The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFEBRUARY 2, 1999 MINUTES"WORLD'S LARGEST RESORT CITY" CiTY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF At VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D SESSOM$. JR. At-L~rRe CINWOOD 0 BRANCH i11. Dl~l~Cl MARGAR~ L EURE, Dulncl I Cenle~dle WI~AM W HARRISON JR DU~I J Ly~Mmven H~O~ H~SCHOB~. A~-~( ~RBA~ M H~ Dulrlcl 7-Pn~u ARM ~UIS R JON~. Du~I 4-~y~( R~A S M~ Duln~ J-Rm~ Iiull N~CY K P~K~. A M (~N) W~K$ Du~ 2.K~dle JAMES g SPORE Ctly Manager ~:-~'E L. LILLEY Ctry Atmtwey RUTH HODGES rsMITH CMCIAAE Ctty Cleft CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUll. DING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE WRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA 23456 PIlONE (757) 427-4J05 FAX (757) 426 [:MAIL CTYCNCL~CITY VIRGINIA-BE^CH VA U~; February 2, 1999 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 12:30 PM A. ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS Clarence O. Warnstaff, Director, Public Utilities/Acttng Director, Pubhc Works II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS Ill. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Meyera E. Obemdoff B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 2:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: The Reverend Gretchen O. S. Nelson Beech Grove and Bethel United Methodist Churches C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION , F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL & FORMAL SESSIONS 26 January 1999 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION The Consent Agenda will be determined during the Agenda Review Session and considered in the ordinary course of business by City Council to be enacted by one motion. H. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS , Virginia Beach Schools: 0 Policy Report and Plan for financing the modernization of seventeen (17) schools; establish a continuing school modernization program; and, direct implementation of the Plan. b, Re-appropriate $14,614,324 from Elementary School Modernization (CIP # 1-212) to: (1) Creeds Elementary School Modernization (CIP 01-214) $5,787,371 (2) Bayside Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-216) $8,826,953 . Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $75,000 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to the FY 1998-1999 Operating Budget of the General Services Department re replacing trees on Atlantic Avenue damaged by Hurricane Bonnie in 1998. . Ordinance to TRANSFER $2,231 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to reimburse the water and sewer fund for costs of water and sewer fees associated with the construction of a Habitat for Humanity single-family home at .Alberthas Drive (LYNNHAVEN- DISTRICT 5). e Ordinance to provide for the lease of a portion of City property at 701 Chantry Drive re construction, maintenance and operation of wireless telecommunications facilities (Rosemont Water Tower) (ROSE HALL - DISTRICT 3). Resolution to request the Virginia Department of Traneportafion (VD#T) proceed with final design of the Ferrell Parkway - Phases II and V pr#jeers, using the following locations for the proposed roadway improvements as presented at the 23 April 1998 Public Hearing: Corridor 1 - Existing Princess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Judicial Boulevard b. Corridor 4 - New alignment between Judicial Boulevard and Ferrell Parkway- Phase V-A - following the entire length of the existing City-owned Ferrell Parkway right-of-way I. APPOINTMENTS REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE (COG) J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS K. NEW BUSINESS L. ADJOURNMENT FY 1999-2000 OPERATING BUDGET & C I P SCHEDULE DATE EVENT Tuesday, March 30 Tuesday, April 6 Tuesday, April 13 Thursday, April 15 Tuesday, April 20 Tuesday, April 27 Tuesday, May 4 Tuesday, May 4 Thursday, May 6 Tuesday, May 11 TIME Noon LOCATION Council Chambers Presentation of Budget/CIP Workshop 10 AM - Noon Council Conference Room Workshop Public Hearing Workshop Workshop Workshop Public Hearing Reconciliation Workshop 10 AM - Noon 7PM 4 PM - 6 PM 3 PM- 5 PM 10 AM - Noon 2PM 3 PM- 5 PM 2 PM Adoption of FY 1999-2000 Operating Budget & Capital Program Council Conference Room Princess Anne High School Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Chambers Council Conference Room Council Chambers 01/28/99cmd AGENDA\021\02~99 www.virginia-beach.va.us If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) ,o~. OUR NN MINUTES VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL V~rg~n~a Beach, V~rg~n~a February 2, 1999 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING re ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS tn the Council Conference Room, City Hall Budding, on February 2, 1999, at 12 30 P.M Counctl Members Present. Margaret L Eure, IVilliam IV. Harrison, Jr., Harold Hetschober, Barbara M Henley, Louts R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker and A. M "Don" Weeks and Vice Mayor Wtlliam D Sessoms, Jr. Councd Members Absent. Ltnwood 0 Branch, III [ON VACATION] -2- CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING EL E C TR ONIC MESSA GE SIGNS 12:30 P.M. ITEM # 445 72 Mayor Oberndorf expressedpublic apprectatton to Clarence O. Warnstaff, Director- Public Utihttes/Acttng Director- Pubhc Works ,4 gentleman was in stress because ora noisy pump at the City 's pump station, right across the street from hts house He had suffered a stroke and thts pump was deletertous to hts health The private contractor couM not be reached, however, Mr Warnstaff had Ctty crews rectify the sttuatton. The gentleman satd this was the first sleep he had in weeks Thts incident occurred during the Super Bowl Mr Clarence 0 Warnstaff advtsed thepurpose of electronic message signs is to convey tnformation to the motoringpubhc. The information whtch ts conveyed to the pubhc needs to be accurate and timely A visitor or restdent tn our Ctty needs to know the expected traffic con&ttons, cltrecttons to thetr desttnation, available partang and locatton ora particular event The tssue of electronic message signs ts just one ptece of the total puzzle of traffic control Virginia Beach currentlypossesses twenty (20) electronic message signs, provided at no cost by the Vtrginia Department of Transportatton These signs have not been installed Vtrgtnta Beach has an available Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality Grant of $396,000. The current plan for electronic message signs ts to tmplement a pilot project of five signs on roadways leading into the Resort Area Two of these five signs would have the capabihty of betng removed at the end of the tourist season and stored durtng the winter months. Relative these stgns, there have been concerns addressed relattve the tssue of aesthetics, installation regarding permanency, location and the possibility of removing these signs. The signs, of course, were free, as they were provtded by VDOT However, the installation, foundation, base, aesthetically pleasing support structures, landscaping, provision of electrical power to the sign and dedicated telephone lines involve substantial costs which had not been anticipated The City staff has recommended a new dtrectton and concept for Ctty Council's constderatton In heu of the pilot program with five permanent locations, the Ctty pursue and utthze a portable sign system The current stgns from VDOT are not suited, nor were they designed, for portable use. VDOT has tndtcated the City has the.flexibthty under the Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality Grant to utthze these funds for other traffic control purposes, specifically to purchase new "state of the art"portable electromc message signs These signs are solar powered with battery backup This means one does not have to have a notsy diesel engtne or gasohne engtne to turn the generator for the power, if electrtcal power ts lost These untts are trailer mounted and can be transported to various locattons for special events and then later removed at the concluston of that spectal event. Because tt ts solar powered, you do not need a permanent electrical power source or a backup system. You do not need to have permanent telephone hnes tn order to convey tnformatton to the stgn. The message on the sign can be changed from a remote location using a computer cellular telephone Therefore, tt ts not required for someone to go to the location and make a change to the message on the sign. Wtth the Grant of $396,000, the Ctty would have the optton to purchase approximately eleven or twelve of these portable stgns, plus some peripheral equipment needed to control the signs These stgns could be utilized for spectal events throughout the Ctty ,4s the message on these stgns can be changed remotely, this provtdes an opportunity for up-to-date accurate information to the motorists There are multiple uses for these qutet, portable signs These stgns could be utthzed, along wtth radar speed detection units, to advise motortsts, in a friendly way, they were violating posted speed limits. These units can be uttlized by Ctty crews when emergency repairs are conducted to provtde tnformatton to the public. The signs can also be uttlized for Capital Improvement Program projects, where there ts a need to advise motorists for a change tn traffic condtttons. The City also