authority,the same standard should apply.Quite frankly,the notion that a different standard
should apply to supervisors is ludicrous.
11 days ago 04 Agree
It should be equal across the board.It's not an elected position.
1 1 days ago 0 4 Agree
Fair and equitable across the board regardless of position.
11 days ago 04 Agree
should not be changed
11 days ago 04 Agree
If the mandatory age remains 65,why does the officer have to be forced out at the beginning of
their 65th year.I would like to continue to work during the age 65 year period and not be forced
out days after reaching 65 years old.
10 days ago 03 Agree
I think the required retirement should be 20 years of service or age of 60 whichever comes first.
There is no need to have a senior citizen doing this dangerous and physical job.As other
comments have mentioned,the city should really be focusing on the problem of retention of
good officers.
1 o days ago ®3 Agree
I think that if the department is implementing a"development"program where supervisors can
only stay in one position for so many years that should hold true for Deputy Chief's and the Chief
of Police.If you want to continue to do admin,retire and go do admin in the private sector.
10 days ago 03 Agree
All the thousands of dollars for command staff to attend training,and now none of them
are ready to step up?Audit!
9 days ago O 1 Agree
This is a one time self serving issue.The retirement age should remain at 65.If the argument
becomes that social security doesn't begin until age 67,here is the answer...take your$1300 a
month in LEO from the state.The armed forces only allow for the top leaders(the Commandant,
SgtMaj's,CNO's,and Command Master Chief of the Navy,etc...for other services)to only serve 4
years in that capacity once appointed.This should be the case for the Chief of Police.
10 days ago 03 Agree
VA State Police mandatory retirement age is 70
10 days ago 03 Agree
And in general,federal law enforcement personnel are subject to mandatory retirement at
age 57,or as soon as 20 years of service have been completed after age 57.The maximum
age of entry,which is intended to ensure full retirement benefits upon reaching mandatory
retirement age,is typically age 37.
10 days ago
We have validated medical standards in place to ensure that sworn personnel are medically
qualified to perform"full duty"and the City has a policy for health-related separation when they
are unable to meet these requirements.Because these policies are in place,it is embarassing that
our City continues to impose an arbitrary mandatory retirement age of 65 when all other VRS
participants in the Commonwealth allow employees to work until age 70.Ideally,there should not
be a mandatory retirement age which is how other non-public safety jobs are classified under the
law.To continue to impose mandatory retirement at age 65 will invite legal challenges,particularly
given the fact that CC changed the sheriff's employees retirement age to 70 in 2015.If that
decision was supported then,why not make the change for all public safety departments now?
Most individuals will choose to retire long before reaching age 65,but it makes sense in this era of
being unable to fill our vacancies,that we re-evaluate this arbitrary standard.Mature officers lend
stability to the workforce and possess great institutional as well as"life"knowledge.
. 3 Agree
Once again it is said.Mature officers add value to the department yet the department/city
sees no reason or makes no effort to improve the morale of said officers and maintain their
stay with the department.that argument is only used if it supports them wanting to change
the age for the chiefs benefit.there has been no concern at maintaining senior officers or
experience for as long as I can ever remember.And as for the City physical?And makeshift
physical doesn't dictate whether or not one is capable to handle this job.just because an
officer can blow into a tube for lung capacity or his hearing is in check does it mean he is
capable of the physical demands while subduing a suspect or assisting a fellow officer who
is a life-or-death situation.Bottom line this whole discussion is only happening because of
one man.If he would gracefully duck out as he should this would never have been an issue.
It is all fueled by his ego.
*®1 Agree
To say that the retirement age should not be changed for a few or one person is short sighted.It
may be a few right now,but what about in another year or two years?If an officer is physically
and mentally able to perform the job why not raise the retirement age a couple of years.
Especially at the rate police departments are losing officers and continue to be short staffed.I'd
rather have a physically fit 65-67 year old have my back than an out of shape younger officer.
Instead of conducting this survey,how about compiling factual information and making an
informed decision.
ED 3 Agree
How many physically fit 65 year olds do you know?I can think of only one on the
department,who is a former Marine.He will turn 65 in December and will be forced to
retire.People at that age who have the physical and mental ability to do this job are very
rare.Any police officer,regardless of rank,can be required to make a split second,life or
death decision just by virtue of wearing the uniform.
If the city council changes the rules,especially if they don't apply to change evenly across
the board,I believe it will not be good for morale.I am a supervisor who works the street
and I don't believe supervisors should be treated differently when it comes to this.Lts and
above are already treated differently in so many ways-such as not being held to the same
standard of truthfulness as the officers they lead and discipline.The last thing this
department needs is another perq for its leaders.
Qr 2 Agree
The rate that the department is losing officers you say?And why do you think that is?Once
again,why not try focusing on fixing compression and pay then officers would stay.And
back on improving morale.Bottom line,THAT is how you make officers stay.The root issues
are always ignored but yet the chief wants to stay so now let's change for him.This is the
same chief that doesn't fight to fix issues within the department to help officers decide to
stay.
QQ 1 Agree
I agree with the comments previously made.Public safety retirement should be 60 with 20 years
of service for benefit purposes.
11 days ago U -
None.It shouldnt be changed.
11 days ago 0 3 4p ee
There is no good reason to put an officer regardless of rank on the street.The ability to
act/respond could create a detriment to an officer calling for assistance and their ability to be
effective in a violent physical altercation.
11 days ago 3 .
The individual must be able to perform and qualify at the same level as all sworn officers.If this
age limit applies to a member of the Executive Staff,meaning Chief,Deputy Chief,Captain,
Lieutenant,then they must be able to demonstrate proficiency with firearms,as well as defensive
tactics and secondary weapons,ASP,OC,TASER.Presently,command staff does not actively
participate in defensive tactics training.The tactics that are to be instructed during In-Service
training are simply demonstrated to them.These officers stand along Atlantic Avenue during
holiday weekends and other special events,yet,I feel that they would never be able to help me if
needed their assistance.
(1)3 Aeree
I have seen one or two train with us.That's a blanket statement and not entirely accurate.I
agree that it should be mandatory,but there are some who play with the team.
I feel this extension is self-serving.If there was an issue with the age requirement than it should
have been addressed years ago and not when the department director in facing retirement.Once
a leader's position becomes self-serving they lose sight of why they are actually there.There have
been several departmental issues that have been discussed in great detail with the top executives
along with Miriam Bryant and the issues were ignored creating moral and equity issues within the
department.This retirement extension will only delay any of these issues within the department
being addressed.A new department director will give us new look and perspective on how we do
things within our agency.As a department,we should be able to give our opinion on who we want
as a new leader of our organization and if that were that case my vote would be Sean Adams as
our new Chief.
10 days ago O+ 2 Agree
There are a lot of great comments and ideas on here.The 60 and 20 seems to make the most
sense to me.There is no doubt that people have expiration dates in their positions and it is
abundantly clear an overwhelmingly large portion of officers believe the Police Chief's date has
long passed.To allow him to stay would be a disaster for the organization in many different
aspects and hopefully council understands that.Upward mobility is something that cannot be
overstated and it appears the VBPD would benefit from different leadership.This is not unique to
the VBPD the same issue could happen with VBFD,VBSO and EMS.Once your time is up give
another the opportunity to see if they can do better.
. ..._,. O* ,.�c'
I have read several of the comments already and it would seem that the opinions are
overwhelmingly against the age being extended.Curious as to the thoughts of others,I continued
to read and I have to agree.This job is not like bankers jobs.sticking it out here past 20 years is
too much to expect from most of us yet we WON't have a discussion regarding a 20 yr retirement
with benefits.I personally would love that as an option.I'd like to know that I'd made a full career
and still had juice left to learn new things afterwards,be it a new career or finally find out what
my hobbies are and have the time to enjoy them.As far as allowing officers to stay PAST 65 would
not be wise for several reasons,1.I just have not seen any scientific or medical fact that supports
this as a healthy option.2.It would only be fair if it were equal across the board but then you
have to ask yourself if a 70 year old officer is reasonable(even as back up)when you're the one in
the fight for your life.Do I want to see my 70 yo partner hurt?Do I want to be responsible for that
person.3.Allowing people to stay longer would create the potential to bottle neck positions
making it harder for people to move around.We see that already.Senior officers can't/won't retire
and it holds up shifts,days off and positions for others.This would only compound that effect.I
can not say that ALL people over the age of 65 are less effective because we all certainly know
young officers that can't breathe up a flight of stairs.This comparison applies to the upper
echelon as well.some are more fit than others.It's because of this that you can't allow the age
change to work for some and not all and simply put there are more Cons to it that there are Pros.
In fact,I believe that 60 is a reasonable age to actually retire for this type of profession and a 20 yr
retire option.The people who choose to do this job for 20 or more should be respected enough
to be allowed walk away without penalty as a Thank you.Younger people would see that the way I
saw the Military.A viable option that allows them to do a job most can't/won't and still have life
left to do something else.Most of us are suffering from some form of PTSD that goes UN-
diagnosed because we know that we can't leave even if we should.20+years of this job and all
that we see is almost a guarantee to develop stress and health issues unlike almost any other job.
Staying past 20 is a lot to force and staying past 65 is simply ridiculous.
10 days ago C2
There should be physical tests to ensure our officers from 65-70 are still physically fit enough to
perform the tasks similar to those for academy recruits.If you are asking to be extended then it
should be upon that officer to demonstrate he has maintained standards above and beyond most
65 year olds.I know of at least one 64 year old officer who maintains excellent physical standards
for himself and I absolutely would trust my life in his hands.
This"NEW"idea of raising the age is an absolutely horrific idea.In the last 3-5 years,how often
has our Chief of Police brought up this idea of raising the age limit to our officers?Answer:NEVER!
There is a reason 65 is the limit.just imagine how many more work related injuries-Corvel claims,
officers calling in sick,police vehicle accidents,etc.we would have if raising the age beyond 65.
Furthermore,our citizens shouldn't expect a 70 year old police officer to break up a domestic or
bar fight.Finally,I strongly feel there are very few 70 year old officers out there that I would want
showing up to back me up at an uncontrollable use of force incident.Our tax paying citizens do
not need a S100K study to verify my opinions.Command Staff or not,we all proudly wear the
badge and uniform as officers and we should be treated the same way from the"age limit"
perspective.
10 days ago ®2 Agree
There comes a point in Law Enforcement that a sworn Officer becomes worn out and although at
age 65 most are in a supervisory position,they are not as effective as they once were and we
need to make room for younger officers to advance.Many Law Enforcement agencies across the
country have a mandatory retirement of age 55.I think the best thing for the City of Virginia
Beach is to keep the age at 65 or consider making it 60.I think age 70 is entirely too old for those
in law enforcement.
02 Agree
If the person is healthy and is able to perform the job,then the age should have nothing to do
with it.
02 Agree
so,does this survey really matter or is the city still going to do what they want?not sure the
purpose of this survey.we have been taking surveys for years as far as I remember,we still have a
low morale issue,a compression problem,now even though we work for the wealthiest city in the
commonwealth we are not the best paid.why keep wasting our time asking for our opinion when
time after time the message is loud and clear.we are not heard
02 Agree
Everyone knows this is related to the Chief not wanting to leave.Maybe these comments would
be a little friendlier if the Chief wasn't so hard up to force supervisors out of their spots.
l0 days ago T. 2 Agree
65 should be the Retirement age regardless.It's an officer safety issue due to age.Retired officers
can work as consultants investigators or red light camera,etc.65 should be the age,no
exceptions.But also agree that LEO retirement should be allowed at 20 years.Signed 26 year
veteran.Chief Cervara needs to go.Same for DC Dean and Zucaro.Make Gallagher the acting
chief and do a national search.Captains Adams,Hatfield,and both Orr's would be great choices
as well.
02 Agree
I feel all these factors should be considered when determining the retirement age.In law
enforcement Officers require the best back-up possible.at any moment a situation can turn for
the bad and Officers should be able to feel confident that those responding to provide aid will be
in the best condition to do so when they arrive.I agree with others that the age question is now
only an issue because it is going to apply to those in leadership positions,but the truth is if there
is going to be a rule about age it needs to apply to all,from the top of the Chain of Command to
the bottom.Frankly,in talking to other Officers letting those retire and others to move up quite
possibly could improve things on the job by having fresh ideas and new eyes to look at current
policy and procedures.No one had a problem with the retirement age when it is a street patrol
Officer being forced out at 65,it seems now to only be an issue because high ranking supervisors
will be impacted.If there is going to be a standard it needs to apply to everyone,not get changed
around every couple of years to accommodate those in leadership positions.
None.If you don't have a physical standard now then applying it to someone based on age seems
like discrimination.Or if you actually put together a benefit package that was worth something
then we may not have this problem.For instance,health care costs for city workers is already
insane and it is worse for retirees!
10 days ago 0 2Agree
It's not discrimination when it's a standard.Federal agencies have mandatory retirement at
57.The Chief will be just fine with his Leo supplement compared to the regular officers not
don't want to stay until 70.
10 days ago
the age of 65 is fine for officers and supervisors because of mental and physical stress and to
create opportunities for younger officers,The Chief is"normally"appointed after a Country wide
application process.The Chief holds his job as long as the pubic and the City Manager think he
doing a good job and is more administrative.There should NOT be an age requirement for the
chief nor should a chief be promoted from within a department.
t days ago 0 2 Agree
The age limit should be 65 and retirement needs to change to straight 20.Many of us stay beyond
what we should just to meet the 25 year retirement requirement.This job is mentally and
physically draining,if you truly care about the people that work in this profession,lower the
retirement!Better retirement benefits will increase the recruitment and improve the wellness of
the workforce.
days ago 02 Agree
Everyone ages differently mentally and physically.Each year after age 65,the Police Officer or Fire
Fighter would need to pass their physical.
11 days ago 02 Agree
If the age limit is increased,there MUST be a physical assessment test(such as the Cooper's
Fitness Test)to determine if the individual is still able to meet the needs of the job.The city
physical is not a good scale of what is needed to do this job.
11 days ago 01 Agree
The department just proposed a career development change that restricted supervisors to a
maximum of 10 years in a single command.How can we respect a person who wants the policy
changed so that they will be allowed to stay in the same position as Chief for as long as he or she
wants.How does that promote opportunities for professional growth?Is that not a direct example
of do as I say and not as I do?Lead by example,sure.
11 days ago 02 Agree
Everyone does not age the same way mentally or physically so,after age 65,if you can pass your
physical each year and want to stay on the Police Dept or Fire Dept you should be able to do so.
11 days ago 02 Agree
No one should be a police officer,regardless of rank,after 65.The federal government has an
even lower age for law enforcement retirement.
11 days ago 02 Agree
If anything,65 may be too old for some individuals.This job can be very physically demanding
and mentally taxing.It should be the same age for everyone,regardless of position.It should not
be changed for certain people who are hindering growth and an increase of morale by their
staying.
11 days ago 02 Agree
I don't believe the mandatory retirement age should be changed.It should remain at 65.This way
everyone is treated fairly.
11 days ago 02 Agree
VBPD Officers can retire at 50,which is a great option.This job is not for senior citizens.This job is
taxing physically and mentally and as we get up in years,our physical ability and mental capacity
diminish.There is no valid reason why any officer should be 65 and still working in a sworn
capacity.Any reason is self serving and hinders the growth of the department.
11 days ago 02 Agree
For the police department,this policy change would be counterproductive to the recent workforce
development program the department is implementing.
1 days ago 02 Agree
The Retirement age should be 65.
How do you implement Workforce Development and crush the careers of several
supervisors,but when it comes to a specific position for a specific person,which appears to
be more self serving,you get an extra 2 extra years?This will crush moral.
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
1 days ago 01 Agree
Do not change the policy.
11 days ago 02 Agree
This job,particularly LEO,is extremely stressful both physically and emotionally/mentally.No one
should spend more than 3/4 of their life span in this job.Additionally,my experience is that the
average older officer(55+),with a few exceptions,is not performing the job to the standards he or
she should be,especially those working the street.I would strongly suspect that those who are in
leadership positions would not be able to endure the daily rigors of the job at their current age,
physical condition,and willingness to do the job.None of this is intended to be disparaging but
these are based on my personal observations and experience.
11 days eg,: (I)2 i g,e e
Can an Officer over 60 still complete the physical agility test required of new recruits?This is first
and foremost an issue of officer safety and public safety.Can they handle themselves in a
situation that turns physical?Can they provide adequate back-up to another officer who is
physically engaged with a suspect?Can they protect a citizen should the need arise?Are aging
officers a liability to their coworkers or to citizens?If an officer was seriously injured or dead
because the nearest back-up were a couple of 69 year old Chiefs would we being having this
discussion?Supervisors are still worn members.They still carry a badge and gun.A high rank
does not excuse inaction or the inability to act.We should all be held to the same standards.
day.,;g,: 02.gree
65 is even too old for someone to be on the street.I don't want a 65 year old responding to a
violent call to assist me.
O2 k.g.ee
I think it should depend on the position.Command staff should be 70.For lieutenants and below,
change the requirement to 20 years of service and retire at 60.They've earned it.If anything,
there should be a yearly basic physical agility test of lieutenants and below.There are several
officers who are extremely overweight and out of shape that could not handle a foot pursuit.
11 days ago n 2 Agree
An individuals ability to do this job as they age declines.At age 65 I think is reasonable for the city
to say we need to go.
11 days ago 0*2 Agree
We have forced good Officers to retire at 65 in the past who could still do the job and wanted to
stay.To change it now is to disrespect their service.
d.;. 01 Ag,ee
It's absurd that this is even being brought up because one person wants to change it to benefit
them.Also,there should not be a different age requirement whether you in a supervisory position
or a the position of an officer.Next you will see VRS trying to change mandatory retirement to 30
years when 25 years is a long time in law enforcement.Federal agencies have the mandatory
retirement age at 57 years.It's hypocritical of the Chief to take up this matter when he himself has
implemented a workforce development that will require mandatory rotation of sergeants in their
position.The risk that occurs with such idiocracy is the potential danger for lack of skilled
supervisors especially in speciality units.How do you tell a sergeant he must leave a position after
five years when he is an expert in that field and was an expert while working in that position as an
officer/detective just to move someone else in there without the knowledge or skill he or she
worked for over the years,It's more feasible to leave a sergeant in a speciality unit then it is to
leave a Chief in his position past his mandatory retirement age.While
The Chief did a great job handing the mass tragedy,it doesn't give him the right to stay past his
time.There are other potential candidates who will be a asset to that position.Isn't it time to allow
someone else to expand and grow the development according to his own words.Officers are not
happy with the leadership so it's time for someone else to take the reigns and bring the morality
and trust back into the police department.Between both the police department and the city
management,it's time for positive change in those areas where officers will finally be treated as
they should in all areas to include fairness,equal pay and the just all around integrity which is all
lacking all the way up to a wall city manager.
®I Agree
If anything the mandatory age should be lowered.The will create more upward mobility,which in
turn will help with retention.
®1 Agree
This job is mentally and physically demanding.It requires a lot of physical energy that
officers/deputies cannot even do at a much younger age,which is embarrassing.Age should not
be considered to be raised for retirement.The ability of those at that age that can physically and
mentally do the job(not office work,actual patrolling and responding to incidents)is very far and
few between.Again,the amount of officers and maybe some deputies near,at or above the age
of 65 that actually take care of themselves physically and mentally or that continue to train in the
gym and out of the gym are very very few,if any.Most people are burnt out from the job starting
when you reach 15-16 years on the job.The job is very tasking and a 20 year option to retire
should be considered.
�v =s O* 1 Agree
I feel it would be a better idea to explore earlier retirement options.The field of law enforcement
takes quite a toll on a person,mentally and physically.The option to retire outright with benefits
at 20 or 25 years,regardless of age,should be considered.
®1 Agree
The age should remain at 65.I have read many of the comments posted and most,in my opinion,
are on point.The argument that increasing the retirement age would greatly help staffing is off
base.Where staffing is needed is at the patrol level where you will find few officers at or near 65.
While I agree there are some officers that might be able to work past 65,that is far and few
between.The majority of the older officers on the department are in positions(not in everyday
operational patrol)that might allow them to work past 65.So instead of focusing on age limits,we
should be focusing on pay and benefits fairly and equitably shared across all levels and tenure,
which will serve to aid in recruitment and retention.Knowledge and experience is important,but
there is no survey that would say keeping an officer past 65 has a measurable benefit.However,
there can be evidence found that years of policing can be detrimental to health and wellbeing
(Hence fatigue and other policies implemented).The standard is and should remain at 65 for the
citizens',the officer's,and the department's overall safety.It has been said many times that the
criminals remain the same age and the officers continue to get older,which can become a safety
issue.There have been competent officers/supervisors in the past that would have liked to have
stayed,but at that time'DC Cervera'made no argument to change the age or appear to have
provided much support.In fact,in order to force some retirements of people that have been on
the department for some time,in the recent past,it appears transfers were made or to be made
to influence individuals to retire.We,as an organization,cannot and should not have one
standard for a few and another standard for everyone else.For instance,the Chief violates
current policy every day when in uniform.At the Lt.level and above you are required to carry at
least one secondary/less lethal weapon,but the Chief carries his phone and service weapon
without even an extra magazine.Since we do not know when or where our'Police'services are
needed,this is not a good practice.It is time to begin a serious external search for Chief,which
might help quell some of the dysfunction and bring new life/ideas to the Department.The current
DC of Operation(Dean)would not be a good fit for this due to his expressed and demonstrated
disregard for the officers not only in operations,but the many places he has traveled within the
organization.His focus is mission and citizens first and the wellbeing of officers,maybe,which
contributes to low morale and disenchantment with the department.Staffing/recruitment is a
necessity,but the mission cannot get accomplished without the officers.A happy officer works
better and will become one of your best recruiters.Just think,700 people recruiting.Keep
mandatory retirement age at 65 and begin the search for a new Chief.
dav:agr 01 Agree
This survey has only come up because the current upper echelon is approaching age restrictions
and our current City Counsel and City Manager is attempting an internal control to avoid going
outside the department for a long term Chief of Police process and selection(which would greatly
benefit this department)or avoiding selecting within because they don't support those currently
seated as best vetted for selection.To preface this survey on a total force position addressing a
manpower issue is insulting to say the least.Business as usual here in Virginia Beach with City
Government.Having watch for several years now as City Government approved department head
salary increases 5,7 and 10%.Maybe,just maybe those who received those increases failed to
plan for retirement?
9 days ago lD I Agree
People are hired to do the work of a police officer regardless of rank or position.We cannot
guarantee that everyone who wants to stay past 65 will have an admin job safe from the streets.
Everyone should be capable and expected to do everything the job demands.Retirement at age
65 should stay as it is.The law applies to everyone across the board.
O I F, ree
Honestly,I would like to see the retirement age lowered to 20 years.
Ag:eF
• I currently have 20 plus years on the department and will be 50 yo soon.I cannot wait to leave
this department and job when I reach 25 years on job.I couldn't image being a police officer or
supervisor at 60-65 years old.I have no regret being a police officer,but have great discontent for
the VB City leadership who has never supported the VBPD employees in the area of fair pay and
benefits.The job of a police officer is dangerous and very demanding both mentally and
physically.The job takes a tremendous toll on the officer and their family.With that said,a 20 year
retirement would be better suited for the job.
While Chief Cervera has served the VBPD honorably,it's time for him to go.We need new and
fresh leadership moving forward.
9 days ago 1 Agree
This is about one person who thinks he's irreplaceable.65 is too old for an officer to be on the
street getting into physical altercations with much younger individuals.Even if an officer had a
desk job,they are still an officer and do get called out for extreme events such as College Beach
Weekend.
Instead of extending the retirement age,the city should look at offering earlier retirements at 20
years.
10 days ago 01 Agree
After 20 years of service regardless of age you should be able to retire with full benefits.This is a
hard life for both officers and family's.Time for the city to wake up.