has a comprehensive emergency management plan that focuses mainly on Hurricanes. Hopefully, these signs would not have to be utthzed in thts capacity, but tf necessary to evacuate certatn portions of the City, these signs could be qutckly put tn place and used to chrect people to shelter or for evacuation. The City currently expends approximately between $7,000 and $8,000 on an annual basis to rent some of these portable signs This cost could be avotded tf the City could purchase these portable stgns to be used on a permanent basis By betng portable, these stgns do not add to the hst of permanent stgns that currently exist tn the City's public right-of-way. Mr. Warnstaff dtstrtbuted a photograph of one of theportable umts to Ctty Council Depending upon the bidding, Mr. Warnstaffbeheves the cost per unit would be between $30,000 to $34,000. Information relattve the hetght of the untts will be furntshed. Mr Herzke advised the grant ts for dynamtc or vartable message signs. Thts ts a change tn scope more than a change tn purpose If the City wanted to utthze the grant for an enttrely dtfferent purpose, the grant would be returned to the Hampton Roads Planntng Dtstrict Commtsston (HRPDC) The City would have to submit another apphcatton and compete with the otherjurischcttons It ts not Vtrgtnta Beach's funds exclustvely, the City was given the grant for the purpose for which the applicatton was submttted. B Y CONSENSUS, an Ordinance relative the appropriation of the Grant funds shall be scheduled for the Ctty Counctl Session of February 9, 1999. February 2, 1999 -3- AGENDA RE VIE W SESSION ITEM # 445 73 H. 1. Resolution re: Virginia Beach Schools Policy Report and Plan for financtng the modernization of seventeen (17) schools; estabhsh a conttnutng school modernization program; and, direct implementation of the Plan b. Re-appropriate $14,614,324 from Elementary School Modermzatton (CIP #1-212) to' (1) Creeds Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-214) $5,787,371 (2) Bayside Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-216) $8,826,953 Mayor Oberndorf wtll make a statement for the record relative thts item tn the Formal Session ITEM # 445 74 BY CONSENSUS, the following ttems shall compose the CONSENT AGENDA' ORDINANCES/RES OL UTIONS H. 1. Resolution re: Virginia Beach Schools. Policy Report and Plan for financing the moderntzatton of seventeen (17) schools, establish a conttnuing school modernization program, and, direct implementatton of the Plan b. Re-appropriate $14,614,324 from Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-212) to (1) Creeds Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-214) $5,787,371 (2) Bayside Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-216) $8,826,953 H. 2. Or&nance to APPROPRIATE $75,000 from the Tourtsm Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to the FY 1998-1999 Operating Budget of the General Services Department re replacing trees on Atlantic Avenue damaged by Hurrtcane Bonme tn 1998 H. 3. Ordtnance to TRANSFER $2,231 from the General Fund Reserve for Conttngenctes to reimburse the water and sewer fund for costs of water and sewer fees associated wtth the constructton of a Habitat for Humanity single-famdy home at Alberthas Drive (L YNNH~4 YEN- DISTRICT 5) February 2, 1999 -4- AGENDA RE VIE W SESSION ITEM # 44574 (Continued) H 4 Ordinance to provide for the lease of a portion ofCttyproperty at 701 Chantry Dr~ve re construction, mamtenance and operation of wireless telecommunications facilities (Rosemont Water Tower) (ROSE HALL - DISTRICT 3). H. 5. Resolution to request the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) proceed wtth final demgn of the Ferrell Parlovay - Phases II and V projects, using the following locations for the proposed roadway ~mprovements as presented at the 23 Aprd 1998 Public Heanng a. Corridor 1 -Extsttng Princess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Judicial Boulevard b Corridor 4 - New ahgnment between Judicial Boulevard and Ferrell Parkway - Phase V-A -following the entire length of the existing Ctty-owned Ferrell Parkway rtght-of-way February 2, 1999 -5- CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS 1:03 P.M. ITEM # 445 75 Councilman Harrison referenced his and Councilman Jones appointment by Mayor Oberndorf to the Technology Committee as Liaisons with School Board Members Nancy Guy and Dan Lowe Councilman Harrison referenced correspondence from Nancy Guy regarding discussion by the School Board of the charge of the Committee. BY CONSENSUS, the School Board decided this Committee should make recommendations of technology related expenditures, both instructional and administratively, to be included in the School Division's FY2000 Budget The School Board's budget will be voted upon March 16, 1999. Councdman Harrison advised the first meeting was scheduled for Thursday, February 4,1999, at 7: $ O A.M. Councilman Harrison believed they would have to meet rather intensively in order to formulate recommendations on which the School Board will vote on March Sixteenth Councilman Harrison was not clear relative the charge of the Committee. Councilman Harrison would like a City staff representative to be appointed to attend all the meetings. Councilman Jones concurred with Councdman Harrison that the direction of the Committee had not been clarified and desired recommendations from City Staff relative revenues. The only staff recommendations at the present time are from the School Board. Councilman Jones beheved there are some issues based on the correspondence forwarded by Mrs Guy which must be resolved. The first was the priority of the technology. Would the administrative or instructional portion of the technology be,first? If specific funds are to be provided, Councilman Jones is in favor of the instructional portion If there is another direction, City Council needs to advise he and Councilman Harrison. Mayor Oberndorf had not received a copy of this memorandum She only received a 'phone call requesting appointment of Councll Members to this Committee Mayor Oberndorfbeheved the Councll Members would desire an inventory of the existing up-to-date technology, its storage place or tf it is being utilized at the present time. The City Manager advlsed Mayor Oberndorf the $6-MILLIONpersonnel system which had been requested by the School Board falls under the category of administrative systems, however, there is a joint City and School Committee which has devised a recommendation and this will probably be reflected in the Superintendent's budget Vice Mayor Sessoms referenced, in recent years, the Schools have advised technology as being a $200- MILLION project. Councilman Jones referenced he has heard figures from $30-MILLION to $200- MILLION. Mayor Oberndorf requested staff be included in thstribution of information re computer technology. The City Manager advised assistance will be provided to Council Members Jones and Harrison ITEM # 445 76 Council Lady Henley referenced correspondence to the Mayor from the Department of lnterior and their offer to perform an appraisal of the property which might be involved with the Sandbridge Road Corridor. Council Lady Henley had advised this was a topic which the City Council would chscuss with the Capital Improvement Program. If this appraisal will provide information at no cost, she is not sure why this offer was rejected The City Manager advised the City's reply did not reject the offer. It stated the City was not sure they had a project and if the City does, the Council would be making the decision in the Spring This would be the time to receive the appraisal. The Department might not wish to expend the funds if the City does not even have a project The City had verbally indicated to the Department of Interior this is a public right-of-way and they are welcome to appraise same at anytime Council Lady Henley referenced if this appraisal would provtde information which would assist the City Council in maldng a decision, she chd not see any problem with them performing this function. Council Members concurred it would be alright for the Department of Interior to perform the appraisal ITEM # 445 77 Council Lady McClanan advised the City Attorney was recently installed as the duly elected President of the Virginia Beach Bar Association Mr Lllley ts very deserving of this honor The Mayor and City Council are extremely proud of their City Attorney February 2, 1999 -6- CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ITEM # 445 78 Counctl Lady McClanan advised she, and believed many of the Council Members, are delighted the School Board is reviewtng the potential for redistricting. There has always been a pohcy to uttlize the facthttes to the best use of ctttzens, the City and the Schools ITEM # 445 79 Mayor Oberndorfhad tncluded tn City Council's agendapackage correspondence from Mrs. Bridges, Chair -Vtrgtnta Beach Library Board and Vtce Chatr Robert Dean Mayor Oberndorf suggested a Joint Committee between the Library Board and the City Council to commence formulating ways to finance some of the necessary projects which failed tn the 1998 Referendum. The City has fallen behmd tn hbrary technology and books. The last paragraph of satd correspondence requests an opportunity to discuss the future of their system wtth members of Ctty Counctl and suggests 3 or 4 of the Ltbrary Members meet with 1 or 2 Ctty Counctl