10 days ago 01 Agree
It is difficult to separate the question from precise situation.If this came up a decade ago,the
responses may have been different.Instead,this is about the current chief,a few esoteric officers
may reply to the real question,but most will take the easy shot(that the chief opened up on
himself)and turn this into an opportunity to relieve themselves of him as chief.The state of the
department is terrible.If it is truly about age only,increase it to 70 and put him in patrol.All we
hear is how undermanned we are.Let him stay employed but rotate him like he does others.
Then find an outside sourced chief from a department that actually works well and has
established pay rules,good morale,and a vision that is egalitarian in nature.
10 days ago
01 Agree
Every police officer has to perform the duties of a Police officer.Most command staff can't
complete the requirements of a basic police officer.In a crisis there is no exclusion or special
category for age and ability.I couldn't imagine having to perform police duties to save a life at 65.
10 days ago Q 1 Agree
The decision should be made by the Sheriff or Chiefs based on ability up to the age of 70.People
are living longer and in many cases healthier.Sometimes officers that are younger than 65 or 70
need to be approached about retirement based on ability.
10 days ago 0 1 Agree
I feel that if an individual wants to work and can perform their job duties at a strong level,then
they should be allowed to do so.
10 days ago 01 Agree
25 AND OUT SHOULD BE ENOUGH REGARDLESS OF AGE.THIS JOB CAUSES PHYSICAL AND MORE
IMPORTANTLY MENTAL HEALTH STRESS TO A MUCH MORE EXTREME DEGREE THAN OTHER
POSITIONS.THE NEED TO STAY IS AN IDENTITY AND VANITY ISSUE CAUSED BY THE MENTAL
HEALTH STRESS JUST MENTIONED.
10 days ago Q 1 Agree
If the mandatory 65 year is the rule.Why can't the officer elect when he/she decide to exit during
the period of age 65 to retire.Instead of the current policy or practice of forcing them out one
month after turning 65 years old.I would prefer to exit at the six month mark 65.5 years old.As
one of the officers electing to stay past 65 years,I am only requesting to extend just for 6 months
to finish my commitment to the SRO program at Green Run High school which I have been for the
past 6 years.I just want to start the 2019-2020 school year with the students&staff and end my
police career when the class of 2020 graduates.Yes,my reason maybe for selfish,because I am
proud of my commitment and service to this city,VBPD and VBCPS.I have a history of
commitment to any job I take on and it is with pride and distinction that I would like to serve my
remaining months doing what I have been doing.I am especially proud of my 30 years of active
military duty in the United States Marine Corps and that I started my Police career at the ripe age
of 50 years old.I continued to maintain excellent physical fitness and maintain a neat personal
appearance.
10 days ago 0 1 Agree
If the mandatory 65 year is the rule.Why can't the officer elect when he/she decide to exit during
the period of age 65 to retire.Instead of the current policy or practice of forcing them out one
month after turning 65 years old.I would prefer to exit at the six month mark 65.5 years old.As
one of the officers electing to stay past 65 years,I am only requesting to extend just for 6 months
to finish my commitment to the SRO program at Green Run High school which I have been for the
past 6 years.I just want to start the 2019-2020 school year with the students&staff and end my
police career when the class of 2020 graduate.Yes,my reason maybe for selfish reason,because I
am proud of commitment and service to this city,VBPD and VBCPS.I have a tireless commitment
to any job I take on and it is with pride and distinction that I would like to serve my remaining
months doing what I have been doing.I am especially proud of my 30 years of active military duty
in the United States Marine Corps and that I started my Police career at the age of 50 years old.I
continued to maintain excellent physical fitness and maintain a neat personal appearance.
10 days ago 0 1 Agree
Personally I think we should have a straight 20.Pushing a zone car at age 55 and above is hard
enough.
<iays«.:
O 1 Agree
I am directly affected by this question and I might wish to stay past 65.But the Chief has so
completely ruined the Department during his reign,that the most important thing is that he
leaves in April.
10 days ago Q A,�,,co
I believe most are not even physical fit to continue work,I see people that are younger who can't
even run or walk with out limping.I need assistance not someone I can't depend on.65 is old
enough.
!Agree
Does this have anything to do with the Chief hitting 65?I completely respect everyone who puts a
uniform on every day,especially in law enforcement;but we all hit a point where the job becomes
more than we can handle.It's not weakness or incompetence.It just happens.I don't know many
65 year olds than can run down a suspect,or pull a person from danger,or fight a 20-year-old.
Yes,there are some,but not many.Mandatory retirement should be based on age AND ability,
and 65 is plenty old enough to hang it up.
1^d3v=Pf... 0 1
This would be in line with other departments around Virginia.But,others are correct.This only
became an issue when those who have influence are impacted.Maybe if they did not have a stake
in this it might be more impactful.
A,,==
70 is absurd!I agree with the twenty and out option,I agree with the off topic comments of pay.I
agree that the majority of officers have zero respect for the department and the cities core
leaders.This survey just proves that if the chief had tried to push to fix any of the other major
issues facing the department positive change could happen.Instead he is self serving and has lost
sight of what it means to lead and stand up for what is right for his people.
10 days ago 01 Agree
If a person is healthy and able to perform the job,the person's age should not have anything to
do with whether he/she is employed.
O1 Agee
Leave it at 65 and quit pandering to the Chief when it is obvious the department is in serious
need for more effective leadership.He is being hypocritical in saying Sergeants cannot stay in any
given place over 4-6 years,but he wishes to remain and try to change a city code to even do so.
New leadership is needed now,not in 2 years.
O 1 Agree
It's unfortunate that this survey had to be put out regarding age,as if that's the biggest problem
regarding the Chief of Police.He was a poor leader in his 30's and 40's;the only thing that his age
has done is create a sense or enabling that has made it impossible to hold him accountable for
his ill effect on department morale.Long before age was an issue,his problem,and frankly the
problem of his crony Zucaro,is his hyper-inflated ego and exclusive personality.We have a solid
city leadership base that is generally open to ideas and forward thinkers.That philosophy is either
lost or has never been present at all in the Chief of Police.The city should stop enabling him and
send him off to begin his book writing/public speaking tour.There's no way his ego will allow him
to forego the opportunity for personal gain that the Building 2 tragedy will afford him.
@r 7 Agree
The max time should not exceed 67 years of age for all sworn officer's They must be able to
perform and meet the standards of their respected duties/roles and meet the physical criteria.If
these requirements cannot be met,they should retire at age 65.
10 days agn 01 Agree
In his time,the Chief has continued to allow horizontal compression to become a bigger and
bigger issue.He has chosen other priorities and the result is younger,less experienced officers
making significantly more than senior officers.If he had spent less time trying to force a
workforce development program that is poorly thought out and only contributed to horizontal
compression while simultaneously attacking experienced Sergeants for their positions and
expertise and more time actually working on fixing compression,my thoughts may be different.
Instead,I see someone trying to change a city code to serve himself.
1 r days ago ®* 1 Agree
As I get closer to retirement age I can't image staying past 50 let alone into my 60's.This job is
physically and mentally demanding and I don't think the city should take on liability of those
advancing in years regardless of how well they think they could continue.It seems odd that we're
only having this conversation because our Chief wants to stay longer.An extension for him will
cause other qualified leaders to leave or retire as they have no upward mobility
10 days ago Qr 1 Agree
Lots of higher ranking officers whose ages are far under 65 were too scared to enter Building 2
during the active shooter.I'm talking Sgt's,Lts and Capts standdown orders.I'd hate to see those
folks at age 65 if they can't muscle up courage now when it's needed.
10days ago 01 Agree
Simply put,70 is too old!I can't believe how quickly this survey was sent out,or even the fact that
one has been,when we are facing much greater issues as a department.Just goes to show you
that if the leadership was as concerned about our PAY,benefits,and manpower,aka the needs of
the employee's,that positive change could happen.However,they are only concerned about
themselves and holding onto their identity versus what is best for the department.
10 days ago *®1 Agree
Read the sender.This survey was not directed by the police department staff.It appears to
be a genuine survey to inform the stakeholders.
10 days ago
Obviously it was not sent out by the police department.The point is that it is a result
of the chief wanting something done,and there being a reaction to his request.He
should be fighting for the bigger issues not just the ones that benefit him.
7 days ago
We all know that age affects our normal ability to function.Allowing Officers,Deputies,or
firefighters to continue to serve past the age of 65 puts everyone at risk for injury,including the
public.Our jobs entail enough stress just in dealing with our day to day functions and the public.
When you start questioning whether to person next to is physically and mentally ready and able
to perform,focus is taken away from the job before you even arrive on scene.
10 days ago @* 1 Agree
Once again proving that we will go so far as to change a law when it benefits the upper echelon,
but we won't even pay the less senior members a fair wage.Hypocrisy at it's finest.
10 days ago QQ 1 Agree
The police department is currently in the process of implementing a career development program
that requires sergeants to change positions after they have spent a designated period of time
supervising a particular unit and then another,separate,time limit staying within a designated
command,i.e.Special Operations,Special Investigations,etc.This is being done in an effort to
provide opportunities for other supervisors to be exposed to various leadership positions.
Therefore,why should it be different for the Chief.He has been in his role for several years and
has come to the mandatory retirement age.His time with this department should be celebrated,
but ultimately come to an end to provide promotional opportunities for other,younger
employees.This is completely self serving for the Chief and it is a great example of do what I say,
not as a I do.Of note,he was completely unaware of who else in this department expanding the
mandatory retirement age would effect until he was called upon to answer this question before
City Council.Chief Cervera has had a great career,but it is time for it to end.This is also true for
all employees who have reached the mandatory requirement age of 65,regardless of position.
Sheriff Stolle set a great example that we should all look to as an example of doing what is best
for a department,not just for its leader,i.e Chief Cervera.
10 day ago 0 1 Agree
There should be a retirement option available with 20 years of service including full health
benefits.The physical and mental stress placed upon officers is high.
10 days ago 0 1 Agree
It may be legal but it is age discrimination and that should go against our core values as a city.
10 days ago 01 Agree
Raising the retirement age to 70 flies in the face of the Workforce Development Program that was
just implemented.There are officers much younger than 70 that cannot physical do this job.To
think this is being considered for a select group of officers still here is an insult to the workforce.
Basically,if you don't like the rules and you are in a high enough position you can change them
when it benefits you.
10 days ago ®1 Agree
Only reason for this is because 1 individual doesn't want to retire and remain in the chief spot.
11 days ago 0 1 Agree
I feel if you are a street officer the age requirement should be 65 to make opportunities for
younger officers and because of the demands it puts on us mentally and physically.For the Chief
of Police it shouldn't matter.The Chief holds the job as long as the public and the City Manager
feel he is doing a good job.The Chief is"normally"not promoted but is appointed after a Country
wide interview process and is more administrative.There should also NOT be an automatic
advancement process from within the department from Deputy Chief to Chief so the
advancement opportunity and the age requirement should not apply to the Chief.
11 days ago el Agree
Every police officer who took this job knew the mandatory retirement was 65.City Council just
funded a newly implemented Professional Development Program for all of public safety that is
based on development and opportunities.If the PDP is good for the rank and file,it should also
apply to all leadership positions throughout the organization.Our police department is flatly
structured with limited supervisory positions.Allowing people to remain after the age of 65 will
absolutely impact and stagnate opportunities for the next generation of leadership to include
opportunities for minorities and women within the department.In addition,I'm very concerned
about the trickledown effects of such a decision.Moving the retirement age may impact the front
end of eligibility(50 years of age),retirement benefits,line of duty benefits and a whole host of
unforeseen consequences.Moving the back end of the retirement will disrupt the natural
progression of movement and flow within the PD.Lastly,a trait of a good leader is knowing when
it's time to move aside and allow those who have developed,served,studied,and prepared to
take the lead.The 65 mandatory retirement age is appropriate and should not be changed.
11 days ago 01 Agree
There is something to be said that"We"Virginia Beach are the only city in the state that has the
65 age requirement where all others have 70.Lets just be consistent across the board.Also it was
nice that the Sherriff's office mirrored the PD policy however they gave several officers a 3 year
exemption that were going to be affected.The PD/EMS/Fire should also be provided that same 3
year extension/exemption for the PD officers affected regardless of position or rank.Lets have
parity for all sides.
11 lays ago 0 1 Agree
As individuals rise through the ranks,they lose contact with-and awareness of-the work and
conditions of our lowest ranking members.While criminals are highly adaptive and continuously
refreshed by new generations,police cling to the same personnel and rarely stray from 100+year
old methods of law enforcement.
Bureaucracies are slow enough to enact positive change as it is,let's not add to the problem by
holding on any tighter to the current stagnant model of operations.
i I days ago 01 Agree
Changing the age to over 65 is about one thing,POWER.The chief has known for several years
this departments moral is at a all time low.If the chief cared about the department he would
move on and let another person attempt the job he can't do.Change is a good thing,new ideas
and ways to lead.
11 day,ago 0 1 Agree
At a time when we are going to a"Work Force Development"program for advancement,and
improved compensation,why is the irony lost that the highest paid police officer is refusing to
move on to make way for others to advance?This comes across as self serving.If this is so unfair
why is it only now become the chief's concern.Every organization has to move on.It's in it's DNA.
If a leader has done his or her job then there should be no concern in turning it over to the next
generation,as long as the correct person(s)are selected.Council,the CM,and the citizens need to
understand that their police department is not 1 person.It is the hundreds of men and women
who suit up and face the dangers of the job day after day and live their oath.None of us took an
oath to serve the Chief.We took the oath to serve the people.To insinuate that this would
change,is an insult to every officer,everywhere.Furthermore,if this debate is allowed to continue
it could damage the department by allowing things to be public that shouldn't as well as make
council appear weak and it will be setting the next chief up for immediate failure in the eyes of the
public.
Q 1 Aprce
Law enforcement is a young person's profession.The job is stressful and can be physically
demanding.Do you really want to have 68 or 69 year old officers on the street potentially chasing
or struggling with 20 or 30 year olds?Can someone do a desk job past 65?Maybe but we need a
standard that applies to everyone because we are all police officers,first and foremost,regardless
of position.41 years is enough for anyone.Let it go and retire.The rule was made for good
reasons-stop trying to change it because one person wants it changed to benefit themselves.
11;>>,, Q,Agree
This comes across as self serving.At a time when we are going to a system based on"Work Force
Development"for advancement,growth,and improved compensation why does no one see the
irony that the highest paid police officer is refusing to make room for someone else(others)?
Furthermore,if it was such an unfair rule why is it only now the Chief's concern?every
organization has to move on.It's in it's DNA.If as a leader you have done your job then turning it
over to the next generation should not be a concern.If this debate is allowed to continue all that
will happen is council will look week,and they will be setting the next Chief up for failure.
I believe the position of sworn should apply at all ranks because ultimately we are all asked to
perform the same task.If a person is in danger we are expected to act.The rank of the person
does not negate the need to respond.Because of this,I firmly stand with it should be based on
the ability to perform the tasks and as a supervisor I believe it should be even across all ranks for
the standard.
In particular the current administration watched officers be forced out due to age without this
conversation taking place.Only when it impacted one of them was it brought up,which is a self-
serving conversation.With regards to
11 days ago ®* Agree
This job is a young persons job,not an old,out of date,out of touch with the troops out of touch
with reality type person job.You seriously need to look at lowering the number of years of service
instead.Be like most other states,20 years of service and no age requirement is enough to retire.
®'
If you must apply a mandatory retirement age,then go with the federal standard for social
security that depends on when you were born;65 or 67.However,I am reluctant to have an 60+
officer running around the street and having to physically engage suspects.Because of the
physical&mental demands of this job,it would be more appropriate to have a straight 20 year
retirement ability much like the military.If you are truly trying to look out for the employee,then
that should be the focus.
11 days ago y)1 Agree
Changing the age is self serving for only one individual.This will set a precedent,which down the
line will only cause several other issues
O* 1 Agree
It has long been recognized and documented that the physical,mental and emotional stress that
comes with being a law enforcement officer is extraordinary,regardless of position or rank.This
stress has had a well documented negative impact on the quality of life and life expectancy of
those in law enforcement.This is why the Virginia Retirement System provides the"LEO
Supplement"in retirement.The LEO supplement affords those in the profession the ability to
retire as early as age 50 and still be compensated until they receive social security by age 67.If we
truly care about the wellness and well-being of our law enforcement officers we will require them
to retire by age 65,if not sooner.
11 days ago Ci 1
Extending the age past 65 suggests the Department and/or City Council don't believe that there
are capable replacements for executive VBPD leadership positions.Extending retirement age
worsens this situation since it does nothing to enhance the existing talent pool for leadership
positions.Instead of raising retirement age to keep one officer,why is the City not looking at
enhancing current succession planning and career ladder development?VBPD needs better ways
to develop internal candidates for leadership positions,and identify potential external candidates
in the event of needed replacement.
11 days ago 0 1 Agree
Should be allowed to work until eligible for Social Security and Medicare.
11 days ago O* 1 Agree
I don't feel that the retirement age for law enforcement should be raised,in fact it should be
lowered.But,if the retirement age is raised it shouldn't go beyond age 67 in line with full benefits
from Social Security.
11 days ago O 1 Agree
I'm 51 and in pretty good shape but my body is changing and I can not do some of the things I
used to.Police work is a younger mans game and it's gotten tougher.You put that uniform on,
you subject yourself to the realities of the world.We need officers that can handle the physical
demands of the job.
11 days ago ®* 1 Agree
There is great emphasis in today's police culture about stress and mental well being as it pertains
to what an officer sees and experiences over the course of a career especially one that expands
25 years or more.We are told to look out for each other and to be able to detect when a fellow
officer or supervisor is stressed,emotional,or mentally worn out.We are asked to intervene and
try to seek help or suggest resources for help so that individual may continue being productive in
their career and lives.Also so many officers experience physical pain from doing this job over the
course of a 25 year career or more whether it be from on the job injuries or just simply wearing a
heavy gun belt their entire careers.I just believe at some point every person who does this job for
a long period of time needs to retire,even if it is mandatory,and simply stop,relax an enjoy life!
11 days ago0 1 Agree
There are many other positions/areas to work within the police,fire,sheriff departments where a
65+can work other than patrol officer or in the field or on the street(i.e.school resource officer,
community engagement,detective bureau,recruiting,records,property and evidence,crime
analysis,administration,etc.).Many 65+year olds have experience,skills,maturity,training,
education that would be beneficial to any of the LE/Public Safety departments,especially to the
younger personnel.
11 days ago C1 Agree
The public safety field is too physically or mentally draining to work past 65.There are times when
65 seems too old.I can not think of many 65 year olds that I would want to assist in a very
physical demanding altercation.When we signed up for this job we knew we had to be out at 65.
But now because a few higher ups want to stay longer this is a conversation.If an officer wanted
to stay longer this would not even be a discussion.Typical good old boy system.The way this
department had been working for years.We need fresh faces and new ideas and that starts at the
top.The top 4 all need to go.
11 days ago 0 1 Agree
I've had a couple of friends that were retired at the age of 65 within that last couple of years.I
think that it should remain consistent no matter what position you hold.If the city wants to
continue to improve on transparency and consistency,policies should be looked at when the
obvious reason is not apparent.I think 65yo is definitely an age of decline no matter what duties
you have.Especially when you may have to respond to an emergency situation and age,physical
ability,and mental acuity are important.
1 days ago O. 1 Agree
I believe a yearly pt test should be implemented to ensure our officers are staying in good
physical shape.If they are able to pass the test no matter the age then they should be allowed to
stay.This should be administered by a 3rd party.
11 days ago O 1 Agree
Would anyone on the counsel want to have a 69 year old officer respond to a violent crime where
the officer may need to use force to subdue an unruly suspect.Didn't think so.That same
principle shouldn't allow the Chief of Police to work from his ivory tower even tho he doesn't
attend the same training or have any semblance of being a cop except for the uniform.
11 days ago 0 1 Agree
The city for years has forced out officers that reached the age of 65.Some of those officers would
have gladly stayed.Not one police administrator went to the council asking for the code to be
changed because we need to retain officers or that they are capable of performing the job well
past 65.Now one person wants to stay and wants the code changed.That is not fair to those that
were forced out.
11 days ago 0 1 Agree
If you can do the job,you should be able to work as long as you wish.Age Discrimination?
tl days ago 01 Agree
If it goes to 70 the person has to prove they can still function as a street officer.Meaning they
have to be able to run and fight if necessary
ll days ago Q* 1 Agree
Allowing employees to stay past 65 years of age creates a stagnant and antiquated work
environment impeding change,career progression and retention which in turn affects morale.
There are statistical and fact based reasons why social security begins at 62.Keep the retirement
age at 65 until humans have clearly demonstrated through statistics and science based evidence
that the federal government can raise the eligibility for social security to 70.
3 days ago
Thank you chief for your 40+years of service.However,it is time for you to go.In no time in my
police career have I heard of an officer wanting to go past the mandatory retirement age of 65.
The chief should be no exception.It is an embarrassment to see the 3 Deputy Chiefs unable to
communicate and work together.One deputy chief is trying and has been unsuccessful.I blame
the Chief for this.Your failure to communicate with the department STARTS AT THE TOP,this is
one of the many issues that has failed to be adressed!I feel this department performs on such an
exceptional level because of the Captains and Lieutenants leadership and officer dedication and
commitment to our community.
It is sad we have to air our dirty laundry in this forum but it is because of the lack of self
awareness by the Chief and recognizing it is time to go!This matter is now in the hands of City
Council and city leaders,you are now on notice.
days ago
we need change
3 days ago
Thank you Chief for your 40+years of service!At no time in my police career have I have heard of
anyone requesting to serve past the age of 65.I feel this is a selfish,irrisponsible and
unacceptable request on your part.I can no longer support someone who cannot effectively
communicate with his department!It is an embarassment to see the 3 Deputy Cheifs unable to
communicate and work together to acheive a common goal.One of the Deputy Chiefs has made
numerous efforts but has been unsuccessful!I blame you for this.You are completely oblivious to
this issue and many others in the department and it is noticed by all levels of leadership and
officers.The rank and file of this department is yearning for solid,effective leadership!Somone
who can communicate a vision and lead this organization into the next generations.This
department currently performs at an outstanding level because of the Captains and Lieutenants
leadership and their support and dedication to the officers and the community.
It is sad that we have to have our dirty laundry aired in this manner because the Chief doesn't
have enough self awareness to know when it is time to go.This is now in the hands of City Council
and City leadership,you are on notice!
3 days ago
No person should be working in this profession after the age of 55 or no more than 20 years.The
internal and external stress in this profession takes its toll and how many of the city's
management really care??
4 days ago
I think that the factors of job related stress and health issues that arise from that stress should be
considered.Moving the age any higher than 65 could prolong that stress.
No matter the position,the standard should be the same for each individual as you may have to
take action.
4 days ago
65 is pushing it as it is.The age should not be raised.
4 days ago
There is a good reason why there are term limits for those who hold high positions of power in
our government.The overwhelming majority of the commenters know that this survey is the
direct result of Chief Cervera wanting to extend his tenure.It's time for a fresh perspective and
new ideas.While I feel the Chief has done some wonderful things for the organization,he can
continue to do more for the officers,but in a different capacity--By retiring,running for Council,
and fighting for all the things the officers are desperately pleading to change.
days,..
Comments on this are a complete waste of your time and effort.City Council won't even bother to
read them and definitely will not consider anyone's input.They have their decision made already
before they ever sent this out.It's all part of the dog and pony show to act as if we actually have
input,Like everything else,he will get his extension like he wants because he's self-serving and
the city manager will get his raise because somehow he feels he deserves it and the rest of the
officers will get left behind as usual.
Retirement age should be the same for officers and supervisors.Too many supervisors staying on
pass their time,with stubborn ideas or stuck on"this is how it's always been done"mess up the
morale and tone of any department.It also creates the problem most departments have now
hiring their buddies and/or family members instead of giving Civilian Joe a try.