Members Mayor Oberndorfrequested clarification from the City Attorney. The Ctty Attorney advised tf the Ltbrary Board Members wish to meet with the Counctl Members tn&vtdually then they are limited to 2 members of the Library Board and 2 members of the City Council However, the mere fact that a Jotnt Commtttee is formed ts subject to the Freedom of Information Act and does not affect the number of members tnvolved. Council Members McClanan and Parker volunteered to serve on the Committee Mayor Oberndorf referenced the Great Neck Library project whtch encompasses approxtmately $300,000 and thts might be accomplished in the FY 1999-2000 Budget process ITEM # 44580 Mayor Oberndorf referenced her attendance at the US Conference of Mayors on January 27 through January 29, 1999 200 Mayors have joined the campatgn for diagnosing and treattng Breast Cancer. The Center for Dtsease Control and the Nattonal Instttute of Health state that hterally 'thousands of young women's hves are being saved who would not have been &agnosed before The Best Practices book, pubhshed by the US Conference of Mayors, states what the tn&vidual cittes are doing relattve this concept, t e. Mayor Wtllie Brown of San Franciscoput an extra 5 cents on the cigarette tax to fund the hospttal care for tndigent women. Virginia Beach has aprogram entttled "MOM" This ts aprogram whereprtvate sector individuals donate funds to pay for the mamograms for the tn&gent women The Children at Baystde Htgh School sold doughnuts and ratsed $1,000 which funded about 15 or 20 mamograms. Mayor Oberndorf &splayed the Best Practices booklet tnvolvtng traffic safety tntttattves where ISTEA - 21 ts exemphfied tn cartoon format. The Conference of Mayors is also tnvesttgattng the national tnfrastructure on transportatton and economy Cities have more gross nattonal product than many of the countries wtth whtch the United States ts dealing So, the Conference of Mayors has commenced lobbying from thts prospective Mayor Susan Savage of Tulsa, Oklahoma, had her staff deptct on each page of the Best Practices booklet that Oklahoma ts a "donor state" and how much money ts lost and what tt means to their area of not getting funded properly Virginta ts also a "donor state" A group of donor states have formed an alliance tn the Conference deptcting more money ts taken from these states than is returned. The states are trying to build a better case so Congress wtll understand Mayor Oberndorf referenced the Communications Committee and the City's report on successfully removtng the communications tower in Little Neck. There was a very ntce article in the Best Practices pubhcation on this subject The Mayor extended apprectatton to the City Attorney and City Counctlfor thts accomplishment ITEM # 44581 Mayor Oberndorf referenced extending an invitatton to the City's friends from Northern Ireland (Bangor), who tndicated they wished to come between March 2 and 7, 1999. As plans are confirmed, Mayor Oberndorf wtll advised. There wtll be approxtmately 8 representattves atten&ng February 2, 1999 -7- ITEM # 44582 Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf called to order the INFORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL tn the City Counctl Conference Room, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, February 2, 1999, at 1 '33 PM Councd Members Present: Margaret L. Eure, William W Harrison, Jr, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Lores R Jones, Nancy K Parker, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf A. M. "Don" Weeks and Vice Mayor William D Sessoms, Jr Council Members Absent' Linwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 -8- ITEM # 44583 Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf entertatned a motion to permtt City Councd to conduct its EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to Sectton 2 1-344, Code of Vtrgtnta, as amended, for the followtng purpose' PERSONNEL MATTERS. Dtscusston or consideration of or intervtews of prospecttve can&dates for employment, asstgnment, appotntment, promotton, performance, demotion, salaries, &sctphntng, or restgnation of spectfic pubhc officers, appointees, or employees pursuant to Sectton 2 1-344 (A) (1) To Wit. Boards and Commissions Revtew and Allocation Commtttee (COG) PUBLICLY-HELD PROPERTY Discussion or constderatton of the con&tton, acqutsitton, or use of real property for public purpose, or of the dispositton of pubhcly-held property, or of plans for the future of an tnstttutton which could affect the value of property owned or desirable for ownershtp by such tnstttutton pursuant to Sectton 2 1-344(A)(3) School Site - Lake Ridge LEGAL MATTERS' Consultatton with legal counsel or brtefings