#DONTBEMADIFUDONTWANTTOHEARTHETRUTHDONTASK
;..fin..�. F....
Should retire at 65 regardless of position.Too many people staying way pass their time still
thinking their old ways work and never opening up to new ideas from younger generation.
5 days ago
The retirement age should be lowered.Officers go through many physical and mentally
exhausting experiences.This takes its toll.
6 days ago
It appears to be a better idea to lower the retirement age verses raising it.If for nothing else,the
health and well being for officers.
long-term health care costs are another consideration,this job wrecks bodies and minds,which is
why the state offers a retirement supplement after 20 years.However,we won't see a meaningful
salary structure improvement that will permit anyone to leave after two decades,so that option is
off the table,too.Old-age retention hurts and impacts officer development when the higher
positions are held for too long.if chiefs don't leave,deputy chiefs and captains wont leave.That's
who this change targets anyway,isn't it.additionally,we have been told there is NO CHANCE that
officers will see pay increases within a pay grade.we are told you must get promoted to see a
meaningful pay raise in the future.if the stagnation in the ranks is as bad as the stagnation in pay,
then you have given us NO opportunities to increase our pay.
The police department is strongly supporting career advancement with rotating sergeants,
Lieutenants and Captains while remaining stagnant at the highest levels.
Not a true statement.Captains are the only ones who have faced mandatory rotation over
the years while no one else on the department has been forced to.
4 days ago
If we institute an age change then it needs to be to age 67 and would only take place the following
fiscal year,and the current Chief should not be allowed to stay during that time.If he was truly
looking out for others he would have brought this up when he first became chief or at least a year
or two ago.At least then it would not have appeared that he was only looking out for himself.
We need to start the search for a new Chief.The new chief should not be chosen from within the
department.It needs to be a person from OUTSIDE the department.It should not be any of the
current deputy chiefs nor any of the current captains.WE need to bring new ideas and become a
progressive department.All the current leadership has been brought up in the current leadership
and have not helped the department move forward.Its time for a change and that can only come
from outside.
We are instituting a new workforce development plan wherein all the sergeants are allowed to
only stay in a job for 10 years yet we continue to allow a chief to hold that position for an
indefinite time??No,nor should any of the deputy chiefs,captains or lieutenants remain in their
positions for that long.
We should look into changing the retirement to 20 years that would open up the opportunities for
younger officers.If the city looked into early retirement buyouts they would see many senior
officers take it.Would we lose institutional knowledge yes.But if we truly prepared our personnel
like we should,which is by preparing them to replace us then it should not be a problem.
Time for change.
E days ago
The chief has done many good things for the department and he handled the building 2 incident
amazingly especially when in the national spotlight.But If the policy is changed now,it is only for
one reason.Its because he has seen the light flickering on his career as it comes to a city
imposed mandatory retirement age of 65.If he truly cared about this why didn't he solicit for this
to occur when he became chief or maybe a year or two ago?At least that way he could of used it
as a veil to what he truly wants!Which is to be able to stay as long as he wants.He has served in a
position of Deputy Chief or Chief for almost 2 decades.What does this do for the Department?
Nothing.Its time for new blood to lead this organization.This means that NO ONE from within
should be chosen to be the next Chief.None of the current Deputy Chiefs,nor any of the Captains
should be chosen to lead the Department.WE need new ideas,new innovation,change and
progression.The only way that will happen is with new leadership at the top.
If we institute an age change then it needs to be to age 67 and would only take place the following
fiscal year,and the Chief should not be allowed to stay during that time.He is to be made to
RETIRE.If he was truly looking out for others he would exclude himself from being able to stay
past age 65.We need to start the search for a new Chief!!We are implementing a new workforce
development plan wherein it limits personnel to stay in a position for a total of 10 years.So why
should the chief or deputy chiefs stay past that time in their position?The same goes for the
Captain's and Lieutenants they need to move around as the sergeants are being made to do.This
will allow for growth of the junior personnel.It will develop others which is what an organization
should always strive to do.The military does it.Federal law enforcement agencies do it but we do
not?Why?Because,at the top we only believe that we have the answers or ideas to lead.Even
though most have not served as a street officer or first line supervisor in DECADES!!
Since the city's inception in 1963 we have had a total of 5 chiefs,most being hired from within.Its
time we looked elsewhere.We need to become a progressive Department.WE have outstanding
training,outstanding line personnel.Pretty good equipment,our technology is terrible we had a
horrible purchase with our new cads system.But I digress,we as an organization are not defined
by one person alone.We as an organization should be continually mentoring those we have
within to replace us.If we have not done that then we have failed as an organization.Therefore
that is why its time to seek new Leadership.
If we were able to change the retirement to 20 years and out this would pay dividends as the
younger generation would see it as a great benefit.This career is unlike all others and it does
place a heavy toll on the well being of all that choose it for theirs.Hence,why there is already a
heart and lung bill.Making retirement 20 years would be along the same lines as well as allowing
junior officers opportunities within the department that they do not currently have.I bet if the city
decided to do an early retirement buyout like many other cities in the Commonwealth have done
they would see that many senior officers would leave.Would the department collapse?No,It
would lose some institutional knowledge yes,but it would survive and go on.
I would love to see 25 and out regardless of age.I thought once I got to 25 years things
would be less stressful knowing I made it that far.Then the reality of having to stay another
2 years sat in and I feel trapped waiting to turn 50.We need a new chief.We have a great
captain who would lead us into better times,he did in it Special Operations when the
miserable leadership was sent to the 2nd precinct.It was a new place in a matter of days.
•
The City should continue to have a mandatory retirement age of 65 for ALL sworn law
enforcement officers regardless of position.A true leader knows when to lead,knows when to
follow,and knows when to get out of the way for the betterment of his troops and to accomplish
the mission.
6 days ago
Instead of looking to raise the age,look to lower the retirement age.A 20 year an out option
should be reviewed.
6 days age
N/A
6 days ago
The City should continue to have the mandatory retirement age of 65 for ALL sworn law
enforcement officers regardless of position.
A true leader knows when to lead,when to follow,and when to get out of the way for the
betterment of his people and to accomplish the goals and objectives.
6 days agc:
First,the question must be answered for the REASON that this is suddenly an issue...
Is it for PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL reasons?
If this change is being considered for merely PERSONAL reason(s)then this is a waste of time and
resources.EVERYONE has personal issues of some kind regarding this occupation.The notion that
we would change a policy,now,for one person is absurd.The inkling that we would possibly
change a law is absolutely scandalous.Doing so would clearly be an abuse of position by those
implementing it.To use your elected/appointed position to directly make changes for one's self,
or friend,is devoid of all rectitude.We serve the the Citizens.We do so with integrity and
transparency.IF this change was solely for the best interest in the DEPARTMENT,a change would
already have occurred or when it would not immediately affect an Officer.Only in this way can
you truly say your decision is objective and good for the organization(if it in fact is..).Regardless
of how many Officers this affects,(a couple)the fact is that only ONE has elevated this issue to it's
current level.Thus,this issue only affects a minuscule percentage of employees.
If the concerned party bases their NEED for change solely for PROFESSIONAL reasons,and has
clearly demonstrated the need to remain in their current position because they hold irreplaceable
value to the Department,City of Va Beach,Citizens of Va Beach,then that should be considered.
Personally,I know of no one who has risen to that level in ANY organization.
There should be no factors considered in changing the retirement age since I do not believe
changing the age is a good idea.Every officer should be able to perform the functions of their job
-not position-despite their age.
6 days ago
Positions held for years do not other officers move up the chain and senior officers stagnate the
promotion process.
Though most higher positions are held for a long time,positions like the ones this survey is
presenting have a downside when held for to long.New ideas are not presented because of old
practices and living in the past verses the future.
6 days ago
City council and the Chief are worried about retirement age when a 6 year officer is making
almost$3000 more a year then a 9-12 year officer....
Leave the age alone,take the money the city will save by the Chief's retirement and use it to fix
pay for the officers who make up the backbone of this department.
The federal government forces its employees to retire at 57 and does not hire those older then 37
for a 20 year retirement.Police should consider a 20 and done retirement just like the military or
should consider falling in line with the age maximum of the federal government.The damage this
job does mentally and physically on a daily basis is enough.Now our city just had a mass incident
that has affected the entire department and other city departments in a major way.This incident
mentally has caused unrepairable damage.I feel it would benefit to lower it,not raise it.No one
has discussed how the change in age,if done,will effect any of the other benefits offered at
retirement such as collection and LEO.
Also the department does not have a physical fitness requirement to remain a sworn full duty
police officer,if the change is made,which I am against it being raised,A physical fitness
requirement should be applied-not just to the older officers,but to all officers-to make sure one
is physically capable of staying on the job.
If you raise it,please don't make it a rush decision,please look into and consider how it will affect
the retirement system and plans that are already in place that we all have expected.
6 days ago
If employees are requested/required to retire at a certain age,then the top brass should have
mandatory retirement too.
I think each person is different.As long as they can meet requirements of the job.
7 days ago
I love my grandparents and I'm always happy to see them,but I would really like to see someone
else at the door when I dial 911.
The job can be rough.If you've actually done the job and done it to your fullest extent,it beats
you up quite a bit.Thank you for your service and commitment,but its time to go.
7 days ago
Regardless of how distinguished an officer(or police executive's)career is,age catches up with us.
This profession can be a physically and mentally taxing job,and all sworn members should be
held to the same standard.Do we really want 70 year old police officers on the street?I fully
support the officer who can effectively do that at 70,but I fear that's going to be the exception
instead of the rule.
The age should remain at 65.I have read many of the comments posted and most,in my opinion,
are on point.The argument that increasing the retirement age would greatly help staffing is off
base.Where staffing is needed is at the patrol level where you will find few officers at or near 65.
While I agree there are some officers that might be able to work past 65,that is far and few
between.The majority of the older officers on the department are in positions(not in everyday
operational patrol)that might allow them to work past 65.So instead of focusing on age limits,we
should be focusing on pay and benefits fairly and equitably shared across all levels and tenure,
which will serve to aid in recruitment and retention.Knowledge and experience is important,but
there is no survey that would say keeping an officer past 65 has a measurable benefit.However,
there can be evidence found that years of policing can be detrimental to health and wellbeing
(Hence fatigue and other policies implemented).The standard is and should remain at 65 for the
citizens',the officer's,and the department's overall safety.It has been said many times that the
criminals remain the same age and the officers continue to get older,which can become a safety
issue.There have been competent officers/supervisors in the past that would have liked to have
stayed,but at that time'DC Cervera'made no argument to change the age or appear to have
provided much support.In fact,in order to force some retirements of people that have been on
the department for some time,in the recent past,it appears transfers were made or to be made
to influence individuals to retire.We,as an organization,cannot and should not have one
standard for a few and another standard for everyone else.For instance,the Chief violates
current policy every day when in uniform.At the Lt.level and above you are required to carry at
least one secondary/less lethal weapon,but the Chief carries his phone and service weapon
without even an extra magazine.Since we do not know when or where our'Police'services are
needed,this is not a good practice.It is time to begin a serious external search for Chief,which
might help quell some of the dysfunction and bring new life/ideas to the Department.The current
DC of Operation(Dean)would not be a good fit for this due to his expressed and demonstrated
disregard for the officers not only in operations,but the many places he has traveled within the
organization.His focus is mission and citizens first and the well-being of officers,maybe,which
contributes to low morale and disenchantment with the department.Staffing/recruitment is a
necessity,but the mission cannot get accomplished without the officers,A happy officer works
better and will become one of your best recruiters.Just think,700 people recruiting.Keep
mandatory retirement age at 65 and begin the search for a new Chief.
The idea of changing the mandatory retirement age has never been seriously considered during
my tenure with the department.Now that Chief Cervera is nearing mandatory retirement,all of
sudden this proposal is front page news.All officers regardless of assignment or rank should be
held to the same standards.I believe the age of 65 or being a senior citizen is probably 5-10 years
too long for a mandatory retirement age for LEOs.Chief Cervera has had a long career,but it is
time for him to pass the torch and start another chapter in his life.The police department will be
just fine.
As an officer ages they become a liability on the street.If supervisors are given an extension it will
further divide the department.Officers at the highest level of command must be able to preform
the same basic functions and physical abilities as a new recruit.
While officers age the criminals stay young.This is a physical job.Older officers are more likely to
rely on their weapons to subdue suspects.Officers in desk jobs are still called to put on their
uniform and work the street for large scale events such as College Beach Weekend.Police work is
a young persons job.Instead of looking to raise the age the city should look to reducing
retirement to 20 years.Most of the officers going out with career ending injuries(retiring
medically)are over 40.
This is an example of what is so wrong with our organization.40 years in LE?The thought of the
same four"managers"in the top positions is numbing.Take a survey of other departments our
size and see what their chiefs tenures are.We have a real need for change and this will only be
brought about by people retiring and creating(unclogging)management positions.We have only
had 3 chiefs in 25 years.The chief should be limited to 3-4 years.How can we grow and change
when forced to accept the unlimited chief tenure?I'll close with this,would this be an issue if the
60 plus crowd were not riding admin assignments.?(Desks)Hit the street(Patrol)and see how
many stay past 60-65?
8 days ago
This is another example of what is so wrong with the organization.40 years in LE?How can we
grow and change if the same people clog up the key positions.The thought of the same top four
"managers"for years is numbing.Do a survey of other departments our size and see what their
chiefs tenure's are.I've been here for two decades and have only seen three chiefs.The chief
should be a 3-5 year position.There is a real need for younger leaders to advance.Self
awareness,nobody has any business being in a uniform at that age.Of course if the 60 and up
crowd were not riding desk jobs this wouldn't be an issue,hit the street and see how long you
want to stay in LE.
8 days ago
You must be physically able to do the job ie.Protect yourself,partner and the public.
8 days ago
The job of a police officer is demanding both physically and mentally.Anyone who wears a badge
may be required to preform extraordinary actions.As shown in the Sargent's responding into
building 2.Rank does not and should not limit the requirement to preform the duty we can sworn
an oath to do.
No need to change just because the chief doesn't want to retire,plenty of people didn't want to
retire when their time came.
Look into lowering the age of mandatory retirement.Older officers need to be able to keep up
with younger officers in physical and mental abilities.
Police work s a demanding job.Regardless of position,you just don't know when you will be
called to act,fight,and protect.Older than 65 is just not the age to demand the physical
requirements to save lives in any given situation.At some point we have to turn it over to the next
generation.
How much talent have we lost as an organization because the top is clogged up.How many new
an innovative leaders have we sent away from our city to keep limited individuals in a place of
comfort.
The profession of Law Enforcement is extremely demanding both physically and mentally
therefore an officer pushing 70 is unreasonable and most importantly unreasonable.If we are
looking at retirement it should be to lower rather than extend it.I cannot imagine being an officer
for another 20+years and I know that when my time comes I need to step aside for the younger
generation to take the reigns and grow the department as society grows and changes.Police
work,like most public safety organizations,is a young persons game and those who are from the
new generation are the ones who should be leading the Virginia Beach Police Department,not the
ones who are unfamiliar with technology and unwilling to learn and use technology to promote,
recruit and retain officers.
I am proud of what Chief Cervera has accomplished and the department is better for it however,
it is time for him to step aside and let the young ones develop their vision of the VBPD.This push
for a raise in age is very self-serving and I would must rather see him go out on a high note than
be marred by a last ditch effort to stay another 5 years.
9 days ago
Don't raise the age.Leave it as it is.
9 days ago
Reguardless of the position a person should be able perform the task of Police Officer.Because
as Police Officer they will expected to perform as one at any time.
9 days agc
A sworn Public Safety position requires a level of fitness and resiliency to be effective.It is past
time for public safety to have task based fitness standards.Public safety is not like a walmart
greeter or a private industry admin person,and a 60-65 year old body is less able to recover than
50-55 year old body.A fitness standard for all sworn police/fire/sheriff'should be the first step.
9 days ago
We have a broken promotional process that will not be fixed unless we get a new department
director...change is good
10 days ago
Departments become stagnant and culture erodes without change.That culture starts at the top.
Our command staff have been in place far longer then the national average.We can not grow as a
department without some change and a little upheaval.
72 day,
Since our department does not have physical fitness standards,it is fair to say that the likelihood
of
Since we do no have physical fitness standards,it would be very difficult to ask an officer to retire
out due to his/her physical abilities and cognitive abilities if the age was increased.There is a far
greater likelihood that,during the 65-70 year old range,the body is less likely to be able to sustain
the rigors of this career.I would also expect to see line of duty deaths to increase due to heart
failure,which is common in this profession.
10 days ago
Being a police officer requires a bit of physical fitness.Its no secret that as you age your body
becomes less physically fit.I would personally like to see an annual physical fitness standard in
place for VBPD officers.This can be a pass/fail test and provide officers who passed the test a
yearly bonus.
The police department is rolling out policy to move Sergeants around in specialty spots after a
certain number of years.The idea behind this is to create opportunities for other Sergeants to
advance.How are younger officers expected to advance into leadership roles if our leaders are
not retiring?
10 days ago
The age of retirement should be 65 for all law enforcement officers.While the knowledge of an
older officer is helpful,in today's changing climate the younger law enforcement office is more
adgial and fit.The cost of workman's comp claims needs to also be a factor in keeping someone
past 65.
10 days ag.
Performance and ability to preform required tasks would be a big part in allowing a person to
stay past 65.
It should not be changed.It has been the same for years for a reason.It makes sense,and works
well for the city.
The age 65 should be the standard!It would affect all the LEO's vice a fraction.It gives the new
recruit something to look forward to.
10 days age,
None.
10 days agc.
Changing policy for one person is a slippery slope.
"Should the City continue to have a mandatory retirement age for sworn law enforcement
officers?"
The answer to that question is,"Yes."That is because the department does not have a fitness
standard and Occupational Health would likely certify Helen Keller fit for duty.Therefore,the only
way to weed out many of those who aren't fit for duty(i.e.respond to calls for service,which is
Policing 101)is to institute an age requirement.Clearly I'm not saying all 65 year old Officers are
out of shape,but that it is a tool that can be used to force unfit officers out.
The timing of this ordeal seems very problematic for the city and department.I personally am not
anxious to see the Chief go,as I don't always think the grass is always greener(aka:the devil you
know is better than the one you don't).I'm content with him staying here.However,seeing that
the current Chief has waved and smiled at many of his former officers(aka:stood idly by)as they
walked out the door at age 65,means that he cannot secretly lobby City Council to change the
rules for his benefit now.Further,instituting the Workforce Development program whilst not
adhering to that program's principles is problematic for his cause.
The LA Times states:"Among large police organizations,2-1/2 to three years is now the average
chief's tenure,according to several police associations,including the Major Cities Chiefs of North
America,representing chiefs of departments with 1,000 or more officers."
One of the rumors for enacting this measure seems to that the chief did a swell job handling the
building 2 incident.I was not present there as I was out of town on that terrible day.I've talked to
many officers that were there.In their stories,they mention the names of many sergeants,
lieutenants,and captains who were there handling matters at the scene.But I have yet to hear
anyone mention seeing the chief,(or any of his DCs)who were actively involved in the ICS portion
of the incident.I saw him on television,giving briefings.I don't know what his involvement in that
incident was,or was not-but if we are making accommodations for him because of it,then we
need to know what he actually did there.
Finally I also ask if anyone in the City Council has read the last Employee Satisfaction Survey
comments for this department.Many of those comments allude to poor morale,citing lack of
leadership at the top levels.So it seems,based on those comments,that if the City Council wants
to totally destroy the last miniscule amount of morale left here,then they should increase the
maximum age limit.And if that is done,be prepared for blow-back from the Officer's union
representatives.
It appears to me that the City Council should be preparing for a hiring process for a new Police
Chief,and not discussing how to go about changing city codes in order keep the current one here.
I
am sure there are studies out there which can aid in determining the correct response.There is
also something to be said about the lifespan of an officer after retirement.
It seems that you already have your minds made up.Carefully read your own question,and than
you will understand.
10 days ago
If other external restraints exist such as insurance reasons,or State laws.
1F day,
As we all age the ability to do the job becomes more difficult and the toll of the stress of the job
takes on ones ability to perform at a high level.
0 days ago
19 years with department started 03/01/2000
10 days ago
All of the above.
10 days ago
I have a couple issues with retiring after 65.
1:The age 65 from my understanding is because of the stressors that police officers go through
during a 25 year career.The higher the rank the more stressors you see and feel.We have the
heart and lung bill in Virginia for a reason and stress is a major cause of heart problems.
2.-Workforce Development.The department is implementing a mandatory rotation of
supervisors to develop other supervisors who wish to do that specific job.Why is this position for
the Chief any different?He has been in this position for several years.Its time to rotate.We need
a new Chief,Intact we could use a couple new Deputy Chiefs also.One leads by fear and is the
bull dog to the Chief.He is allowed to fraternized with the wife's of other departments members
and gets away with his attitude because he is the chiefs buddy/bull dog.
3:This has all come about because the Chief wants to stay till he is 70.He is using two other
officers nearing 65 as pawns to benefit himself,This is self serving only.I am pretty sure he would
not be going to bat for them if he didn't want to stay himself.You need to look at the annual
survey.The Chief and Dc's are not well liked by the officer.They do not support the officers at all.
We are at one of the lowest numbers in manpower in several years.That is because everyone is
jumping ship for a better department.This is causing more harm to the offices on the street.No
officers to work mean no officers to back us up in an emergency.
No other factors should be considered.Beyond 65 years of age is unsafe for an individual to be in
law enforcement.
it should not be raised.
Do not change the age
As I get closer to retirement age I can't image staying in this job past 50 let alone 70.The job has
become more physically and mentally demanding and I think the city takes on huge liability asking
officers in there 60's to continue this line of work.
The mandatory age should be 65.
This job is too physically demanding to allow someone to be 70 years of age to be still working as
an Officer.
10 days ago
Council should also consider how raising the age limit will lead to an increase in duty related
injuries.
10 days ago
65 mandatory age
10 day, -
I don't believe there should be any change in the mandatory retirement age.Therefore,there
shouldn't be any factors considered.
You should not be able to work past 65.Not only do I not want to be a burden on fellow officers at
the age past 65.I do not think one a 65 year old would be able to continue the physical
requirements year in and year out.
There shouldn't be any factors to change the current age requirement for retirement.This job is
stressful enough but to increase the age wouldn't help.There shouldn't be any exceptions
regardless of position on the department.
10 days ago
The safety of officers,regardless of position are still required to perform police duties.
10 days ago
Let's have this discussion after we begin the search for the next chief.
0 days ago
65 regardless.Cervera,zucaro,n Dean gotta go.Moral is the worst ive seen.
10 days ago
Do not change the retirement age.From the Chief to the Patrol Officer,at 65 and above,you can
no longer be an effective officer.Even supervisors or Chief's,may have to fight and defend
themselves or someone else.You cannot do that physically at 65 or older,when you are up
against younger drugged out suspects.It is a huge safety consideration.DO NOT CHANGE THE
RETIREMENT AGE!!
10 days ago
Age should be 65 regardless.Its an officer safety issue.At 65.Its time to move on and enjoy
retirement.Maybe a civilian consultant position,investigators,red light,etc is appropriate.But
active sworn should retire at 65.
10 days ago
I think it should be reduced to 60 for mandatory retirement.
The minimum age for hiring should be raised to 25(after all the department teaches,and
pshycology experts agree,the frontal lobe(the decision making party of the brain)isn't fully
developed until 25.So essentially the city is hiring officer's(those under 25)that are scientifically
disadvantaged when making decisions under stress.Not a good practice,but great for increased
liability.
10 days ago
I believe there comes a point in ones career as a police officer you are not as alert as we were
when we were younger cops.I feel after the age of 65 we tend to lose that concept and it can
cause more harm then good for the safety of officers around you.There needs to be an
mandatory age,this will also allow younger officers to advance who have the skills to take the City
to the next level.
10 days ago
This is a self serving issue.The retirement age should remain at 65.If the argument is that social
sercurity doesn't begin until age 67 the you should double dip and take your$1300 LEO from the
state.All of the Heads of the Military and their enlisted advisors once appointed can only serve 4
years and then retire.Move up and out and make room for the up an coming generation.
10 days ago
It should be considered that raising the age could have a serious impact on coverage by the Heart
and Lung Bill.An advanced age of 65-70 could lead to questioning of the presumption of a job-
related heart condition.
10 days ago
It shouldn't change,this only an issue now to help one person out.
0 days ago
10 days ago
No Police Officers should be allowed to work beyond 65 years of age.The cost to our retirement
system of these ridiculous pensions is going to hurt all of us long term.Clear out the old thinking
at the top of the organization and make way for new,younger people to rise up and continue to
grow.
10 days ago
there is no reason for any law enforcement officer to be"able"to be on the streets
C days ago
Reduce frequency of line-of-duty injury or other health complications that occur more frequently
as age increases
10 days ago
I think it's ridiculous that we have to wait till 50 to retire.Nearly 30 years in LE is physically and
mentally demanding on your body.Something should be done to address LE retirement and
health.
No comment
10 days ago
N/A
10 days ago
It should be considered that this only became an issue when the chief of police wanted it raised.
There have been many officers who have been forced to retire due to this age limit.
C.days ago
It should not be changed to a higher age.If anything,the years of service should be changed to
20.
11 days ag:
The stress and physical demands of the job can be very taxing.The differences in the body can be
seen from 20s to 30s is a huge factor.
11 days ago
Na
11 days ago
N/A
11 days ago
Retirement age should stay at 65,you have to leave room for younger people to advance.
it days ago
No need to answer this question since I feel the mandatory retirement requirement does not
need to change.
days ago
Retirement at 65 for Public safety is a good age,who wants someone responding to a emergency
call that cannot perform all of the duties required.Someone at 65 or above cannot perform like a
40 year old no matter what shape they are in.
11 days ago
Physical altercations can happen anytime to an officer in patrol.The department should support
health and well being and retiring at a reasonable age.Unfortunately there is a statistic that a
number of officers die within 5 years of retirement.This is caused by the rise and fall of stress
levels,poor sleep patterns and irregular times of eating.The city should consider lowering the age
to 60 not raising it to 70.The ranks need to be replenished with young enthusiastic officers and
leadership needs to be filled with fresh ideas and perspectives.
11 days ago
11 day. g:
We all know why this is an issue.Time for the chief to go.
11 days ago
Should remain at 65,so none of the above are applicable.
11 days ago
• Regardless of your physical or mental ability to perform tasks,we should maintain the 65 you
requirement within this department.I feel that when you go beyond the age of 65,you are not
able to perform at the proper level to safety and effectiveness in performing all of the required
tasks necessary to work in public safety.We should not even consider this to be an option.By
increasing the mandatory age of retirement,the city will eventually have to upscale the cost of
medical insurance,as there will be even more medical issues than what we currently have at the
age of 65.This job takes a lot out of you as the years pass.65 should be maintained as our
standard age of retirement,no exceptions.
11 days ago
Not in support of the change,so I would not have any factors to consider.
11 days ago
If one does a certified police officer then it should be expected of them to be able to carry out any
law enforcement duty including working the streets being able to fight and some do I suspect if
needed.Or 870-721-3651 and 6just because supervisory position doesn't mean you're not
responsible to be able to fill any position required as a police officer.
We all who wear the badge have the potential to respond to emergency situations,(traffic,civil
disturbance,Active Shooter)regardless of our primary assignment.I came into this profession
knowing that I would have to retire by the time I was 65.I will not be able to reach the required
time to get my medical benefit.I believe there should be a case by case consideration for
continuation past 65.Not just by position.
11 days ago
65 is a good age for retirement from being a 1st responder,your body has lost an edge,such as
eye sight,reaction time,and being able to work 20 hours straight which can occur
11 days ago
It shouldn't change,so no factors need to be considered.
11 days=g:
65 is too old for most uniform patrol officers already.
Workforce development was created to create opportunities for supervisors but it is not being
applied at all the levels to include the Chief.This organization is and will become more stagnant in
the upper levels if increasing the age limit.This will directly impact retention in the opposite
direction.While it may benefit 1-3 employees now there will be far more who leave due to lack of
advancement opportunities.
11 days ag.:
A 65 year old can't fight a 20 year old.Sorry chief over 40 years of service is enough!
Unfortunately,every one of us knows if something broke out in front of him he would not
react to help.Oh wait,that was proven at college Beach week a few years ago when the
gunshots fired in front of him.He did nothing.he would rather let his officers handle it so
he could throw them under the bus on TV at a later date which is also proven to do.
The age should not be changed
it days ago
The policy/code should never be changed for the interest of the few!
11 days ago
The age should not be raised beyond 65.Regardless of rank,EVERY officer on the department is
required to perform the fundamental duties of a"street officer."An officer advanced in age needs
to train to maintain fitness levels to provide safety to the public and even to defend themselves.
Much like athletes,the demand on the body becomes too taxing as you age.Also,to address the
argument about positions not being as physically demanding,one must consider that the senior
command staff sets policy.But as you become a highly tenured member of the staff,whether you
chose to admit it or not,you eventually become disconnected from the street.You may respond
to cases,or read reports,but to be the first line officer is completely different.To cap the age
would help minimize this disconnection as well.Being that staleness in position has been an issue
that has led to many"workforce development"discussions and proposals,it seems hypocritical
that a proponent of this now seeks to extend their own longevity at position well beyond the
same standards proposed in those development plans.
11 days ago
One question you continue to fail to ask.Do we want this Chief to remain our Chief?The answer
will be an overwhelming NO.
A 65 year old officer has no business chasing or fighting with a 20 year old,it's a dangerous and
losing scenario.Over 40 years of service,sorry chief it's time to enjoy retirement.
11 days ago
The survey is all about Chief Cervera even if it is cloaked under broader terms.He is a good man
that has done beneficial things for the agency.He has been at the chief's rank level in the agency
more than 20 years.It is time for a change.The Police Department has lost many good senior
members to retirement in the last decade because there has been little to no room for upward
mobility.The executive staff are all hanging on until the last possible moment and that stifles the
ability for any movement at the upward levels.Sixty is too old to be a functional police officer
never mind 70.Keep the rules as they are.
The real staffing problem we have in the Police Department is the number of officers available to
work patrol.There are definitely no shortages or lack of candidates to fill the Chief or any of the
command staff ranks.Likewise,there are no shortages or lack of candidates at the sergeant rank
or to fill any of the forever growing number of specialty positions.The patrol numbers are often at
minimum levels and those minimum numbers have been lowered over the years to mask the
problem.I doubt there are any examples of officers between the ages of 60 to 64 working in
patrol.
I personally do not want a 70 year old police officer assisting me on the street.This is a major
safety concern for all.Some of the older officers are holding positions that do not require them to
exert themselves and that is why they feel they should be allowed to stay longer.If they were
working the street they would retire immediately.There have been many city employees who
would of loved to stay longer but were not allowed.By keeping it at 65,this will allow positions to
open up and let fresh officers in those spots.Moral is low,let's not change this rule to appease
one person.We all know that is why this is being discussed anyway.
11 d.1y,agn
Wanting to increase the retirement age to 70 simply because someone isn't ready to give up the
badge is very self-serving and doesn't allow someone else to show how great they could actually
be,if given the opportunity.
You shouldn't change the retirement age except on a case by case basis.For someone who is
close to 65 and has been working looking forward to retirement,it's not fair to tack on 5 more
years.If the police chief wants to stay until 70 and the council thinks he can do the job,change his
date not everyone else.However,if you do,grandfather the others.
Ideally,retirement age should be determined by an employee's ability to perform his/her duties.
However,using this measure,retirement age can vary according to the employee's job
performance,physical health,and,as in this case,the nature of the work.Due to the nature of the
work of a first responder,many employees have had to retire well below the mandatory age of
65.I can understand not wanting to retire from a job so enjoyed that it isn't work or not wanting
to leave without finishing something that's been started,but retirement gives the younger
employees their time to work in a job that isn't work;it gives them their chance to make a
difference.I believe the code requiring law enforcement officers and firefighters to retire at age
65 is fair.
I agree with the age of 65 being the retirement age.This should not be changed simply because
someone feels like they are not ready to retire.Medically they need to be fit to perform all basic
job abilities,meaning,even if they are a supervisor and not on the street anymore,they still need
to be able to perform the basic abilities of a street officer since that is the main job since they still
can encounter situations on-duty and/or off-duty.In a life or death situation,are you going to be
able to not only protect yourself,but protect the public as well.Another reason the retirement
age needs to be 65,is to give others the ability to be promoted.People get to a point where they
believe no one can be better than the command staff is right now,but if you do not give others
the chance for promotion,then you will never know how well someone else might actually be.
This lowers moral and lowers retention when younger people resign to move on to companies
that actually offer and give them promotions.We lose so many good people that way.
11 days ago
I would think work related illness and injury would cause workman's comp issues.
11 days ago
Time for change with higher ups in PD.
11 days
If any changes are to be made it should be lowered not raised.As stated previously all of public
safety is a demanding job.There are not a lot of 65+year old police,sheriff or firefighters that
would be able to pull someone let alone themselves out of harms way.We all age and some with
grace but the body can only stand so much for so long.How much more will it cost the city in
injuries if we raise the age and those that choose to stay are injured in the line of duty.I am not
attempting to discriminate in any way but sometimes you have to step back and look at the
adverse possibilities.We do risk assessments all the time lest actually apply it here.
11 days ago
Raising the retirement age to 70 would not be productive.Although there are some exceptions to
the rule at the age of 65,the physical and mental stress on the body does take a toll.Many
officers may choose not to retire even when their bodies are telling them they should.By allowing
the age limit to increase it may put officers and citizens needing assistance in jeopardy.
11 days ago
People are living longer and many are healthier at older ages.They should be able to continue
working if they are capable and desire to do so.In addition,they share valuable experience with
younger officers
If we change the age for retirement,what is next?Can we now be"less than truthful"below the
rank of Lt.?
11 days ago
Changing the retirement age for the interest of one person is shameful!!!
11 days ago
Every officer/deputy sheriff or firefighter should be able to perform the basic duties of the
lowest ranked member.A supervisor needs to be capable of stepping in and assist the firefighter/
deputy or officer this is a basic safety concern.If the supervisor can not step in to assist then he is
of no use and should be retired regardless of age.Do the job or find another!
Changing the retirement age for the interest of one person is shameful!
There's an old saying-What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.We have had plenty
of officers in the past forced to retire at age 65 that did not want to retire.Any officer wearing a
badge regardless of rank should have the same retirement age.
All the stress and health problems associated with this position,there should be a cut off prior to
age 65.All the shift work can be detrimental to ones health.Police and Firefighters should be
allowed to retire after 20 years instead of 25 years,regardless of age.
There is currently no minimum physical standard to remain a police officer with the Virginia Beach
Police Department.Without the ability to regulate a minimum standard to extend the age limit,
this idea of extending the age to 70 is a completely irrational idea.Police officer should be able to
retire with full benefits after 20 years of service.It is unfortunate that VB can't even fix the
compression issue,and are trying to extend a few careers.Coupled with this,the next step VB
would take is to extend retirement to 30 years because of the adjustment and force police officers
to work longer before being able to retire.This is a terrible idea.
11 days ago
Agreed with another's comments!!
Instead of looking to raise the age,look to lower the retirement age.The damage this job does to
a person is unrepairable.A 20 year an out option should be reviewed.
The fact that this is being discussed is self serving,and only seeks to benefit those who think they
are irreplaceable.
Ask yourself this...would you want your families life in the hands of a 70 year old.
There is an old saying-what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.We have had
plenty of officers in the past that were forced to retire at age 65 when they did not want to retire
but were still shown the door.Any officer wearing a badge(regardless of rank)should have the
same retirement age requirement.
When and officer/deputy applies for a sworn position physical fitness is preached as a must and
is tested before you continue through the hiring process.Once you are in the academy you
continue to be tested and it is preached that it's not just for your benefit,but also for your fellow
officers safety that you can hold your own.Once you graduate you are given a speech about how
important it is to stay in shape.If both VBPDNBSO implemented a physical fitness standard that
officers must pass yearly I think you would find you wouldn't even have to have this survey.Start
treating all of your first responders equally.This goes from recruit to chief,from VBPD VBSO and
VBFD.Why is it fire can work out on duty,but police and deputies can not,If you simply allow your
employees to work out on duty with allotted time frame in their shift then you could hold them to
a standard.In short I do not agree with raising the age limit.I do not want a 69 year old to be my
back up when I'm in a foot pursuit that ends in a fight.Nor do I want a the same 69 year old
calling in sick or milking a call because he was involved in a incident the shift before.I also believe
this should be through out the chain of command.A supervisor whether chief or sergeant should
be held to the same standard as the officer/deputy below them and be able to preform the same
role.
No factors should be considered.If the department and city is concerned with retention then
other issues should be looked at.This issue seems to only be a problem now that the current
chief is up for retirement.
No one should be a police officer regardless of rank after the age of 65 even the federal
government has a lower cut off age for retirement of law-enforcement officers
day,ago
If we decide to increase the minimum requirement age we could be playing a dangerous game
with Richmond.They could interpret this as officers wanting to work longer and law makers might
change VRS minimums as well.
If the officer is a sworn officer then there should be an age limit.If the position is changed to be a
non sworn administrative position then age should not not restricted.A sworn officer regardless
of age or position should be able to complete the same tasking.If recruiting is an issue the city
should examine the reasons.Pay,benefits and morale.Morale is dictated from above and the last
two surveys have indicated morale is low due to senior leadership or the lack of.
11 days ago
Ask yourself if you would want a 67 or 70 year old coming to assist you when you're In a fight for
you life??I'm sure you would say no
It's obvious that the purpose of this survey is to gauge public opinion on making an exemption for
the Chief of Police not to age out in 2020.This department is starving for new leadership.The very
existence of this survey illustrates the need for a clean slate.
11 days ago
So now this is an issue?What about all of the other officers that have been forced out by the city?
The gall of someone to cry to city council to keep his job(and we all know who started this...)but
never took a stand for another officer who was forced out.Seems so self serving and ludicrous.
Changing this standard now will open the city to liability for those past officers forced out.Time
for new leadership at VBPD anyways.Morale is at an all time low.
65 is an appropriate age.To advance the department others need a chance to lead.
Employees and supervisors should be held to a mandatory retirement age that is consistent with
their ability to perform the required job tasks.The city could consider adopting a program similar
to other law enforcement agencies,in which the mandatory age remains constant through all
ranks,and those wanting an exemption to remain employed longer need to apply for a waiver in
order to remain employed past the required retirement age.The employee would need to
demonstrate why they would be an asset and not a liability.This would give the city flexibility in
choosing to keep an employee that has demonstrated that they have a particular set of
knowledge,skills and ability that make them an irreplaceable asset,or that there is too much
liability and a separation needs to occur.
There's an old saying-What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.Plenty of
previous officers were FORCED out at age 65 when they did not want to retire and were still
shown the door.Any officer wearing a badge(regardless of rank)should all have the same
retirement age.
It's self serving to push this issue.It is unhealthy for an organization to be led by one person for
such a long period of time.65 is appropriate.
A Police Officer/Fire Fighter regardless off there position maybe required at anytime to perform
the duties and responsibilities required in the job description.Regardless the of the rank,the job
description comes first.There comes a time when is just not safe to be in uniform doing these
jobs.Our city expects us to carry out these duties and when they see us in uniform they expect us
to act.The manditory retirement age should lower than 65.
11 days oe_,
Retirement age is 65 no exceptions.
11 days ago
It should be 65.Or minimum 20 years and out.
While a supervisor may have more administrative duties that require less physical fitness skills
and abilities,the ability to respond and back up another officer remains the same expectation.65
in my opinion is stretching it and I do know of a few at our agency over 60 that are still in fantastic
shape(better than some 20 year olds)but most over 50 decline tremendously.
Instead of 25 years on and 50 years of age I feel full retirement should be 20 years on and 50
years of age with full benefits for first responders.
The need for opportunities for younger officers and reluctance of older officers to accept needed
change
I feel that all supervisors should be able to work at the street officer level should the need arise
and they are on the line,leading.
11 ;:
65 is a good retirement age.As a Police Officer,wearing a Police Officer uniform,you should be •
able to perform at 100%no matter which position you are in.As such,be able to climb over a 6
foot fence to help another Officer in need.I have seen our Chief walking around the oceanfront
during college beach weekend and other events.If an altercation would happen in front of him,
it's is expected for him to take action and possibly go hands on if needed as a good leader would.
Is the chief currently in good health to do so?Would he able to take such action between the ages
of 65-70yrs?41 years is a good career.Time for change.
11 days ago
The mandatory retirement age should not be moved up from 65 to 70 but instead should be
moved down from 65 to below 60 and maybe even lower.There should also be a 20 years of
service retirement instead of the 25 years of service with 50 years of age.
11 days ago
There comes a time when turnover is needed.I believe that age 65 is a good stopping point for
sworn officers,deputies,and firefighters because it adds consistency across the board and
around the country the current retirement age is 66.
11 days ago
It is important to have leadership that understands and has experience dealing with the new
challenges law enforcement officers face in today's day and age and is not out of touch with the
professions reality
11 days ago
Keep it 65 years of age...also,include the ability for an officer to retire at 20 years with full
benefits.It would allow the officer to pursue a civilian career easier it would also prevent
stagnation in the police department.
11 days ago
only few blessed people could work in law enforcement after 65,considering their physical.
1 I days ago
65 should be the max age for retirement...I actually believe it should be less than that.If anyone
other than the chief were 65 or older,do you really think that if called upon to do so,they could
run,hop a 6'fence,then fight an adversary off of me if I needed a lifesaving assist?There's no
way.Drop the max age to 55,please,for all of our street officers'safety!This is not just an admin
officer's issue!
1 days ago
If the deputy can perform and pass all qualifications for their specific job,they should be able to
remain active until they are unable to what is required.There is no place to put VBSO employee.
days ago
The age 67 is affiliated with social security.I was taught the trade-off is important,to make way
for younger persons to enter the workforce.If the age 67 is affiliated with social security,meaning
it is some requirement to meet before getting benefits,then it should be applicable to when you
are forced to retire from employment.A fear is the age extensions trending and that being a way
to argue to push out retirement ages even further(for social security,etc.).To be sure,as long as
one can argue 67 years old has something to do with another part of retirement,say social
security benefits,then it should affect decisions as to when people are forced to retire.
1 days ago
Police Officers should have a yearly pt test to ensure that they are in good physical condition.If
someone can pass that test every year them let them stay as long as they pass it.
1 days ago
I would set the mandatory retirement age at 67 because it is the age to receive full benefits from
Social Security.Considerations may be given to people over 67 who wish to work in LE in an
auxilary or part-time capacity.
11 days ago
While experience is a not something a price tag can be put on,a department should be well-
rounded with no one employee being the only individual with knowledge of how to do the job.
The department should be considering how to educate the department as a whole in order to
maintain a highly educated staff,as well as one that operates smoothly.By moving the retirement
age for one person,or five people,the message is coming across that the department failed to
cross-educate employees and that several employees are valued more highly than the masses.
11 days ago
Personal agendas should not play into changing established,accepted,and reasonable retirement
ages for such physical and mental professions in public safety.
11 days ago
I think fitness,health,emotion and mental health of the individual,the type of jobs(supervisory,
continuity in leadership and knowledge/competency needed to ensure the department is well
rounded,not too young of police officers and leadership,need balance and health/moral of
department and trends on retention(need to look why many officers are leaving the department
for other states or jurisdictions(not necessarily federal jobs)should be considered relevant to the
current situation.(I was sworn many years at one time)
11 days ago
it should not be changed.
11 days ago
If someone is still physically and mentally able to perform their duties they should be allowed to
continue until such time as they can no longer safely perform their duties.
How do you know when they can't safely do the job.Someone gets hurt?Remember even a
desk riding police officer may have to run or fight,
11 days ago 0* 4 Agree
Exactly.Week 17 is a perfect example.99%of the time they sit behind a desk but
there is the same expectation of those officers especially during large scale events.
11 days a.=, 0 1 Agree
There is no annual exam to test mental ability...
10 days ago
Comments Submitted Privately:
agree with your statement.I'M more puzzled by the sherrif increasing the age to most likely help
his buddies,than by the Chief fighting for thr same right for his officers.Then The sherrif changes
it back when it looks like it's going to benefit the VBPD.That's what bothers me the most.
8 days ago
Well stated.It is not about forcing police officers to work until 70.It is about giving the
opportunity to those that are still competent,physically fit,and pass they requirement tests to
stay.I bet a lot of people say that now because 65 is still a long way,but when they reach that age,
kids in college,mortgage etc.,they may wish they had supported the age increase.
8 days ago
lam. .
13oio Civilian
•
87%Sworn
613 respondents
I have been with the VBPD or the VBSO....
• 42%between 10 and 20 years
• 29%more than 20 years
■ 14%between 5 and 10 years
• 12%between 1 and 5 years
14:00)
■ 2% less than 1 year
615 respondents
Given the choice,how likely would you,personally,choose to work as a sworn police
officer here beyond age 65?
• 73%Very unlikely
• 12%Unlikely
• 7% Maybe
• 6% Very likely
• 3% Likely
612 respondents
FIRE
Mandatory Retirement for Firefighters
Project Engagement
VIEWS PARTICIPANTS RESPONSES COMMENTS
468 267 1 ,806 122
Should the City continue to have a mandatory retirement age for firefighters?
3%Not sure
9%No
88%Yes
265 respondents
No responses received yet
If you answered yes,at what age should retirement be mandatory?
• 91%65
• 3% 70
11 ■ 6% Others
234 respondents
How should the City apply the mandatory retirement age policy?
8118 The same age for all firefighters
regardless of position
■ 1218 Different ages depending on position(for
example.65 for firefighters,68 for
supervisors)
■ 7,8 There should be no mandatory
retirement age
a
3
i.
259 respondents
What factors should be considered when evaluating changing the mandatory retirement
requirement from age 65 to 70(or any other age)?Check all that apply
63% One's ability to perform tasks required of the position 142 d
54% The need to create opportunities for younger firefighters to advance 123 d
17% Other(please explain) 39.d
15% Department's ability to retain experienced personnel who choose to remain on the 35 V
job past the age of 65
6% To have flexibility for staffing when recruiting new firefighters is difficult 13 d
The retirement age should stay at 65.The city should try to get the state to make LEO for life to
onset some folks trying to stay past 65.
11 days ago 0* 13 Agree
There is no compelling reason to change the current mandatory age for firefighters or any of
public safety for that matter.The physicality of the job;possible stagnation in ranks;line of duty
and workers comp presumption costs;and the possibility of affecting the minimum retirement
age are all reasons to leave this alone.
11 days ago 013 Agree
The mandatory retirement age should remain at 65 years of age.Please consider increasing our
pay and benefits now,instead of working us to death.If we were paid more over a shorter period
of time,perhaps we could retire sooner.As it stands now some employees will never reach the
top of their pay scale before retirement.
Firefighters have shorter life expectancies than the average population and are three times more
• likely to die on the job,partly due to inherent risks,physical and mental stresses,and exposures
to toxic and carcinogenic compounds released in smoke.
A study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH)on
mortality and cancer incidence in career firefighters shows an elevated risk of several types of
cancer.
Like the rest of the population,aging firefighters are at significantly higher risk of injury and
illness.It is a young person's profession.Due to the extremely strenuous nature of the job(with
little or no"warm up time,")firefighters suffer higher rates of disabling occupational injury.The
older the firefighter,the more likely these injuries become,and recovery times(and cost)
increase.These injuries are expensive to taxpayers and firefighters,decreasing the quality of life
and requiring expensive treatment,overtime pay to replace the injured worker,which stresses
already low staffing levels.Relatively low minimum retirement ages are a recognition of these
factors above all else.
1 o days ago 0* 10 Agree
This appears to be another example of one employee thinking the rules shouldn't apply to him.
When faced with the end of a long successful career,this employee does not like it and is
petitioning to change it,to serve his needs alone.If this was a Master Police Officer or Master
Firefighter would we even be having this discussion?
1 days ago Q 8 Agree
Please remember the older we get the higher the injury rate.(Fact)and this my friend is passed
on to the the tax payers.Just take a look at our military and ask ourselves why they have age
requirements.Police and Fire are no joke when called to respond.At age 60 lam not what I was at
40!Time to go
11 days ago 0 7 Agree
The injury rate for Firefighters increases with age.While 65 might not sound old to civilians it is
old for our line of work.Statistics back this up.To separate supervisors from frontline staff would
only complicate matters and create additional morale issues.
11 days ago 07 Agree
This is a bad idea that should not be considered.The odds of getting injured after age 50 goes up
considerably and going out on injury would increase as well.This would cause the city to look at
changing the retirement because of injury process effecting all PD and FD workers.Please do not
do this.I know the chief of police is a good guy but changing the rules has a lot of down stream
effects that will hurt younger employees.
11 days ago ®7 Agree
This idea was started by upper admin members as a way to hold and maintain power.There is no
real benefit to the citizens or members and is in fact an attempt to hinder progress by keeping
out of touch people with out of touch ideas in positions of power.You've had your time...you've
done some good,you've done some bad.Time for the next generation to expand the good and
eliminate the bad.
11 days ago *07 Agree
The retirement age should stay 65.If anything,it should be lowered and the option for full
benefits should be 20 yrs of service and any age up to the mandatory retirement age.
11 days ago ®,,Agree
These positions are high stress,high risk jobs.Many require long strenuous hours.Most people
over 65 should not be in these positions.There are a few who are the exception but that does not
justify raising the age.Honestly 65 is probably too high as it is.
i1 day. K):Agree
We should not be even considering raising the age limit.If anything we should be lowering the
age limit to 60.Too many firefighters are having cardiac issues,cancer and other injuries now.
Raising the limit will only increase this number.If the person still wants to work at any age,he or
she can go get a job somewhere else.
11 days ago O F Agree
Nobody is indispensable not even the police chief.Changing the requirements for one individual
is wrong and could have harmful effects on personnel health and create morale issues.Evidently
someone did not plan for retirement.Move on and let the next generation takeover.Happy
Retirement.
11 day=a',: 06 Agree
I believe it should remain the same or lowered to 60
*06 Agree
There should be no change in the retirement age.We have been fine for years and when I came
into the VBFD I knew when I reached the age of 65,it was time to pass the torch.It's not good
practice to change the process for one individual,as this would be the case.
1 days ago O6 Agree
The age should not change.The fact that these jobs are labor intensive is one issue.The other
issue that this city is stagnant with bad management and a bad leadership culture.Forcing these
individuals out at 65 may help start to fix this issue.
11 days ago OCAgree
Why is this all of the sudden coming up?It looks like they're just doing this to keep Chief Cervera.
Changing city ordinances for one person is bad politics and bad business.
n days.e;; +06 Agree
Really this should not be a question.The folks that are 65 should take advantage of their
retirement.Sure retirement is scary but caving in to the few that will immediately benefit is not
the answer.Keeping people past 65 is only opening the City up to additional workman's comp
claims.It's a proven fact that it takes older people longer to recover after injury.We potentially
could have large groups of 65+year old employees out on light duty or no duty.This will create a
huge burden for staffing for both Police and Fire.This will also tie up both departments from
being able to fill those positions if the injuries require long term care.Allow people to work past
65 and watch the"Medical Retirement"claims to go up.
We don't need to be accommodating the one or two people who want to stick around at the
detriment to our City's Public Safety mission.In addition,we need to keep moving forward as a
City.We need fresh ideas that help keep us moving into the next millennia.
There are so many reasons not to change the age to 70.Why anybody would want to stay past 65
is beyond me.
If this gets changed to 70 then in 5 years there will be a group wanting to change it to 75.When
do we say enough is enough.Right now the age of mandatory retirement is 65.It should stay at
65.
Personally,If you really want to know the truth the mandatory age for public safety should be
lowered to age 60.There is no reason why a 65+year old needs to be running towards gunfire or
into a burning building.The Police Chief still carries a gun and the Fire Chief has turnout gear.
Both are expected to perform the duties of required of the positions that they fill.The mission
statement for both department do not change based on their position.
10 days ago S Agree
We should not be considering changing the rules now when others have been forced out very
recently,it sends a bad message.This is a young mans job and the demands on a firefighter over
65 I feel will create a medical liability to the city that will quickly become unsustainable.Leave at
65 take what's left of your LEO benefit and collect your social security in two years.
11 days ago 0 5 Agree
Some employees were forces to leave because of age and it was supported.No need to raise the
age limit now.What is the quality of work having a 65yr old firefighter throwing ladders and
performing a rescue,or an officer on a foot pursuit and fight with a suspect?Even if they are
supervisors,they are still expected to perform the tasks as the personnel in the streets,if
required.
11 day (Dz.Age�e
Senior citizens shouldn't be firefighters or cops.After the age of 65 you are a liability.There comes
a time when you have to hang it up and 65 is old enough.I don't want to work alongside a 68 year
old cop or firefighter.It's not safe for them,for me,or fir the citizens.65 is a good age to retire.
11 days ago Agree
The age of 65 should remain the same regardless of rank.Obviously,the physicality of fire fighting
and police work can be strenuous on the street level.However,at the administrative ranks,
stagnation and limited advancement for younger more qualified individuals should be taken into
account.
04 gee
Some on council say change the age so it more aligns with social security starting.What they are
not acknowledging is the fact we can start receiving LEO at age 50 which is there to offset social
security.Also,The police department has multiple individuals who can be police chief.When Chief
Jaycocks retired the department didn't fold.The same will be the same when Jim retires.He has
had a great career and did a great job with SITW and the shooting.Ride out on a high note!
04 Agree
There is truly no real reason to change the age.If I could stay in my position till 70 that would be
great but it's not happening.I truly love my job in the FD but I know my limitations and it's sooner
the later.
The mandatory retirement age should remain at 65 years of age.Please consider increasing our
pay and benefits now,instead of working us to death.If we were paid more over a shorter period
of time,perhaps we could retire sooner.As it stands now some employees will never reach the
top of their pay scale before retirement.
Firefighters have shorter life expectancies than the average population and are three times more
likely to die on the job,partly due to inherent risks,physical and mental stresses,and exposures
to toxic and carcinogenic compounds released in smoke.
A study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH)on
mortality and cancer incidence in career firefighters shows an elevated risk of several types of
cancer.
Like the rest of the population,aging firefighters are at significantly higher risk of injury and
illness.It is a young person's profession.Due to the extremely strenuous nature of the job(with
little or no"warm up time,")firefighters suffer higher rates of disabling occupational injury.The
older the firefighter,the more likely these injuries become,and recovery times(and cost)
increase.These injuries are expensive to taxpayers and firefighters,decreasing the quality of life
and requiring expensive treatment,overtime pay to replace the injured worker,which stresses
already low staffing levels.Relatively low minimum retirement ages are a recognition of these
factors above all else.
0 days ago 03 Agree
Leave the requirements"as is"...65 is old enough and typically a sign of a long and distinguished
career.If there is concern about when Social security will go into effect-police and fire have LEO
benefits,which if they stay beyond that they lose that opportunity.Additionally,this should NOT
apply to City staff/management.That age should be 70.
11 days ago +03 Agree
I believe the current age to retire should remain the same.We have had several individuals that
have had to retire because of their age.There is no reason to change this especially because it is
affecting someone higher up in a personal manner now.Other deserving employees are worthy
of a chance to serve in that position.
11 days ago *03 Agree
The retirement age around the country and military is set for a reason.The job of firefighting is
demanding on the body.It should not be raised but lowered.I have looked at people who come
to this profession at a late age in life and see the effects on them.As a city manager you want
people to serve the citizens and leave with the ability to enjoy life.Not be carried by other
firefighters on the job.I would like to see the city keep it the same or lower it and encourage
people to move on so that the younger generation can move forward.
t 1 days ago 0*3 Agree
Letting public safety employees stay longer will stagnate promotions and allow people to become
"lifers",those who dwell in the same position for 20+years.The city will lose talent to other
localities because advancement positions are not available.They city will also be more liable for
increased medical and disability claims.Public safety should be capped at 35 years of service or
65 years of age.Administrative personnel should not have different standards than those in the
field because their job description requires them to act in the field in times of need.In that case,
they need to be held to the same physical standards.Or...make Chief admin positions civilian
positions without firefighting capabilities and requirements.I.E.,Chief officers can not engage in
firefighting operations.
11 days ago 0 3 Agree
Sixty-five is the VRS retirement age.I believe changing the maximum age requires action by the
legislature.I do not support changing the retirement age...If someone wishes to continue
working as a consultant outside the VRS system,so be it...
11 days ago 03 Agree
Firefighting is a physically demanding job that also has constantly evolving techniques and
technology.The ability to learn new skills and ability to perform the required physical tasks are all
reasons to leave this age alone and not raise it.The federal government firefighters have a
mandatory retirement age of 57.We should not be a decade more than them.
11 days ago 03 Agree
Changing the retirement age for one person is not a good idea.When we start this it will open a
host of other issues.The guys and gals working on the frontline take a beating physically and
emotionally and extending this will only cause more sick leave usage,physical ailments as well as
more exposure to carcinogens and other health exposures.The proof is already out there,higher
cancer rates,heart attacks,strokes,etc...not everyone will be able to last to 67 years old riding on
a front line engine at 15 calls or more a shift.
t0 days ago 02Agree
For the love of GOD tell Chief Keene he has to retire and tell Chief Cervera he has to hit the bricks
as wellrr11111
10 days ago n 2 Ag,
The retirement age should be low for anyone required to make life or death decisions on a daily
basis and anyone in a physically demanding job.This age should not waver for a supervisory
position or it would be insulting to the workers.
11 daV-�i- @2 L•�=Fe
Should be no change
11 days ago @* 2 Agree
I think the leaders of our organization are once again doing a disservice to a majority of its
members.Why are we even entertaining this topic when there are so many more important
issues that need to be addressed within the VBFD?For instance,pay disparity(particularly among
those Master Firefighters with 9-15 years of service),the lack of consistency in the ways rules,
policies,and procedures are applied to members,and a promotional process that mirrors
Ringling Bros.more than its does a legitimate assessment of candidates.I'm actually pretty miffed
that I'm even taking 10 minutes out of my day to write this response.Firefighters should be
granted full benefits with 20+years of service at age 50...if anything,the retirement age should be
lowered to the age of 60.It's a shame that there will be retirees leaving in the next year or two
who will be making significantly more than others in the same exact position with the same
amount of time 10-15 years from now.just a few thoughts from one of the many overqualified,
underpaid,and disgruntled Master Firefighters that are sick of the 65+issue getting more
attention than those that actually matter.
OO1 Agree
The mandatory retirement age should stay at 65.If anything,it should be lowered.I don't doubt
there are a few individuals that are still in great shape at age 60 plus,but the fact of the matter is,
the vast majority of people are not in that boat.Like it or not,we have some older members in
the organization that have only worked as long as they have because they are at slower
companies.They would have left long ago if they had to run 15 calls per shift and get up 3-4 times
per night.
1 Ag,eE
Keep the retirement age AT 65 or lower I!!Stop changing the rules to suit your friends.
10 days ago Q1 Agree
The mandatory retirement age of 65 needs to remain in place
Af ree
There should be NO change to increase the age past 65.I cannot believe that this is even being
considered,probably another good old boy scheme.
to days ago O+ 1 Agree
There should be NO change to increase the age past 65
10 days ago Q+ 1 Agree
Can you say increased Risk Management Insurance claims.The older we get the more injury
prone we become.
Keep the retirement age at 65.If you must change the age then you should consider making it age
60.
If we keep the age 65 those wishing to stay working longer could"Volunteer".
Volunteering would enable them to work when they want and enjoy some much needed rest and
relaxation.
This would also provide a huge pool of volunteers that know how to get things done.
Just trying to increase Volunteerism within Public Safety.
to days ago 01
The only exception to the maximum age of 65 rule for firefighters would be an event that
unexpectedly causes the loss or removal of a large number of firefighters such as the World Trade
Center tragedy.In this situation older firefighters would be given a 1-2 year extension and/or a
recall opportunity for over age firefighters who had retired within the one year earlier than the
qualifying incident.There is a great deal of evidence to support actually lowering this age to 60
and I support this.
10 days ago @1 A/,ee
All of this nonsense because one person wants to stay.Everyone needs to follow the same rules
and council shouldn't change the rules to just because they want to help their friend.I'd like to
have city covered healthcare in retirement after working 10 years,let's change that next..
10 days ago 01 Agree
Why give the City more reason to get out of paying promised benefits than they already have.If
we allow the change at the top end,they will absolutely change it at the bottom.Emphatically NO.
-10 days ago 01 Agree
A mandatory age is important to maintain a progressive work force.The saying of tradition is it
makes a department stagnant.We also must be able to perform the job at the same level as if it
was your first day.The public expects that when they call 911 that the service is at 100 percent.As
we get older not everyone is not able to maintain that ability.No matter if you are an officer in an
office or on the streets we all must bet able to do the job as we saw this as it hit the City of
Virginia Beaches front door,.
10 days ago 01 Agree
This is a young persons profession.I see that there is question to older age for higher level
positions such as,chiefs....This is not necessary,
10 days ago 01 Agree
65 should be the highest for supervisors/admin,and 60 for field personnel.Costs need to be
considered whether economy is good or bad.
10 days ago 01 Agree
Please remember the older we get the higher the injury rate.(fact)and this my friend is passed
on to the tax payers.Just take a look a look at our military and ask ourselves why they have age
requirements.Fire and Police are no joke when called to Duty.At age 60 I am not what I was at 40!
(Asset or Liability?)Time to GO!!
11 days ago 01 Agree
There is increase organizational risk keeping older employees.Too many firefighter Line of duty
deaths are reported in older volunteers that should not be on the emergency scene.
t 1 days ago 01 Agree
The physicality of the job demand a high level of ability.This is also true of the relevance of input
of an individual.As times change so must leadership.While members at the current retirement
age provide years of experience we must also concern ourselves with the fact that many are not
keeping up with new thoughts and ideas about how to lead and train our next generation of
firefighters.Adaptation is key and from what many have seen it is not a general virtue of those
nearing retirement age.
11 days ago 01 Agree
The positions that are covered by this maximum age code as it stands are essentially considered
to be,"occupational athlete positions."From the newest recruits up to the department heads,all
are expected to perform these jobs at set standards of physical performance if duty calls for it.
It is universally understood that physical strength and stamina as well as the human body's ability
to repair itself diminish gradually as people age.This is the case for all people even the
exceptional ones as it pertains to human strength,endurance,and regenerative capacity.
4 days ago
Age should be lower...If you can't do the job of the entry level firefighter,it's time to go...I hit SO
next year...I'm already over the hill.
5 days ago
no change.it was a fine policy until it had to applied to"you".Fair is how people want other
people treated,but not themselves.
5 days ago
First,I know leaving a job that you truly love and have been performing for a substantial part of
one's life is difficult.There has to be a point in a career that everyone has to retire.Having an age
requirement gives the individual notice of when their last day will be and time to plan for it.
Second,performing a job as a firefighter has great reward and being able to retire without any
disabilities or restraints is a blessing.The older a person is while performing the job as a
firefighter will increase their chance of having an injury.
And finally last,the knowledge of the retiring firefighter could never be replaced,but giving the
opportunity for younger firefighters to bring their ideas and knowledge may be more beneficial to
the fire department.
5 days ago
I do not think the age requirement should be raised even for the higher ranks,follow the rules
you have been enforcing to others over the years.Both police and fire have mentally and
physically demanding jobs,there is a reason the rules were put in place.If anything the age
requirement should be lowered.
If the rule somehow is changed then any persons over the age of 65 should receive a mandatory
test to include Altzheimer's and dementia.The risk of getting this type of disease doubles over the
age of 65.
Leave the age requirement alone,the higher ranks did not bring this issue up when others were
forced to retire,it has only been an issue since the higher level of supervisors were faced with
retirement Stop the favoritism
6 days ago
It seems that this has become an issue only after it is affecting the higher ranks.I did not see any
issues brought up when fire fighters or police were forced to leave at 65.The think the age
requirement should remain the same.Public safety is a physically and mentally demanding job
and that is one of the reasons there is an age requirement.We do not have shortages of people
to rise up in the ranks to take their place,let the rules stay the same and move on.If anything the
age limit should be lowered to meet the requirements of the job.
if this rule is changed then anyone over the age 65 should get a yearly mandatory test to include
Altzheimer's and Dementia and other mental disorders related to aging.The risk of getting this
disease doubles over the age of 65.
6 days ago
The cost of increase WC claims if you raise the age.
6 days ago
this is a high stress job the risk of cancer,cardiac and other health and bodily injuries are there its
been well studied and documented by the time most of us reach the minimum retirement age its
already been 25-30 years of service sad to say both physically and mentally we are ready to retire
and enjoy life.also LEO should be for life
6 days ago
This job is too strenuous to ask a 65 plus year old person to do.There might be a rare exception,
however with an increased age,is the increase in having a life altering injury due to the physical
nature of this position.
6 days ago
The job is too physically demanding for a FF over the age of 65.
6 days ago
I retired due to a work related injury as a firefighter.I can assure you the older you are the longer
it takes to recoup.This is a young persons game and the retirement age should stay the same no
matter what position you are in.
6 days ago
At a certain point,it's time to leave a firefighter's job.In the street running calls at 65 years old is
already pushing it.At 70 it's a liability.As far as a chief officer goes,I think having a mandatory
retirement age ensures that people are getting promoted into positions with fresh ideas and
those folks who have long since left the field have completely lost touch with the realities of street
level operations.Raising the retirement age is not something we should be devoting our efforts
too;implementing a pay plan,reducing the costs of benefits,and improving service delivery is
where our efforts should be.
7 days ago
I don't think it should be changed.The amount of injuries would increase especially heart related
issues if you raised the mandatory requirement.
7 days ago
To allow for development of the department concurrent with advancements in technology;
To allow for a level of understanding of thought throughout the ranks on a societal level;
To prevent acute age related health risks from arising due to environmental factors,such as
stress,overworking,etc.,within our profession.
7 days ago
7 days ago
Physical ability not age should be the deciding factor
7 days ago
If there is support for the change,it should be implemented at a later date so that those
implementing/desiring the change do not appear to have any benefit from the change if they are
getting ready to age out.
7 days ago
The number one killer of Firefighters across the United States is heart attack.From the day you
join the department until the day you leave everyone says and will agree this is a young mans job.
The longer someone stays the greater the chance of a major injury or death on the job,which in
turns becomes a threat for all personnel working on the scene.The VBFD has a policy that every
member regardless of position most maintain a minimum physical ability.Anyone at any time can
be called to staff an apparatus or engage on scene.For this reason the maximum age should
actually be lowered to 60 years old regardless of position.
7 days ago
The change from age 65 to 67 would help realign retirement with social security,and give public
safety employees hired later in life the ability to work a little longer.
8 days ago
At any given time a natural dilater could occur or an F-18 could fall out of the sky and all-hands
may be required to perform.In my opinion,the mandatory retirement age of 65 is not
unreasonable for the line of work it applies to.Additionally,it is my opinion that room should be
made for upcoming and new officers to grow with the departments needs.
8 days ago
The ultimate factor to be considered should be the overall health of the employee after
retirement,Even if someone is still physically and mentally sound to perform the daily
requirements of the position,their health is effected each day they stay past any age.I think 65 is
a reasonable age where most would leave and be eligible to collect retirement and collect
Medicare.Unfortunately,some highly experienced and very valuable firefighters/officers may be
forced to leave.Their life and longevity after retirement needs to be considered.Their time spent
with their spouses,children,and grandchildren.The retirement timeframe is often cut short for
firefighters due to the environment of the job by an early death.Many firefighter families miss out
on the time with their loved ones as with a typical retiree.Utilize the experience of the employee
by mentoring and"training your replacement"within the fire service.Sharing wisdom and
instilling buy-in with the up and coming will generate a desire to work hard to"fill the shoes"of
greatness.Even if you don't report to the station for duty,you are always welcome to come by
and will always be an asset to our department.
8 days ago
I see no reason to raise the age past 65.The city should focus more on the benefits and
retirement so that way VBFD members don't feel the need to stay past 65.
8 days ago
The retirement age should not be extended past age 65.It would make more sense to DECREASE
the age to 60,as firefighting is an inherently dangerous and extremely physical occupation.I
surely would not want to be well into my 60s trying to perform this job.It would also increase the
exposure to carcinogens and respiratory irritants.The human body loses its ability to heal quickly
and deter illness later in life.Increasing the age is not a good idea.
9 days ago
Those that would elect to extend their service beyond 65 will be the exception,and it should be
treated that way on a case by case basis.If that person can safely perform the duties and pass the
annual wellness assessments with a physical medical examination,they should be considered fit
for duty.I'm in favor of the age extension,if it is a voluntary election and without affecting the
current retirement eligibility age.
9 days ago
Those that would elect to extend their service beyond 65 will be the exception,and it should be
treated that way on a case by case basis.If that person can safely perform the duties and pass the
annual wellness assessments with a physical medical examination,they should be considered fit
for duty.I'm in favor of the age extension,if it is a voluntary election and without affecting the
current retirement eligibility age.
9 days ago
•
Age should be dropped to 60 for safety reasons
s day,
If the change is made,I do believe that the individual must be able to perform the functions of
their job description as long as this change does not interfere with social security,LEO,and other
current retirement benefits.
9 days ago
There should be no consideration.
9 days ago
None
9 days ago
The idea of changing the retirement age is absurd.Public safety jobs are high stress,high risk and
require a certain level of performance that a 70 year old most likely can't give.The standard
should be the same for the newest firefighter/police officer as it is the fire/police chief.It is not
acceptable for the police chief to try and change the rules when his time is up.What about all of
the other firefighters and police officers that were forced out in the last five years?It would be an
absolute travesty if supervisors were given the ability to stay 5 extra years,while the Firefighters
and Police Officers were forced out at 65.The risk/reward factor is not worth raising the age to
help the Police Chief stay 5 years.There will be multiple workers comp issues and medical
retirements will likely increase as result of the high stress/high performance aspects of our jobs.
Keep the retirement age the same and hold each public safety employee to the same standard
regardless of rank.
9 days ago
If the department/city had an effective way to truly measure physical and cognitive capacity for
the job(not rank dependent).I would agree to a study to determine if raising the mandatory age
to perhaps is feasible in modern America.We should always be willing to evaluate options.
However,currently I see no valid reasons for changing the retirement age and support the current
policy/code.Those members currently in service should have prepared for their exit and be ready
to leave.They should have a succession plan,financial plan,and exit strategy in place.
Age should not be used to suddenly determine someone can no longer perform the duties of the
job.We have physicals and fitness tests.If someone is capable and fit enough they should be
allowed to stay on the job.However this should also open up the ability to remove younger
members who also display a lack of fitness and ability to perform the job tasks.
9 days ago
With medical evaluations and fitness tests there should not be a mandatory retirement age.
However,those test should be able to be used to force retirement for someone,regardless of age,
who can no longer display the required level of fitness for the position.
9 days ago
Keep the retirement age at 65.
10 days ago
none,we should not change the current policy.
10 days ago
Our neighboring(Chesapeake)currently allows Firefighters to remain on the job until 70.Has not
been an issue for them.
10 days ago
Should not be a blanketed policy.There is a Fire Captain who is the only individual in the
department who can maximize push ups(80)during his physical assessment.Yet under current
policy,he will be force to retire within the next two years.
10 days ago
The age should be 60 VRS is 25 years an 50 years old for a reason.The LEO was fought for
because we shouldn't have to do this job past SO
10 days ago
•
keep the age of 65
0 days ago
keep the age at 65
10 days ago
Pushing back the mandatory retirement age to 70 would mean that you could have a 70 year old
person getting off a fire truck or out of a police car to do a strenuous job.This would put not only
the life of that person in greater danger of an injury or death but also the crew members and co
workers that count on that person while in dangerous situations.
10 days ago
The age should not change.The current age of 65 is very liberal especially for the front line
firefighter.The physical effectiveness of a firefighter in their 50's and 60's cannot realistically be
compared to those on their 30's and 40's.If you look at the military model,there is a reason they
use younger members for combat assignments.Also worth mentioning is the frequency of on the
job injuries increases as you age which include sprains,strains,and cardiac related incidences.
Last point,currently there is a movement to enhance/improve presumptive occupational
diseases.Why anyone would want to prolong that exposure is questionable.
10 days ago
There is no plausible reason for the age of such a stressful job to be increased,regardless of the
position.
10 days ago
I am a Captain in the Fire Department and am on an engine.My current age is 63+.I stay fit and
can max the physical fitness test every year and l am one of the top 5%in the fitness category
each year.As long as I can do my job,I should be allowed to stay on until 70.
10 days ago
At higher ages there is an increased risk of injury while performing our duties which is a liability to
the citizens and coworkers if we can't perform at our best every day.Even the Fire Chief still has
turnout gear and the Police Chief still has a gun,they should still be held to the same standards as
their street level employees.
10 days ago
FFs and Leo should not be employed past 65 yo.This job is hazardous to ones health and allowing
any individual to continue past 65 is irresponsible regardless of position.They still received
hazardous exposures earlier in their career prior to making it to the supervisory level.Members
who put their health on the line should not be staying past 65.
10 days ago
The job is too demanding for someone to do it properly at such an old age.
10 days ago
The increased cost of worker's compensation claims due to raising the retirement age.
10 days ago
Anyone who works in these fields is going to be a major liability for the city due to health related
issues.20 plus years in a career is more than enough stress for a lifetime,and staying past 65 it is
likely that the individual will have a cardiac,musculoskeletal injury and be required to medically
retire.Do not change the rules for just one person.Keep the system as it is,we all knew what we
were getting into when we came on the job.
10 days ago
As long as the firefighter is physically fit to perform the job,I don't see an issue with raising the
retirement age.It should be tied to how physically fit the firefighter is,if possible.
10 days ago
There should be no considerations given.Everyone must retire at 65.The high risk of injury and
ability to do the job past 65 should be enough to keep the age at 65.
10 days ago
Should stay at 65 or lower the age.Straight 20-25 years of service without mandating minimum
retirement age would be beneficial to city and taxpayers.Pass the torch and experience to
younger generation and then find a hobby.
10 days ago
Hjjj
the age should not change
10 days ago
Retirement age should be lowered if anything.
10 days ago
10 days ago
I can't believe this is even being considered
think if firefighter is in good physical shape,can properly pass physical and do the job property
then the age shouldn't matter
That is true,but this not asking if you can do the job.They want to change the age not
wether you have the ability.
10days ago ® y'ee
As long as the person passes and excels at the physical fitness test and excels at the physical
aspect of our job and does not hinder fire ground ops.In other words,keeps up with the"younger
members"
11 days ago
As long as they can perform the job SAFELY,there shouldn't be a mandatory age.Once you can no
longer perform the job safely(no matter the age),it's time for you to go.
11 days ago
Like in the military I believe there should be different lengths of service but it should be more
geared to rank to retire or let go those that stay in the lowest rank.FF=15 years max or age 65,
whichever comes first;MFF and above age 65 mandatory retirement.
11;I,y
Like the military it makes sense to have different lengths of time someone can serve but it should
be based on years of service at certain ranks more than age.i.e.,FF 15 years,MFF 25 years,
Captain and above 35 years.Age 67 or time in grade-whichever comes first for MFF and above.
11 days ago
I believe that Admin Chiefs or Deputy or District Chiefs should be allowed to work over the age of
65,but not sure to what age would be appropriate.
11 days ago
Those wanting to extended their career to 70 will be the exception not the rule.We should
consider it case by case and based upon abilities and health assessment annually.We should not
require anyone to stay longer than they want to be on the job,and allow those who can still
perform the job safely,work up to the age of 70.
I 1 days ago
We are not talking about the majority of Firefighters interested in staying beyond 65.However,
those few exceptions should be considered on a case by case basis.
This dose not have to impact the city negatively if it is considered and implemented by exception
not the rule.
11 day'ago
We are by the nature of our job forced to make difficult decisions every day during our career.By
the time one is 65 he or she has a wealth of experience in making these decisions.They are able
to determine when the right time to leave will be.One should always be allowed to leave their
life's work on their own terms.
11 days ago
To put every single person into one category makes no sense at all.Some persons should retire at '
55 others at 60 or at any other age as fits their health conditions.Some persons are alert,healthy,
and able to perform their tasks well into their 80's.Mandatory does not take this into
consideration and is discriminatory.
11 days ago
Firefighters should be able to remain on in additional support roles as the responsibilities of the
department continue to grow.Members have various requirements to remain operational
members which could force retirement if unmet.Allowing members to transition into other roles
continues their service and allows skills and training to be retained.
11 days ago
I do not believe there should be a mandatory age if the individual is still able to perform the job
with no accommodations.There should be strict physical performance standards in place to
ensure firefighters,pd&sheriffs can still perform there duties and if they can't they should be let
go regardless of whether they are in a supervisory position or not.There may be some 45 year
olds that cannot meet the standards and in that case they should be given a certain period of
time to come back into compliance with the standards or face movement into a non-sworn
position.
11 days agc
No change is needed.
11 days agn
I would support a change for Chief officers only if it didn't raise the retirement plan currently in
place 25/50.
ii days ae,o
I am...
,I
95%Sworn
232 respondents
I have been with the VBFD....
■ 405t between 10 and 20 years
■ 33%more than 20 years
1110
U 15W✓.between 5 and 10 years
• 12,t between 1 and 5 years
• 1, less than 1 year
t -
230 respondents
Given the choice,how likely would you,personally,choose to work as a firefighter here
beyond age 65?
I 78' Very unlikely
1*4%V Very likely
��4% Very likely
U 4% Maybe
L.3% Likely
234 respondents
ASSOCIATION
From: Brian Luciano <br12360@yahoo.com>
Date: September 2, 2019 at 11:16:21 EDT
To: "Citycouncil cr,vbgov.com" <Citycounci1 vbgov.com>
Subject: Change to Mandatory Retirement Age
There has been much discussion on the issue of raising the mandatory retirement age of the city's first
responders. The first discussion was raising the age to 70. Second to that it was discussed raising it to
67 years of age. As you know, and already may have read, the PBA conducted an internal poll. The
results were undeniable. As of this writing , our membership made it very clear that they do not wish to
see the age raised. As of this writing, 92.45% indicated NO DESIRE to change the existing code. In
addition, only 3 of those polled indicated that they are 60 years old or more. Only ONE of those three
officers indicated support for change. It is also my understanding that the first responder survey
conducted by the city will illustrate the same lack of desire and appetite for change. This obviously begs
the question as to why, and for who, this change is necessary. It is clearly NOT FOR THE MAJORITY of
employees . In addition this organization has heard many concerns, and fears, from its members (and
other public safety personnel) about the possibility of this change leading to future retirement changes,
changes to VRS, changes to line of duty benefit, as well as concerns over the effects to the "Heart and
Lung Bill". The PBA shares these concerns. Once this change is set in motion where will it lead? Is the
risk worth it to the officers? The answer is a resounding, "NO".
Unfortunately, this discussion has become unnecessarily controversial, yet the simple answer is right
before you. Enforce the existing code. There is no need to risk further alienating the thousands of
employees who are asking you to not make a change, whose opinions I remind you were solicited by you.
There is no need to risk placing doubt into the minds of the public that it is truly the beat cop, the
firefighter, the deputy and the EMT, who make these organization successful. Our professions have
never been about a handful of individuals. Like our great military, there will always be heroes and leaders
to rise to the challenge of change.
Thank you,
Brian R. "Lucky" Luciano
VB Police Benevolent Association Local 34
President
29
AGENDA REVIEW SESSION
ITEM#69555
4:43 P.M.
BY CONSENSUS, the following shall compose the Legislative CONSENT AGENDA:
J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution in MEMORY of E. George Minns
(Requested by Council Members Abbott,Rouse,Tower,Wilson and Wooten)
2. Ordinance to AMEND Section 10-1 of the City Code to Change the Polling location re Central
Absentee Voting to 577 Central Drive (Deferred from August 20, 2019)
3. Ordinances re Compensation to City Council Appointees effective July 1, 2019 (Deferred from
August 20, 2019):
a. City Attorney
b. City Clerk
c. City Real Estate Assessor
d. City Auditor
4. Resolution to ACKNOWLEDGE and ACCEPT the letter of resignation from the City
Manager and THANKING him for his service
5. Resolution to APPOINT Tom Leahy as Acting City Manager
6. Resolution to SUPPORT Limited Access Modifications re Virginia Department of Transportation's
(VDOT)I-264/Witchduck Road Interchange&Ramp Extension Project with amendments
7. Resolution to AMEND Resolution #3983 re Transportation Alternatives Set Aside Program
applications
8. Ordinance to DECLARE 0.294 +/-Acres of City Property at 1416 Kempsville Road in EXCESS
of the City's needs and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXECUTE all disposition and
exchange documents with West Coast Properties Group,L.L.C. and/or 7-Eleven,Inc. re settlement
of litigation
9. Ordinance to CARRY FORWARD and APPROPRIATE $5,362,962 to the FY2019-20
Operating Budget re purposes previously approved in FY2018-19
J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS:
ITEM#1 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#2 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3a WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3b WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3c WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3d WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#4 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#5 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#8 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#9 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
September 3, 2019
30
ITEM#69556
Mayor Robert M. Dyer entertained a motion to permit City Council to conduct its CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A), Code of Virginia, as amended,for the following purpose:
PUBLICLY-HELD PROPERTY: Discussion or consideration of the
acquisition of real property for public purpose; or of the disposition of
publicly-held property, where discussion in an open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the
public body pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3).
• Dome Site
PUBLIC CONTRACT: Discussion of the award of a public contract
involving expenditure of public funds, and discussion of terms or scope of
such contract, where discussion in an open session would adversely affect
the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A)(29)
• Dome Site
LEGAL MATTERS: Consultation with legal counsel employed or
retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the
provision of legal advice by such counsel pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A)(7).
• Voter Registrar Office Relocation
PERSONNEL MATTERS: Discussion, consideration, or interviews of
prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment,
promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining or resignation
of specific public officers, appointees or employees of any public body
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1)
• Council Appointments: Council, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, Authorities, Agencies and Appointees
September 3, 2019
31
ITEM#69556
(Continued)
Upon motion by Council Member Moss, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council voted to
proceed into CLOSED SESSION at 4:47 P.M.
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R.Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
Break 4:47 P.M. —4:55 P.M.
Closed Session 4:55 P.M. —5:59 P.M.
September 3, 2019
32
FORMAL SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 3,2019
6:00 P.M.
Mayor Dyer called to order the FORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the
City Council Chamber, City Hall, on Tuesday, September 3, 2019, at 6.•00 P.M.
Council Members Present:
Jessica P. Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
INVOCATION: Pastor Dr. Chris Carrasco
King's Grant Presbyterian Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Council Member Rosemary Wilson DISCLOSED that she is a real estate agent affiliated with Howard
Hanna Real Estate Services("Howard Hanna"), who's Oceanfront Office is located at 303 34`"Street Suite
102, Virginia Beach, VA 23451. Because of the nature of realtor and real estate agent affiliation, the size
of Howard Hanna, and the volume of transactions it handles in any given year, Howard Hanna has an
interest in numerous matters in which she is not personally involved and of which she does not have
personal knowledge. In order to ensure her compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the State and
Local Government Conflict of Interests Act(the "Act'), it is her practice to thoroughly review the agenda
for each meeting of City Council for the purpose of identfing any matters in which she might have an
actual or potential conflict. If, during her review of the agenda for any given meeting of the Council, she
identifies a matter in which she has a `personal interest,"as defined in the Act, she will file the appropriate
disclosure letter to be recorded in the official records of the City Council. Council Member Wilson
regularly makes this disclosure. Her letter of February 20, 2018, is hereby made part of the record.
September 3, 2019
33
Council Member Rosemary Wilson also DISCLOSED she has a personal interest in Dixon Hughes
Goodman and receives income from the firm as a result of her late husband's employment. The income is
proceeds from the sale of his partnership interest,paid out over an extended period of time. She is not an
employee of Dixon Hughes Goodman, does not have any role in management of the company and does is
not privy to its client list. However, due to the size of Dixon Hughes Goodman and the volume of
transactions it handles in any given year,Dixon Hughes Goodman may have an interest in matters of which
she has no personal knowledge. In that regard, she is always concerned about the appearance of
impropriety that might arise if she unknowingly participates in a matter before City Council in which Dixon
Hughes Goodman has an interest. In order to ensure her compliance with both the letter and spirit of the
State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act (the "Act"), it is her practice to thoroughly review
each City Council agenda to identify any matters in which she might have an actual or potential conflict.
If,during her review of an agenda,she identifies a matter in which she has a `personal interest", as defined
by the Act, she will either abstain from voting, or file the appropriate disclosure letter with the City Clerk
to be included in the official records of City Council. Council Member Wilson's letter of June 2, 2015, is
hereby made a part of the record.
September 3, 2019
34
ITEM— VI-E
CERTIFICATION
ITEM#69557
Upon motion by Council Member Moss, seconded by Council Member Abbott, City Council CERTIFIED
THE CLOSED SESSION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION TO RECESS
Only public business matters lawfully exempt from Open Meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which
this certification resolution applies.
AND,
Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by
Virginia Beach City Council.
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M.Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R.Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
0‘1411''aE.4C
o c)
•
Uu, )• ilk
p Y +
9q+J " __�-`;-."ter 0�
S
OF OUR N�[,OM
RESOLUTION
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the
affirmative vote recorded in ITEM#69556 Page 31 and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and,
WHEREAS:Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body
that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies
that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a)only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open
Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution
applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed
Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council.
Amanda Barnes, MMC
City Clerk September 3, 2019
35
ITEM-VLF
MINUTES
ITEM#69558
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Abbott, City Council APPROVED the
MINUTES of the INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSION of August 6, 2019
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P. Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M.Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R.Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
36
ITEM-VLF
MINUTES
ITEM#69559
Upon motion by Council Member Moss, seconded by Council Member Wooten, City Council APPROVED
the MINUTES of the SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION of August 27, 2019
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R.Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
37
ITEM— VLG.
MAYOR'S PRESENTATION
ITEM#69560
GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE RESOLUTIONS
Mayor Dyer welcomed Senator William R. "Bill"DeSteph and Delegates Glenn Davis, Kelly Convirs-
Fowler, and Jason Miyares.
Senator DeSteph read the attached Senate Resolutions honoring the lives of the twelve(12) victims of the
May 31, 2019, tragedy and presented the Resolutions to the victims'family in attendance and the Honor
Guard for family members who were not in attendance.
Senator DeSteph read the attached Senate Resolutions commending the Virginia Beach Police
Department, Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office, Virginia State Police, Virginia Beach Fire Department,
Virginia Beach Department of EMS, the Volunteer Rescue Squads of Virginia Beach, and other state and
federal agencies that resp9onded to the tragedy of May 31, 2019, at the Virginia Beach Municipal
Center.
Senator DeSteph read and presented the attached Senate Resolutions commending:
Captain Harold W.Hill
Virginia Beach Fire Department Firefighter of the Year 2018
Deputy Amanda Vela
Honored by the American Legion Post 113,for outstanding service to the community and for her
dedication to law enforcement
Officer Katherine E. Tassa
American Legion Officer of the Year 2018
Bill Lindsey
For his exceptional contributions to the City as a member of the Plaza Volunteer Rescue Squad
Mayor Dyer expressed his appreciation to Senator DeSteph as it was a thoughtful and moving ceremony.
September 3, 2019
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4002
Celebrating the life of Ryan Keith Cox.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Ryan Keith Cox, a highly admired employee of the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Utilities, died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, Keith Cox graduated from Princess Anne High School and earned a
bachelor's degree from Saint Leo University; and
WHEREAS, Keith Cox began his more than 12-year career with the Virginia
Beach Department of Public Utilities as a customer service provider in the call
center, then became an accounting clerk; and
WHEREAS, Keith Cox was well known for his infectious smile, and he brought
joy to his colleagues with his kindness, generosity, and positivity; and
WHEREAS, Keith Cox enjoyed fellowship and worship with the community as a
member of New Hope Baptist Church; he shared his faith with others as a member
of the male chorus and participated in several other church ministries; and
WHEREAS, Keith Cox made the ultimate sacrifice while courageously protecting
his colleagues during a mass shooting at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center on
May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, Keith Cox will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by his
parents, Ray and Maxine; his brothers, Tony and Ervin; and numerous other family
members and friends; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED,That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Ryan Keith Cox, a vibrant member of the Virginia Beach community and a
dedicated civil servant; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Ryan Keith Cox as an expression of the
Senate of Virginia's respect for his memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4003
Celebrating the life of LaQuita Chenoah Brown.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, LaQuita Chenoah Brown, a respected employee of the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Works and an accomplished traveler who was beloved by
family members and friends throughout the world, died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a graduate of Oscar Smith High School and New York City College
of Technology, LaQuita Brown was employed with the City of Virginia Beach for
more than four years; and
WHEREAS, LaQuita Brown joined the Virginia Beach City Attorney's Office as a
legal secretary in November 2014, and transferred to the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Works in February 2018 after completing a rigorous
certification process to become a right-of-way agent; and
WHEREAS, in the course of her duties, LaQuita Brown used her expertise in
property rights to assist her fellow Virginia Beach city employees with land
acquisition and other projects; and
WHEREAS, LaQuita Brown was well known for her kindness, curiosity, and sense
of adventure; she had traveled throughout the United States and visited Europe and
West Africa, maintaining friendships with people as near as North Carolina and as
far as Togo and the Ivory Coast; and
WHEREAS, LaQuita Brown will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by
numerous family members, friends, and fellow employees of both the Virginia
Beach Department of Public Works and the City Attorney's Office; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of LaQuita Chenoah Brown, a vibrant member of the Virginia Beach community
and a dedicated civil servant; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of LaQuita Chenoah Brown as an
expression of the Senate of Virginia's respect for her memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4004
Celebrating the life of Tara Welch Gallagher.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Tara Welch Gallagher of Virginia Beach, a devoted wife and mother
and a respected member of the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works, died
on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a graduate of Woodrow Wilson High School in Portsmouth, Tara
Gallagher went on to earn a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's
degree in environmental engineering from Old Dominion University; and
WHEREAS, before joining the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works as an
engineer, Tara Gallagher offered her expertise to the Virginia Beach Convention
Center and Clark Nexsen, the architecture and engineering design firm; and
WHEREAS, in the course of her six-year career with the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Works, Tara Gallagher helped oversee and maintain critical
public infrastructure, greatly enhancing the quality of life of all city residents; and
WHEREAS, Tara Gallagher earned the admiration of her coworkers for her
compassion, humility, and unfailing professionalism; and
WHEREAS, Tara Gallagher's greatest joy in life was her family; she will be fondly
remembered and greatly missed by her husband, Patrick; her son, Patrick III; her
parents, Wanda and Dickie; and numerous other family members, friends, and
colleagues at the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED,That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Tara Welch Gallagher, a beloved member of the Virginia Beach community and
a dedicated civil servant; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Tara Welch Gallagher as an expression
of the Senate of Virginia's respect for her memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4005
Celebrating the life of Mary Louise Crutsinger Gayle.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Mary Louise Crutsinger Gayle, a devoted mother and grandmother and a
highly admired employee of the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works, died on May
31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a graduate of Cox High School, Mary Louise Gayle joined the Virginia
Beach City Attorney's Office as a legal secretary in the mid-1990s; and
WHEREAS, while working full-time, Mary Louise Gayle earned a bachelor's degree from
Saint Leo University and a master's degree from Troy University and completed a rigorous
certification process to become a right-of-way agent; she was also a member of the
International Right of Way Association and served as second vice president of the Old
Dominion Chapter; and
WHEREAS, as a right-of-way agent for the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works,
Mary Louise Gayle helped the city grow by facilitating the purchase of land for city
projects; and
WHEREAS, over the course of her 24-year career with Virginia Beach, Mary Louise
Gayle became a source of institutional knowledge and made lasting friendships through
her kindness, generosity, and grace; and
WHEREAS, a devout Catholic, Mary Louise Gayle taught catechism at St. John the
Apostle Catholic Church and lived her faith through her actions by volunteering her time
and wise leadership with many local organizations,including as a cheerleading coach at
the Association of Courthouse Recreation and in many capacities at Ocean Lakes High
School; and
WHEREAS, Mary Louise Gayle will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by her
children, Matthew and Sarah, and their families, including her beloved grandchildren,
Jeffrey and Genevieve; and numerous other family members, friends, and colleagues at the
Virginia Beach Department of Public Works; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss of Mary
Louise Crutsinger Gayle, a vibrant member of the Virginia Beach community and a
dedicated civil servant; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this resolution for
presentation to the family of Mary Louise Crutsinger Gayle as an expression of the Senate
of Virginia's respect for her memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4006
Celebrating the life of Alexander Mikhail Gusev.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Alexander Mikhail Gusev, a hardworking employee of the Virginia
Beach Department of Public Works who touched countless lives in the community,
died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a native of Belarus, Alexander "Alex" Gusev came to the United
States in 2003 as a student; he attended Tidewater Community College and
received a bachelor's degree from Old Dominion University; and
WHEREAS, Alex Gusev completed a college internship with the City of Virginia
Beach and was subsequently offered full-time employment with the Virginia
Beach Department of Public Works, also completing a rigorous certification
process to become a right-of-way agent; and
WHEREAS, over the course of his nine-year career, Alex Gusev was a model
professional who treated property owners and members of the public with respect;
and
WHEREAS, Alex Gusev maintained strong ties with his home country and often
played basketball and soccer with fellow expatriates; and
WHEREAS, Alex Gusev will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by his
parents, Mikhail and Alena; his brother, Aliaksei, and his family; and numerous
other family members, friends, and colleagues at the Virginia Beach Department of
Public Works; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Alexander Mikhail Gusev, an active member of the Virginia Beach community
and a dedicated civil servant; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Alexander Mikhail Gusev as an
expression of the Senate of Virginia's respect for his memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4007
Celebrating the life of Richard H. Nettleton.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Richard H. Nettleton of Norfolk, a leader in the field of civil
engineering who supported the community as a member of the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Utilities, died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, born into a military family, Richard Nettleton followed in his father's
footsteps as a member of the United States Army and rose to the rank of captain in
the 84th Engineer Battalion over the course of his 10-year military career; and
WHEREAS, after his honorable military service, Richard Nettleton settled in
Norfolk in 1987 and began working for the City of Virginia Beach in the
Department of Public Works in 1991; he then transferred to the Department of
Public Utilities in 1999; and
WHEREAS, as a design and construction manager for the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Utilities, Richard Nettleton oversaw the design, installation,
and maintenance of underground water and sewer lines; and
WHEREAS, during his 28-year tenure with the City of Virginia Beach, Richard
Nettleton earned a reputation for strong leadership and a commitment to
professionalism; and
WHEREAS, Richard Nettleton shared his expertise with the Hampton Roads
Planning District Commission Regional Construction Standards committee and
was a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers and the American
Society of Civil Engineers; and
WHEREAS, Richard Nettleton will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by
his loving wife of 23 years, Sarah; his sons, Richard, Jr., and Robert; his
stepchildren, Byron and Mary Elizabeth; his mother, Teresa; and numerous other
family members, friends, and colleagues at the Virginia Beach Department of
Public Utilities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED,That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Richard H. Nettleton, a respected member of the Norfolk and Virginia Beach
communities and dedicated civil servant; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Richard H. Nettleton as an expression
of the Senate of Virginia's respect for his memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4008
Celebrating the life of Katherine Anne Marie Lusich-Nixon.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Katherine Anne Marie Lusich-Nixon, a loving wife and mother in
Virginia Beach who served the community for 10 years as a member of the
Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities, died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a native of Bakersfield, California, Katherine "Kate" Lusich-Nixon
lived in Florida and California before settling in Virginia Beach after college; and
WHEREAS, as an engineer with the Virginia Beach Department of Public
Utilities, Kate Lusich-Nixon enhanced the quality of life in the city by supporting
critical public infrastructure projects; and
WHEREAS, Kate Lusich-Nixon was selfless and kind towards everyone she met;
she earned the respect of her coworkers for her keen intellect and willingness to
help anyone in need; and
WHEREAS, a woman of deep and abiding faith, Kate Lusich-Nixon enjoyed
fellowship and worship with the community at Saint Gregory the Great Catholic
Church, where she was an active member of their Bible study group; and
WHEREAS, Kate Lusich-Nixon was an avid swimmer in her youth, and she
relished every opportunity to spend time with her children by supporting them in
their own athletic pursuits; and
WHEREAS, Kate Lusich-Nixon will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by
her beloved husband, Jason; her children, Morgan, Madilyn, and Mackenzie; her
parents, Bob and Julie; and numerous other family members, friends, and
colleagues at the Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Katherine Anne Marie Lusich-Nixon, a dedicated civil servant and an active
member of the Virginia Beach community; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Katherine Anne Marie Lusich-Nixon as
an expression of the Senate of Virginia's respect for her memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4009
Celebrating the life of Herbert Ray Snelling, Jr.
Agreed to by the Senate,July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Herbert Ray Snelling, Jr., of Virginia Beach, an entrepreneur and a
construction contractor who was well known by friends and neighbors for his
generosity,died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, born in Norfolk, Herbert "Bert" Snelling spent most of his life in
Virginia Beach, where he created lasting memories with his beloved family; and
WHEREAS, Bert Snelling loved to work with his hands and began his career by
building custom gates for the Buyrningwood Farms fencing company and hanging
windows for Greenwich Supply Corporation; and
WHEREAS, possessed of an entrepreneurial spirit, Bert Snelling pursued a Class
A Contractor license and started his own company, Standing Firm Builders, Inc.,
where he earned recognition for his custom cabinetry and master carpentry skills;
and
WHEREAS, Bert Snelling later joined Eagle Construction of VA as a warranty
manager and was promoted to project manager; he inspired his coworkers through
his work ethic, humility, and sense of humor; and
WHEREAS, a man of deep and abiding faith, Bert Snelling enjoyed fellowship and
worship with the community as a member of CrossWalk Church in Virginia
Beach; and
WHEREAS, Bert Snelling will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by his
wife of 38 years, Sonja; his children, Melissa and Herbert III, and their families;
his mother, Veronica; his father, Herbert, Sr.; and numerous other family members,
friends, and colleagues; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED,That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Herbert Ray Snelling, Jr., a respected member of the Virginia Beach
community; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Herbert Ray Snelling, Jr., as an
expression of the Senate of Virginia's respect for his memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4010
Celebrating the life of Christopher Kelly Rapp.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Christopher Kelly Rapp, an accomplished public works professional
and a respected employee of the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works, died
on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a graduate of Green Run High School in Virginia Beach, Christopher
"Chris" Rapp earned bachelor's degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign and Old Dominion University and a master's degree from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University; and
WHEREAS, Chris Rapp started his career at McKinney and Company in Ashland,
then joined the Henrico County Department of Public Utilities; he went on to serve
as the director of public works in Caroline County, Stafford County, and Powhatan
County; and
WHEREAS, Chris Rapp returned to Hampton Roads and served as a stormwater
management regulatory engineer for the Virginia Beach Department of Public
Works for 11 months, earning the admiration of his coworkers for his vast
professional expertise and unfailing kindness; and
WHEREAS, a talented musician, Chris Rapp played the bagpipes and was a
member of several renowned pipe and drum bands, including Tidewater Pipes and
Drums; and
WHEREAS, Chris Rapp will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by his
loving wife, Bessie; his parents, Michael and Patricia; and numerous other family
members, friends, and fellow employees of the Virginia Beach Department of
Public Works; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Christopher Kelly Rapp, a dedicated civil servant who strengthened
communities throughout the Commonwealth; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Christopher Kelly Rapp as an
expression of the Senate of Virginia's respect for his memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4011
Celebrating the life of Robert Thomas Williams.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Robert Thomas Williams of Chesapeake, a beloved husband, father,
and grandfather and a dedicated employee of the Virginia Beach Department of
Public Utilities, died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a native of Ohio, Robert "Bobby" Williams served his country during
the Vietnam War as a member of the United States Navy, stationed aboard the USS
America; after his honorable discharge, he attended Virginia Wesleyan College,
earning a bachelor's degree in 1975; and
WHEREAS, during his long tenure as a city employee, Bobby Williams became a
source of institutional knowledge and was trusted and respected by his coworkers;
and
WHEREAS, Bobby Williams had most recently worked as a special projects
coordinator in the Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities, where he used his
expertise to assist with important programs, including the Virginia Beach Seawall;
and
WHEREAS, in December 2018, Bobby Williams was recognized as one of only
two employees in the Department of Public Utilities with more than 40 years of
service to the City of Virginia Beach; and
WHEREAS, Bobby Williams will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by
his wife of 49 years, Sharon; children, Robert, Jr., and Sarah, and their families;
and numerous other family members, friends, and colleagues at the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Utilities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Robert Thomas Williams, a dedicated civil servant and a respected member of
the Chesapeake community; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Robert Thomas Williams as an
expression of the Senate of Virginia's respect for his memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4012
Celebrating the life of Joshua Orion Hardy.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Joshua Orion Hardy, a mentor to young people in Virginia Beach and
a highly admired employee of the Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities,
died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a native of Norfolk, Joshua Hardy was born Dennis Angelo Haskins
and changed his name later in life to honor his beloved grandfather; and
WHEREAS, Joshua Hardy worked in Norfolk for 12 years before joining the
Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities, where he helped strengthen city
infrastructure for more than four years as an engineering technician; and
WHEREAS, Joshua Hardy lived his deep Christian faith through his actions and
brought joy to his coworkers through his generosity, sense of humor, and ever-
present smile; and
WHEREAS, Joshua Hardy was an inspiration to his nieces and nephews and
offered guidance to young people throughout the community as the author and
illustrator of a children's book, The ABC Book on Protecting Yourself From
Strangers; and
WHEREAS, Joshua Hardy will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by his
five siblings, Denise, Willie, Cassandra, Linda, and Linden, and their families; and
numerous other family members, friends, and fellow employees of the Virginia
Beach Department of Public Utilities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED,That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Joshua Orion Hardy, a respected employee of the Virginia Beach Department of
Public Utilities who supported young people in the community; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Joshua Orion Hardy as an expression of
the Senate of Virginia's respect for his memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4013
Celebrating the life of Michelle Marie Langer.
Agreed to by the Senate,July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, Michelle Marie Langer, a dedicated employee of the Virginia Beach
Department of Public Utilities and a vibrant member of the Virginia Beach
community, died on May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a native of Lansing, Michigan, Michelle "Missy" Langer grew up in
Ohio, where she graduated from Beaver Local High School; she had lived in the
Hampton Roads area for more than two decades and relished every opportunity to
spend time on the beach with friends; and
WHEREAS, for the past 12 years, Missy Langer served the residents of Virginia
Beach as an administrative assistant with the Virginia Beach Department of Public
Utilities; and
WHEREAS, outside of her professional career, Missy Langer was an ardent fan of
the University of Michigan Wolverines and the Pittsburgh Steelers, and her game
day cheers could be heard throughout her neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, Missy Langer enjoyed fellowship and worship with the congregation
of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Virginia Beach; and
WHEREAS, Missy Langer will be fondly remembered and greatly missed by her
siblings, Deborah and Herman, and their families; and numerous other family
members, friends, and fellow employees of the Virginia Beach Department of
Public Utilities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED,That the Senate of Virginia hereby note with great sadness the loss
of Michelle Marie Langer, a beloved member of the Virginia Beach community
and a dedicated civil servant; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to the family of Michelle Marie Langer as an expression
of the Senate of Virginia's respect for her memory.
2019 SPECIAL SESSION I
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 4016
Commending the Virginia Beach Police Department, Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office,
Virginia State Police, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Beach Department of
EMS, the Volunteer Rescue Squads of Virginia Beach, and other state and federal
agencies that responded to the tragedy of May 31, 2019, at the Virginia Beach Municipal
Center.
Agreed to by the Senate, July 9, 2019
WHEREAS, in the minutes, hours, days, and weeks following the calamitous shooting at
the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, local, regional, state, and federal public safety and
rescue agencies responded to the immediate and long-term needs of the Virginia Beach
community; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Police Department, the Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office,
and the Virginia State Police played critical and valuable roles in the immediate response
to the tragedy; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Department of EMS, the Volunteer Rescue Squads of
Virginia Beach, and the Virginia Beach Fire Department provided essential care to those
who were wounded or affected by the incident; and
WHEREAS, in addition, members of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were involved in a variety of capacities
in the aftermath of the shooting; and
WHEREAS, the courageous individuals who responded to the shooting did so without
hesitation and with no concern for their own personal safety; and
WHEREAS, acting with professionalism, determination, and compassion, personnel from
the many agencies and organizations provided emergency medical assistance,
transportation services, security and logistical support, and comfort to a community that
was reeling from unimaginable events; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate of Virginia,That the Virginia Beach Police Department,
Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office, Virginia State Police, Virginia Beach Fire Department,
Virginia Beach Department of EMS, the Volunteer Rescue Squads of Virginia Beach, and
other state and federal agencies that responded to the tragedy of May 31, 2019, at the
Virginia Beach Municipal Center hereby be commended for their meritorious service; and,
be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare copies of this resolution for
presentation to all of the above-named organizations and agencies as an expression of the
Senate of Virginia's enormous gratitude for their actions in the midst of a crisis.
2019 SESSION
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 459
Commending Captain Harold W. Hill.
Agreed to by the Senate, February 21, 2019
Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 22, 2019
WHEREAS, Captain Harold W. Hill was named the Virginia Beach Fire
Department Firefighter of the Year in 2018; and
WHEREAS, Harold Hill received the honor after more than 20 years of service
with the Virginia Beach Fire Department; having heard the calling to help others in
peril, he has selflessly placed himself at great risk to help his community; and
WHEREAS, Harold Hill abides by the Virginia Beach Fire Department's principals
of caring, honesty, integrity, and trust; he is considered a mentor to others and is an
embodiment of service above self through his commitment to the Department's
ladder companies, his service on various committees, and his work as an instructor
for the Fire Explorers program; and
WHEREAS, Harold Hill is known as a captain who always goes the extra mile for
his crew; he assists them, teaches them, and consistently shows them by example
how to improve as firefighters; and
WHEREAS, Harold Hill was instrumental in the success of the Department's Auto
Aid program with Chesapeake and Norfolk, and has been greatly involved in the
mapping program within the Department; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the General
Assembly hereby commend Captain Harold W. Hill for being named the Virginia
Beach Fire Department 2018 Firefighter of the Year; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to Captain Harold W. Hill as an expression of the
General Assembly's admiration for his years of service to the community and his
leadership.
2019 SESSION
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 460
Commending Deputy Amanda Vela.
Agreed to by the Senate, February 21, 2019
Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 22, 2019
WHEREAS, Deputy Amanda Vela of the Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office was honored by
the American Legion Princess Anne Post 113 on February 10, 2019, for her outstanding
service to the community; and
WHEREAS, Amanda Vela epitomizes the meaning of determination, dedication, and
professionalism; she has distinguished herself through her steadfast commitment,
exhaustive efforts, and pride of purpose with the Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office and by
serving her country in the United States Marine Corps; and
WHEREAS, Amanda Vela has been with the Virginia Beach Sheriffs office for four
years; in her current assignment with Correctional Operations, she takes the time to mentor
and support new deputies; and
WHEREAS, Amanda Vela is a true leader in every aspect of the word; she has proven her
commitment to the Sheriffs Office by taking on the extra responsibility of becoming a
member of the Emergency Response Team and holds many certifications in specialized
areas of training; and
WHEREAS, before beginning her career with the Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office, Amanda
Vela served in the United States Marine Corps from 2010 through 2014; her military
experience has contributed to her excellence as a deputy; and
WHEREAS, Amanda Vela finds the time to give back to the community through
worthwhile volunteer service; she helped start and coordinates the "Lunch with a Deputy"
and "Reading with a Deputy" programs, which engage elementary school-age students in
activities that help them see the sheriffs deputies in a positive light; and
WHEREAS, Amanda Vela is a dedicated professional who continually earns the LawFit
Gold Standard in Physical Fitness and is recognized as a state certified instructor; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the General
Assembly hereby commend Deputy Amanda Vela of the Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office
for her outstanding service to the Virginia Beach community; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this resolution for
presentation to Deputy Amanda Vela as an expression of the General Assembly's
admiration for her dedication to law enforcement.
2019 SESSION
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 466
Commending Officer Katherine E. Tassa
Agreed to by the Senate, February 21, 2019
Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 22, 2019
WHEREAS, Officer Katherine E. Tassa, a dedicated and hardworking law-
enforcement officer with the Virginia Beach Police Department, was named the
2018 American Legion Officer of the Year; and
WHEREAS, K.E. Tassa has helped make the Virginia Beach community safer by
keeping impaired drivers off the roads as a member of the Special Operations
Traffic Safety Unit; and
WHEREAS, K.E. Tassa has served as a DUI training facilitator and a member of
the Virginia Beach Police Department's DUI wet labs and DUI Conference; she
has also assisted with countless traffic safety checkpoints and educates local
students about the dangers of drinking and driving; and
WHEREAS, K.E. Tassa went above and beyond her regular duties and requested
training on the Virginia Beach Police Department SWAT team's vehicles so that
she could serve as a driver during high-risk incidents; and
WHEREAS, K.E. Tassa is committed to continuing education and routinely seeks
out training courses that will help her better serve and protect the residents of
Virginia Beach; and
WHEREAS, K.E. Tassa was one of the top-performing officers in the Virginia
Beach Police Department in 2018, earning the Life Saving Award and two Class
Act Awards; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the General
Assembly hereby commend Officer Katherine E. Tassa on being named the 2018
American Legion Officer of the Year; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to Officer Katherine E. Tassa as an expression of the
General Assembly's admiration for her exceptional service to the Virginia Beach
community.
2019 SESSION
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 458
Agreed to by the Senate, February 21, 2019
Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 22, 2019
Cosy -,t,1 t 11 L--th at t(
WHEREAS, William Lindsey, a member of the Plaza Volunteer Rescue Squad in
Virginia Beach, went above and beyond in service to the community during a snow
storm in January 2018; and
WHEREAS, William "Bill" Lindsey has dedicated countless hours of service to
local residents as an emergency medical technician and an ambulance operator; he
has also offered his leadership to the Plaza Volunteer Rescue Squad as an officer
and a member of its board of directors; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2018, a severe snow storm resulted in power outages
and other hazards throughout Virginia Beach; when Bill Lindsey heard reports that
an ambulance had become stuck in the snow, he braved below-freezing
temperatures and responded to the scene in his personal vehicle; and
WHEREAS, Bill Lindsey helped pull the stranded ambulance from the snow and
went on to assist nine more ambulances and a city truck over the course of several
hours; and
WHEREAS, Bill Lindsey's dedication to duty and concern for his fellow first
responders and the residents of Virginia Beach are unparalleled; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the General
Assembly hereby commend William Lindsey, a member of the Plaza Volunteer
Rescue Squad, for his service during a snow storm in January 2018; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER,That the Clerk of the Senate prepare a copy of this
resolution for presentation to William Lindsey as an expression of the General
Assembly's admiration for his exceptional contributions to the Virginia Beach
community.
38
ITEM— VLH
FORMAL SESSION AGENDA
ITEM#69561
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council APPROVED, BY
CONSENT,Agenda Items J: Ordinances/Resolutions 7 and 8
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M. Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS:
ITEM#1 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#2 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3a WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3b WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3c WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#3d WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#4 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#5 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#8 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
ITEM#9 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
September 3, 2019
39
ITEM— VLL1
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69562
The following registered to speak:
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in SUPPORT
Andrew Jackson, 153 Upperville Road, Phone: 478-0901, spoke in SUPPORT
Upon motion by Council Member Wilson, seconded by Council Member Abbott, City Council ADOPTED
Resolution in MEMORY of E. George Minns
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
Requested by Councilmembers Abbott, Rouse, Tower, Wilson and
Wooten
1 A RESOLUTION IN MEMORY OF E. GEORGE MINNS
2
3 WHEREAS, E. George Minns was a passionate and zealous advocate for his
4 beloved Seatack Community;
5 WHEREAS, in support of Seatack, he:
6 • Served as President of the Seatack Civic League from 2010 to 2018;
7 • Successfully advocated for a new Seatack Community Recreation Center
8 in 1997 and for the renaming of the center in memory of Joseph V.
9 Grimstead, Sr. in 2011;
10 • Fought to bring municipal sewage treatment to Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church and
11 his community in the 1990s;
12 • Established the Seatack College Scholarship Program in 2011 with the
13 assistance of Bishop Barnett Karl Thoroughgood of New Jerusalem Church;
14 • Established the Annual Seatack Image Award and College Scholarship
15 Gala;
16 • Established the Mr. and Mrs. Seatack Program in 2013;
17 • Successfully advocated in 2013 for Seatack's inclusion in the
18 Congressional Record; and
19 • Established the Seatack Living Black History Maker Gala in 2018; and
20 WHEREAS, his many activities as a civil rights leader include:
21 • Serving as President of the NAACP Virginia Beach branch from 1987 to
22 1997;
23 • Successfully advocating for the establishment of the City's Human Rights
24 Commission and its Minority Business Council;
25 • Establishing the first candidate forum held by the African American
26 community in Virginia Beach;
27 • Defending college students following Greekfest 1989; and
28 • Helping to establish the Black Law Students Association at Regent
29 University; and
30 WHEREAS, George touched the lives of countless members of his community who
31 will forever cherish his memory.
32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
33 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
34 That the City Council hereby honors the memory of E. George Minns and extends
35 condolences to his family, friends and loved ones.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia this 3rd day of
September, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Deputy City Attorney Ptoderick R. Ingram
CA14819/R-2/August 12, 2019
40
ITEM— V.J.2
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69563
The following registered to speak:
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in OPPOSITION
Andrew Jackson, 153 Upperville Road, Phone: 478-0901, spoke in SUPPORT of deferral
Conrad Schesventer, 811 Dudley Road, Phone: 719-2113, spoke in SUPPORT of deferral
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Moss, City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITELY, Ordinance to AMEND Section 10-1 of the City Code to Change the Polling location
re Central Absentee Voting to 577 Central Drive
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M. Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R.Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
41
ITEM— VLL3a
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69564
The following registered to speak.•
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in OPPOSITION
Upon motion by Council Member Wilson, seconded by Vice Mayor Wood, City Council ADOPTED,
Ordinance re Compensation to City Council Appointees effective July 1, 2019:
a. City Attorney
Voting: 10-1
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower, Rosemary
Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Voting Nay:
John D. Moss
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE
2 COMPENSATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
3
4 WHEREAS, Section 2-89 of the City Code provides that the direct appointees of
5 the City Council shall have their salaries and benefits determined annually by action of
6 City Council.
7
8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
9 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
10
11 1. That the current base annual salary of the City Attorney is $227,449.30,
12 the City's contribution to his deferred compensation plan is and shall remain at $10,000
13 annually, and his car allowance is and shall remain at $10,000 annually.
14
15 2. That the City Attorney shall receive a merit increase of 3% of his salary
16 effective at the beginning of the pay period that includes July 1, 2019.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 3 r d
day of September, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Roderick R. Ingramp
City Attorney's Office
CA14769
R-2
August 23, 2019
42
ITEM— VI.I.3b
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69565
The following registered to speak:
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, declined to speak
Andrew Jackson, 153 Upperville Road, Phone: 478-0901, spoke in SUPPORT
Upon motion by Council Member Wilson, seconded by Council Member Rouse, City Council ADOPTED,
Ordinance re Compensation to City Council Appointees effective July 1, 2019:
b. City Clerk
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F.Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M.Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE
2 COMPENSATION OF THE CITY CLERK
3
4 WHEREAS, Section 2-89 of the City Code provides that the direct appointees of
5 the City Council shall have their salaries and benefits determined annually by action of
6 City Council; and
7
8 WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019, the City Council adopted an operating budget that
9 includes a 3% merit increase in salary for all full-time City employees effective at the
10 beginning of the pay period that includes July 1, 2019.
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
13 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
14
15 1. That the current base annual salary of the City Clerk is $102,000.08, and
16 the City's contribution to her deferred compensation account is and shall remain at
17 $6,000 annually.
18
19 2. That the City Clerk shall receive a merit increase of 3% of his salary
20 effective at the beginning of the pay period that includes July 1, 2019.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the3rd
day of September, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
't/r4,71.(-1'e'‘' -
City Attorney's Office
CA14771
R-2
August 23, 2019
43
ITEM— VI.I.3c
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69566
The following registered to speak:
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in OPPOSITION
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council ADOPTED,
Ordinance re Compensation to City Council Appointees effective July 1, 2019:
c. City Real Estate Assessor
Voting: 10-1
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower, Rosemary
Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Voting Nay:
John D. Moss
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE
2 COMPENSATION OF THE CITY REAL
3 ESTATE ASSESSOR
4
5 WHEREAS, Section 2-89 of the City Code provides that the direct appointees of
6 the City Council shall have their salaries and benefits determined annually by action of
7 City Council;
8
9 WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019, the City Council adopted an operating budget that
10 includes a 3% merit increase in salary for all full-time City employees effective at the
11 beginning of the pay period that includes July 1, 2019.
12
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
14 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
15
16 1. That the current base annual salary of the City Real Estate Assessor is
17 $147,899.96, and the City's contribution to his deferred compensation plan is and shall
18 remain at $6,000 annually.
19
20 2. That the City Real Estate Assessor shall receive a merit increase of 3% of
21 his salary effective at the beginning of the pay period that includes July 1, 2019.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 3rd
day of September, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's Offic
CA14772
R-2
August 23, 2019
44
ITEM— VLL3d
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69567
The following registered to speak:
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, declined to speak
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council ADOPTED,
Ordinance re Compensation to City Council Appointees effective July 1, 2019:
d. City Auditor
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE
2 COMPENSATION OF THE CITY AUDITOR
3
4 WHEREAS, Section 2-89 of the City Code provides that the direct appointees of
5 the City Council shall have their salaries and benefits determined annually by action of
6 City Council; and
7
8 WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019, the City Council adopted an operating budget that
9 includes a 3% merit increase in salary for all full-time City employees effective at the
10 beginning of the pay period that includes July 1, 2019.
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
13 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
14
15 1 . That the current base annual salary of the City Auditor is $130,299.78,
16 and his car allowance is and shall remain at $6,000 annually.
17
18 2. That the City Auditor shall receive a merit increase of 3% of his salary
19 effective at the beginning of the pay period that includes July 1, 2019.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 3rd
day of September 2019.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's's Office
CA14770
R-2
August 23, 2019
45
ITEM— VLL4
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69568
The following registered to speak:
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in SUPPORT
Upon motion by Council Member Moss, seconded by Council Member Abbott, City Council ADOPTED,
Resolution to ACKNOWLEDGE and ACCEPT the letter of resignation from the City Manager and
THANKING him for his service.
Voting: 10-1
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P. Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M.Dyer, Louis R.
Jones, John D. Moss, Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower, Rosemary Wilson,
Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Voting Nay:
Barbara M. Henley
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL
1 A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A
2 LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER,
3 THANKING THE CITY MANAGER FOR HIS SERVICE, AND
4 ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION
5
6 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
7 VIRGINIA, THAT:
8
9 1. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the resignation letter from
10 David L. Hansen tendered on August 28, 2019.
11
12 2. The Council expresses its gratitude to Mr. Hansen for his service to the City.
13
14 3. The Council hereby accepts the resignation, and in accordance with Section
15 III(c) of Mr. Hansen's employment contract, Mr. Hansen will receive
16 severance in the amount of six months base pay.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 3 r d day of
September , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's Offic
CA14828
R-4
August 29, 2019
0N1A'BFAc
s C i ty of Virginia Beach
o
Ls i
rr
7945 GF OUR Nx1o9 05.
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MUNICIPAL PAL CENTER
(757)385-4242 BUILDING 1,ROOM 234
(757)427-5626 FAX 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH,VA 23456-9001
August 28, 2019
The Honorable Robert M. Dyer
Mayor of Virginia Beach
and City Council Members
Subject: Letter of Resignation and Retirement
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Please accept this letter as formal notice of my resignation as City Manager for the City of
Virginia Beach effective this date, August 28, 2019.
It is my intention to retire after serving our City for thirteen and a half years. Thank you for the
opportunity and best wishes on your future endeavors.
R ect ly,
David . ansen
City Manager
46
ITEM— VLI.5
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69569
The following registered to speak:
Rona Marsh, 4382 Lynnville Crescent, Phone: 270-7900, spoke in OPPOSITION
Conrad Schesventer, 811 Dudley Road, Phone: 719-2113, spoke in SUPPORT
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in OPPOSITION
Upon motion by Council Member Moss, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council ADOPTED,
Resolution to APPOINT Tom Leahy as Acting City Manager
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M. Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R.Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL
1 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING TOM LEAHY AS ACTING
2 CITY MANAGER
3
4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
5 VIRGINIA, THAT:
6
7 Pursuant to § 4.01 of the City Charter, Tom Leahy is hereby appointed as the
8 Acting City Manager, effective immediately. He shall serve in that capacity until such time
9 as a candidate appointed by the City Council to serve as City Manager begins his or her
10 term of office. During the term of his Acting capacity, Mr. Leahy's salary shall be
11 increased by 10%.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 3rd day of
September 2019.
APPROVED AS TO
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney's Offi
CA14829
R-1
August 29, 2019
47
ITEM— VLI.6
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69570
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council ADOPTED, BY
CONSENT, Resolution to SUPPORT Limited Access Modifications re Virginia Department of
Transportation's (VDOT) I-264/Witchduck Road Interchange & Ramp Extension Project with
amendments
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M. Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT LIMITED
2 ACCESS MODIFICATIONS FOR VDOT'S
3 1-264 / WITCHDUCK ROAD INTERCHANGE &
4 RAMP EXTENSION PROJECT
5
6 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is currently
7 engaged in active construction on the 1-264 corridor in the City of Virginia Beach,
8
9 WHEREAS, VDOT has two construction projects on this corridor in the Six-Year
10 Improvement Program (SYIP), the "Route 1-264 Interchange Improvements-I-64 West
11 Bound Ramp to 1-264 East Bound" (UPC # 57048) and the "1-264 / Witchduck Road
12 Interchange & Ramp Extension Project (UPC # 17630),
13
14 WHEREAS, VDOT is requesting approval to modify the previously approved
15 limited access control line along the northeast side Greenwich Road as depicted in the
16 attached exhibit to allow ingress and egress to Parcel 012 located at 5690 Greenwich
17 Road,
18
19 WHEREAS, a public comment notice was placed in The Virginian-Pilot on May
20 22, 2019, and the period for comments passed on June 3, 2019; and
21
22 WHEREAS, VDOT has requested that the City Council of the City of Virginia
23 Beach express its support for this modification;
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
26 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA THAT:
27
28 1. The City of Virginia Beach hereby supports and endorses the necessary revision to
29 the limited access line along the northeast side of Greenwich Road, which must be
30 made in the process of construction of SYIP project "1-264 / Witchduck Road
31 Interchange & Ramp Extension Project" (UPC # 17630).
32
33 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Virginia
34 Beach all necessary limited access control change (LACC) documents and letters of
35 support.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the 3 r d day of
September , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Budget and Management Services City Attorney's Office
CA14825
R-1
August 23, 2019
* ' z
V �� tlyWO a ;88
QJaO Y0W� :6.7..w°
W�r .o
`aQO0zy
WQ p pwy
0 \ y Wiz=
Q F
rt Z V & Fop
a. \ z
_ o
. � � � /+ a.
-
r x
M N z K o
CICD
Hh
I--rr i=r
JJJ
u.
mr J
W V O UO fyO
aW o
Uai W>� € S
CL
co zu
I-rV GQ+ dvOo a LL 5;�O wN OQ2 +G as
oGHQ zaWc7Caw
�2� WrWy / •ZJoEmO o W
C) m o d w
Ce a.
as C
0 \ W z o j z e 0 6
m N ——M
�./ gory itF'a r
— LA / / Z^N N co W N H
Cl � m
W U) C K U) K o�
W — K w i°2 ' ZQ UU C=.f S�
r^ T W o w-— ..tz a
WO ice/ ~ arz az a_
/� \W a:at W J// HOWWW WW W �C
` r jCC v / w� mww rrnw +�
/ W Cncr a�Q cr
/et i am�� m� �2
U) - N
`.„\\<---)
i J y ry
� wry Z
CI W Y 06cef~e�o wNF<N ,re ce c533 >O Ua
awaCa aaJ .-
k1 Z O -CI Ceit
12
Z Y S..
,,,,,....0 \ a c
W
0
x
.N W u,, t ec g
_ 2 �� Ua pA
"3Y . g >+ Q� , `.
NiWJ Ni f~ Zw 0 • \�QQO t
71
Ww a
a 1 aW r if OC)vOc ON .../ Ua r a Q S
0 a Ore
;c N O I
LIJ J 1
l— c� o 1
® W a^ w cc el
J wa v O. Z�W
=ry a 0434v
y 0 ri w O Z N W N N
® IT, < . O W O m O-
3 <u m ; f N
Q 00 Q W \��� II
Epp 0 V. Q O
101111
G CJQ O y U CD
C/) "- ' \
o.a o >
w nmm a It' t
.0. . { 4
.,,...tea
1
• ajf' t
t, --:.----
se, 4 ,
it
j�:y `Q jj.,- ...'- ill 6 1 — •
g -t ;
its $8 2 a ,€1 ..
4'2 1?_ •--fie. . L` w $ ,i i E g . z r i g . r. h
" & ux' & efts `^a
x
.„/ NI -,.• c•
1 - _
,
t
I
a
t a0. v : '
lay i i: •
.!-ter, t. c - c - _ S
f' J C y o Y
f, rn
LI � v v,' -rf Q
U
° O ` a
aQ
104
Y l 3
r 8 :aae
F ' i o { •. t C ifj
; f et%' '4 =1—---,k . -1.,-.,..- - -- . , . ' • :si'c .i- -, - -;
s GG II 45
-' 1 i ih V it yam
L
•
�}p ,FY f ! - J M1
`E -O , tt '
- e
' .' 11 P k
g
iint+ir.a 5 C
s f f,Z A x ,.. '
1
i #
� 1 ,
48
ITEM— VLL7
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69571
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council ADOPTED, BY
CONSENT,Resolution to AMEND Resolution#3983 re Transportation Alternatives Set Aside Program
applications
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M. Dyer, Barbara
M.Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION
2 #3983 REGARDING TRANSPORTATION
3 ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM
4 APPLICATIONS
5
6 WHEREAS, at its August 20, 2019 Formal Session the City Council adopted
7 Resolution #3983, which supported five Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program
8 applications; and
9
10 WHEREAS, although the public hearing notice, agenda request, and attached
11 map correctly identified the project, Resolution #3983 misidentified the Indian Hill
12 Sidewalk project as Indian River Sidewalk project;
13
14 WHEREAS, the Council desires to identify the correct project and allow submittal
15 of the Indian Hill Sidewalk project for consideration for Transportation Alternatives Set-
16 Aside Program funding.
17
18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
19 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA THAT:
20
21 The City Council hereby amends Resolution #3983, a copy of which is attached
22 hereto as Exhibit A, to provide the following text edit to Section 1 .c.(Line 27):
23
24 c. Indian Hill Road River Sidewalk
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the 3rd day of
September , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
C ,/y---".f
Budget and anagement Services City Attorn y's Office
CA14826
R-1
August 23, 2019
Exhibit A
RES - 03983
1 A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE CITY
2 APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING FROM THE
3 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
4 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE
5 PROGRAM FOR FY 2020-2021 AND FY 2021-2022
6
7 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach is an eligible sponsor to submit
8 applications through the Virginia Department of Transportation for funding from the
9 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program;
10
11 WHEREAS, the City can request up to 80% of a project's cost in federal pass-
12 through funding, up to $2 million per project per application cycle, and must provide the
13 remaining 20% local match for each project;
14
15 WHEREAS, the City intends to exceed the 20% local match for each project; and
16
17 WHEREAS, the City's has identified five high-priority projects as candidates for
18 this funding;
19
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA THAT:
22
23 1. The City of Virginia Beach City Council hereby supports Transportation
24 Alternatives Set-Aside Program applications for the following projects:
25 a. Bay Colony Drive Sidewalk — Phase I
26 b. Independence Boulevard / Columbus Street Pedestrian Improvements
27 c. Indian River Sidewalk
28 d. Parliament Drive Sidewalk— Phase I; and
29 e. Sandbridge Road Sidewalk
30
31 2. Federal funds totaling 69% of each project's costs is requested from the
32 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program for each of these five projects, and the
33 local share per project will be 31% of each project's costs. The total federal funds
34 requested through this application is $3,656,452.
35
36 3. The City hereby commits, subject to appropriation by the City Council, to
37 fund its local share of preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction, as
38 applicable, of the projects under agreement with the Virginia Department of
39 Transportation in accordance with the project financial documents.
40
41 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of
42 Virginia Beach all necessary project agreements for project development and
43 construction.
44
45 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the ,_• 'day of
46 ; , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Bot,-v4) 0 ,&‘idsiki
Budget and Management Services C" ttorne 's Office
CA14814
R-1
August 2,2019
49
ITEM— VLI.8
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69572
The following registered to speak:
Conrad Schesventer, 811 Dudley Road, Phone: 719-2113, spoke in SUPPORT
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in OPPOSITION
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Wood, seconded by Council Member Rouse, City Council ADOPTED,
Ordinance to DECLARE 0.294 +/-Acres of City Property at 1416 Kempsville Road in EXCESS of the
City's needs and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXECUTE all disposition and exchange documents
with West Coast Properties Group, L.L.C. and/or 7-Eleven, Inc. re settlement of litigation
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott, Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M. Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING 0.294 +/- ACRES OF
2 CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1416 KEMPSVILLE
3 ROAD TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE CITY'S NEEDS
4 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
5 EXECUTE ALL DISPOSITION AND EXCHANGE
6 DOCUMENTS WITH WEST COAST PROPERTIES
7 GROUP, L.L.C. AND/OR 7-ELEVEN, INC. IN
8 SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION
9
10 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is improving the Indian River
11 Road and Kempsville Road Intersection (CIP 2-418.000) (the "Project");
12
13 WHEREAS, the City is the owner of 0.294 +/- acres of land located at 1416
14 Kempsville Road (GPIN: 1465-37-6726) (the "City Property"), which is residual area
15 from property acquired for the Project and is not needed for public purposes;
16
17 WHEREAS, as part of the Project, the City needed property from West Coast
18 Properties Group, L.L.C. ( "West Coast") located at 5259 Indian River Road;
19
20 WHEREAS, the City is acquiring 2,924 sq. ft. of West Coast's property and 5,369
21 sq. ft. of easements by condemnation;
22
23 WHEREAS, the condemnation resulted in litigation with West Coast and its
24 tenant, 7-Eleven, Inc. ("7-Eleven"), over the value of the just compensation to be paid to
25 West Coast and 7-Eleven (the "Litigation");
26
27 WHEREAS, in an effort to resolve the Litigation, West Coast, 7-Eleven, and the
28 City propose an exchange of property as part of a comprehensive settlement of the
29 Litigation;
30
31 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City to
32 declare the City Property excess of the City's needs and exchange the City Property
33 and take such other action to resolve the Litigation in accordance with the Summary of
34 Terms, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein; and
35
36 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the City Property is in excess
37 of the City's needs.
38
39 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
40 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
41
42 That the 0.294 +/- acres of property located at 1416 Kempsville Road, subject to
43 easements needed for the Project, is hereby declared to be in excess of the needs of
44 the City of Virginia Beach and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute
45 any documents necessary to convey the City Property to West Coast and/or 7-Eleven
46 as determined by the Circuit Court, provided such documents are in substantial
47 conformity to the terms set forth in Exhibit A, and such other terms, conditions or
48 modifications deemed necessary and sufficient by the City Manager and in a form
49 deemed satisfactory by the City Attorney.
50 This Ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption.
51
52 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 3rd day
53 of September , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY
. 4
Public Works/Real Estate Cit A 4$ ey'-. Office
CA14663
\\vbgov.com\dfs 1\applications\citylaw\cycom32\wpdocs\d008\p039\00582692.doc
R-1
August 9, 2019
EXHIBIT "A"
(Corrected Version)
SUMMARY OF TERMS
PARTIES: City of Virginia Beach ("City")
West Coast Properties Group, L.L.C. ("West Coast")
7-Eleven, Inc. ("7-Eleven")
CITY PROPERTY
TO BE CONVEYED: 1416 Kempsville Road (GPIN: 1465-37-6726)
WEST COAST
PROPERTY FOR
PROJECT: 2,924 Sq. Ft. (0.067 Acres) for right-of-way; a 651 Sq. Ft.
(0.015 Acres) Dominion Virginia Power easement; a 592 Sq.
Ft. (0.014 Acres) Verizon Virginia, LLC easement; and 4,126
Sq. Ft. (0.095 Acres) of temporary construction easements
TERMS:
In full and final settlement for the case of City of Virginia Beach v. West Coast
Properties Group, L.L.C., (Case No. CL16-2226):
1. The City shall pay an additional $100,000, together with the $174,719 previously
deposited with the Virginia Beach Circuit Court (the "Court") to be apportioned by
the Court between West Coast and 7-Eleven.
2. The City shall pay $15,000 to 7-Eleven.
3. The City shall convey title to the City Property, subject to (1) any easements
reserved by the City for the Indian River Road and Kempsville Road Project
and/or (2) other City infrastructure and (3) all easements, encumbrances of
record to West Coast and/or 7-Eleven, as determined by the Court.
4. Such payments and conveyances are authorized in exchange for a
comprehensive release from West Coast and 7-Eleven, releasing the City from
all claims and liabilities arising from said litigation.
50
ITEM— VLI.9
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
ITEM#69573
The following registered to speak:
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, spoke in OPPOSITION
Upon motion by Council Member Moss, seconded by Council Member Wilson, City Council ADOPTED,
Ordinance to CARRY FORWARD and APPROPRIATE$5,362,962 to the FY2019-20 Operating Budget
re purposes previously approved in FY2018-19
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi, Mayor Robert M. Dyer, Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
1 AN ORDINANCE TO CARRY FORWARD AND
2 APPROPRIATE $5,362,962 FOR PURPOSES
3 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN FY 2018-19 INTO THE FY
4 2019-20 OPERATING BUDGET
5
6 WHEREAS, funding totaling $5,362,962 were unexpended at the close of Fiscal
7 Year 2018-19 and require re-appropriation to achieve the purposes for which such funds
8 were included in the FY 2018-19 Operating Budget.
9
10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12
13 That $5,362,962 is hereby appropriated in the FY 2019-20 Operating Budget for
14 the purposes, amounts, and funds as set forth in the attachment entitled "Exhibit A: FY
15 2018-19 Items Requested for Carry Forward into FY 2019-20," with a corresponding
16 increase in specific fund reserve revenue from each respective fund stated therein.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all the members of City Council.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 3 r d day of
September , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
A A \ cc 1 -i2
B.
dget and Management ervices City Attorney's Office
CA14824
R-1
August 21, 2019
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 8/21/2019
FY 2018-19
OPERATING BUDGET
CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS
Exhibit A: FY 2018-19 Items Requested for Carry Forward into FY 2019-20
Department Amount Purpose/Comments
GENERAL FUND
Police $ 819,762 To continue implementation of phase III and IV of the Body Worn
Camera/In-car Camera project which is anticipated to begin going
live in September 2019.
Public Works/Technical Services&Asset $ 662,000 Purchase of a new computerized maintenance management
Management system for Public Works Operations.This was specifically
budgeted in the FY 2018-19 budget,and the requisition for the
purchase was closed in July.
Libraries $ 28,600 Continue the development and implementation of online sign up
for library cards.
Planning&Community Development $ 60,710 Contract to digitize and manage the workflow of cataloging,
retrieving and archiving records.
Economic Development/Director's Office $ 1,800,000 Funding from the Commonwealth Opportunity Fund grant.
Payment will occur when performance requirements are met.
Economic Development/Growsmart $ 40,000 Funding from the What Works Cities Early Education Grant.Grant
funding is utilized to assist children ages 0-3 with early language
development.
Non Departmental/Leases $ 36,607 Payments needed to properly outfit the new Voter Registrar
Office located at Central Drive.
Human Services/Quality Assurance $ 121,500 Maintenance payments for the newly implemented electronic
health records system.
Human Services/Adult Correctional Services $ 33,000 State funding related to Adult Correction Services.Awarded funds
are restricted to this program for a specific purpose.
Human Services/CSA Administration $ 46,500 Update and redesign of the Harmony system.Update will create
ability to use system for case management in addition to finance.
Cultural Affairs/Historic Museums $ 4,050 Upgrade to point of sale system for historic homes.
Housing/Housing Resource Center $ 17,827 Grant funds awarded from VB HOME Now for Homeless.To be
compliant with the grant,funds must be carried forward.
$ 3,670,556 TOTAL GENERAL FUND
DEA SEIZED PROPERTY SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
Police/DEA Uniform Patrol $ 651,197 To continue implementation of phase III and IV of the Body Worn
Camera/In-car Camera project which is anticipated to begin going
live in September 2019.
Police/DEA Special Investigative Unit $ 6,400 Forfeiture funds from the Department of Criminal Justice
allocated to purchase K9s.
$ 657,597 TOTAL DEA SEIZED PROPERTY SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
1 of 2
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 8/21/2019
FY 2018-19
OPERATING BUDGET
CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS
Exhibit A: FY 2018-19 Items Requested for Carry Forward into FY 2019-20
Department Amount Purpose/Comments
PARKS AND RECREATION
Parks&Recreation/Business Systems $ 37,166 Replacement of Parks and Recreation computers at recreation
centers.
$ 37,166 TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION
PUBLIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND
Public Utilities/Water Distribution $ 102,000 Purchase of a rolling stock vehicle replacement.Initial bid was
executed in May;however,purchase was not made prior to the
end of the fiscal year.
$ 102,000 TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND
WASTE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE FUND
Public Works/Waste Management Support $ 335,000 Purchase and implementation of Waste Management work order
system including mobile dispatch.
Public Works/Waste Management Support $ 58,241 Contract to repair a 30 year old pump station at the landfill.
Public Works/Waste Management Disposal $ 51,200 Funding for the design and construction of a guardhouse to be
&Recycling located at the West Neck Recycling Center.
$ 444,441 TOTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE FUND
STORM WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND
Public Works/SWU-Operations Maintenance $ 150,000 Replacement cement silo.
$ 150,000 TOTAL STORM WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND
PUBLIC WORKS/FLEET MANAGEMENT
Public Works/Fleet Management&Fuels $ 85,753 Replacement of lifts,one for Light Duty Shop and one for
Landstown shop.
$ 85,753 TOTAL FLEET MANAGEMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND
LIBRARIES/DONATIONS
Libraries/Donations $ 215,449 Funding for the purchase of a new bookmobile as approved by
City Council June 4,2019.
$ 215,449 TOTAL LIBRARIES GIFT FUND
$ 5,362,962 TOTAL CARRY OVERS
2 of 2
51
ITEM V-L.
APPOINTMENTS
ITEM#69574
BY CONSENSUS, City Council RESCHEDULED the following APPOINTMENTS:
2040 VISION TO ACTION COMMUNITY COALITION
ADVERTISING ADVISORY COMMISSION
BAYFRONT ADVISORY COMMISSION
BEACHES AND WATERWAYS ADVISORY COMMISSION
BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS
—BUILDING MAINTENANCE DIVISION
—ELECTRICAL DIVISION
—NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
—PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL DIVISION
BROADBAND STEERING COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION GRANT REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
INVESTIGATIVE REVIEW PANEL
OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMITTEE
OLD BEACH DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD
VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WETLANDS BOARD
September 3, 2019
52
ITEM V-L.
APPOINTMENTS
ITEM#69575
Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Wood, City Council REAPPOINTED:
JOHN OLIVIER'
Four year term 10/1/19—9/31/23
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Jessica P.Abbott,Michael F. Berlucchi,Mayor Robert M.Dyer,Barbara
M. Henley,Louis R.Jones,John D.Moss,Aaron R. Rouse, Guy K. Tower,
Rosemary Wilson, Vice Mayor James L. Wood and Sabrina D. Wooten
Council Members Absent:
None
September 3, 2019
53
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM#69576
Mayor Robert M. Dyer DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 7:43 P.M.
-
L,.G'
'erri-1L Chef`
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Amanda Barnes, 1ILIC obert M. yer
City Clerk Mayor
City of Virginia Beach
Virginia
September 3, 2019
54
OPEN DIALOGUE
The following registered to speak:
Donald Bryan, 1826 Delaney Street, Phone: 343-1849, requested support for Powerhouse Boxing and
Kickboxing Gym
Bryan Harris, 4719 Kempsville Greens Parkway, Phone: 289-0324, requested support for Powerhouse
Boxing and Kickboxing Gym
Fred Talbot, 2388 Page Avenue, Phone: 615-364-4804, requested stricter proposed leash laws on the
beach
Rona Marsh, 4382 Lynnville Crescent, Phone: 270-7900, spoke concerning data center off of Corporate
Landing and the proposed Rudee Loop development
Karl Harvey, Police Detective, 3602 Burns Court, Phone: 615-0441, requested a personal extension past
the Police Department's mandatory retirement age
Frank Crumpton Jr., Police/School Resource Officer, requested a personal extension past the Police
Department's mandatory retirement age
Barbara Messner, P. O. Box 514, requested Open Dialogue be televised
Max Gonaro, 3000 Clarke Drive, Phone: 642-3776, spoke in OPPOSITION to raising the Police
Department mandatory retirement age
Jeff Charity, 4718 Princess Anne Road, requested support for Powerhouse Boxing and Kickboxing Gym
Jerry Brandwein, 3022 New Bridge Road, Phone: 778-0778, spoke in OPPOSITION of pumping water
from Ashville Park to Back Bay
Virginia Wasserberg, 4412 Sanibel Circle#101, Phone: 963-8679, spoke concerning Hurricane Dorian
ADJOURNED 8:11 P.M.
September 3, 2019