by staff members, consultants, or attorneys pertaimng to actual or probable litigation, or other spectfic legal matters requesting the provtston of legal advice by counsel pursuant to Sectton 2.1-344(A)(7) To-V/it: Contractual Issues: Sportsplex Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council voted to proceed tnto EXECUTIVE SESSION. Vottng 10-0 Councd Members Vottng Aye Margaret L Eure, V/ilham V/. Harrison, Jr, HaroM Hetschober, Barbara M Henley, Louts R. Jones, Nancy K Parker, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf A. M. "Don" V/eeks and Vice Mayor V/tlham D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay None Counctl Members Absent. Ltnwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 -9- FORMAL SESSION VIRGINIA BEA CH CITY CO UNCIL February 2, 1999 2:12 P.M. Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the FORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL tn the Councd Chamber, Cay Hall Building, on Tuesday, February 2, 1999, at 2:20 P M. Counctl Members Present: Margaret L. Eure, Wdliam W. Harrison, Jr, Harold Hetschober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E Oberndo~ Nancy K Parker and A. M. "Don" Weeks and Vtce Mayor William D Sessoms, Jr Council Members Absent: Ltnwood 0 Branch, III INVOCATION' The Reverend Gretchen 0 S Nelson Beech Grove and Bethel Umted Metho&st Churches PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Vice Mayor Sessoms being a Corporate Officer of Wachovia Bank, disclosed there were no matters on the agenda tn which he has a "personal interest", as defined in the Act, etther indivtdually or tn his capactty as an officer of Wachovta Bank The Vtce Mayor regularly makes this Disclosure as he may or may not know of the Bank's interest tn any apphcation that may come before Cay Councd. Vice Mayor Sessoms' letter of January 4, 1999, ts hereby made a part of the record February 2, 1999 Rem ~E -10- CER TIFICA TION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM # 44584 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council CERTIFIED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION TO RECESS. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed tn Executive Session to which this certification resolution applies, AND, Only such pubhc business matters as were identified tn the motion convening the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Voting. 10-0 Councd Members Voting Aye' Margaret L. Eure, William W Harrison, Jr, Harold Heischober, Barbara M Henley, Louis R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, A M. "Don" Weeks and Vice Mayor William D Sessoms, Jr Council Members Voting Nay None Council Members Absent: Linwood O. Branch, III February 2, 1999 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 44583, Page 8, and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.1-344. of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Executive 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 fi.om Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Executive Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. R~h Hodges S~mith, CMC/AAE City Clerk February 2, 1999 -11- Item V-F 1 MINUTES ITEM # 44585 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Counctl Lady Parker, Ctty Counctl APPROVED the Mtnutes of the INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS of January 26, 1999. Vottng. 10 -0 Councd Members Voting Aye: Margaret L Eure, Wdham W. Harrtson, Jr., HaroM Hetschober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, A. M. "Don" Weeks and Vtce Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Council Members Voting Nay. None Council Members Absent Linwood O. Branch, III February 2, 1999 - 12- ~em ~G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION ITEM # 44586 BY CONSENSUS, City Council ADOPTED: AGENDA FOR THE FORMAL SESSION February 2, 1999 - 13- Item V-G. 1. PRESENTATION ITEM # 44587 Mayor Oberndorf introduced Boy Scout C. J. Phillips and his mother Thts remarkable young man is responstble for saving his mother's life and has received the National Merit Award from the Boy Scouts of America. C J and hts mother were travehng in a car when she was overtaken by an asthma attack. He ran to the fire statton for help and was very calm and focused. He then went to a 'phone and called his father. He convinced hts mother to go to the hospttal February 2, 1999 - 14- Item V-H. ORDINANCES/RESOL UTIONS ITEM # 44588 Upon motton by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrtson, Cay Council APPROVED IN ONE MOTION, Ordtnances/Resoluttons la/bi, 2, 3, 4 and 5a~ of the CONSENT AGENDA. Vottng 10 -0 Councd Members Vottng Aye: Margaret L. Eure, Wdham W Harrison, Jr, HaroMHeischober, Barbara M Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, A. M "Don" Weeks and Vice Mayor Wdliam D Sessoms, Jr. Counctl Members Voting Nay' None Council Members Absent' Ltnwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 -15- Item V-H. l a/b. ORDINANCES/RES OL UTIONS ITEM # 44589 Mayor Oberndorf stated for the record: "The tssue on which I wished to speak has to do with the Jotnt Resolutton of the Cay of Virgtnia Beach's Ctty Council and School Board, who wtll be constdertng the same Resolutton tontght to accept, adopt and dtrect the tmplementation of the Policy Report, whtch we all recetved. We thank all those who were responstble for the Plan to finance the modermzatton of l 7 elementary schools and estabhshtng a conttnmng school modermzatton program This ts a Plan which our fellow Council and School Board Members recommended after constdertng over 10 dtfferent alternattves It fulfills the Commtttee's goal of provtdtng a map to ensure our school facthttes are modernized tn a reasonable ttme period and tn a manner which recognizes both other school and ctty demands on resources, whtle hol&ng the line on our real estate tax rate The adoption of thts Resolution and the assoctated Plan ts cnttcal at thts time to provtde policy guidance to staff for Capital Budget development for the pertod 1999 through 2000, and then through 2004 through 2005 as well as programming the proposed increases in state lottery revenue, whtch the General Assembly is currently considertng for school infrastructure needs Thts Plan maintatns a commttment to modermze our older schools, not simply matntatn the roofs, heattng and coohng systems and the like. Matntenance tssues will continue to be addressed tn separate capttal projects. In the past five years, we have appropriated over $50-MILLION to school repair and maintenance projects. Modernizatton -- and I emphastze the "modermzation "-- ratses older schools to the educattonal tnfrastructure standard of newer schools Thts ensures that chddren will be provtded stmtlar learntng envtronments regardless of where they hve tn the Cay The Plan extends the ortgtnal Referendum schedule from 6 to 8 years, so thts goal can be achteved tn a reasonable ttmeframe without a tax tncrease Thts Plan shows a major commttment on thepart of the Schools and the Ctty tn support of modernization of our schools $6 6-MILLION wtll be dedtcated from the annual budgetprocess through allocation offunding wtthtn the Ctty/School Revenue Shartng Pohcy and over $67-MILLION in debt financtng through Ctty Charter Bonds ts allocated to complete the 17 schools, that have been identified. Thts commitment of resources extends beyond fundtng for the first 17 schools Recognizing that as other schools age and as standards change, they also will need moderntzation to ensure our school facilittes meet educattonal needs for the Twenty-first Century Our goal ts to modernize all schools each in its turn as the need is estabhshed To that end, the Plan before us contains, not only the $132-MILLION needed to complete the identtfied 17 elementary schools, but also tncludes $68-MILLION to enable us to set tn motton a Plan to moderntze two schools per year for as long as such need exists This Pohcy rehes heavtly on State fundtng, over $65-MILLION for completion of the 17schools already tdenttfied for modernization Whtle this may seem optimisttc, we have few other resource alternattves and the State has enjoyed tremendous revenue growth tn the past several years. We are glad that the Governor has recognized the crtttcal school infrastructure needs and has chosen to assist tn thts need by shartng State revenue growth. We must all work to help matntatn thts commitment in the future, because without this resource, we cannot achieve our goal The Plan includes a two-year revtew process to make adjustments tf the State commttment changes over that ttme. This Plan does not program future resources, whtch may be avatlable at the end of the year and whtch the schools have expended less than 100% of thetr Operattng Budget If State funding chmmtshes, some of these year-end funds may be needed for moderntzatton. However, the Plan was developed wtthout thts so that the Schools could address other critical needs such as technology, alternattve educatton, bus replacement and norse attenuation near Oceana. I want to thank the Members of the Committee, Mr. Branch and Mrs Eure from the Counctl and Vtce Chair Wtlson and Mr Tate from the School Board for their excellent work Today, this evening, the School Board wtll be addresstng this same Resolutton Thejotnt effort should be a matter of prtde, not only to all the Counctl and Board, but to those tn the communtty whojotn us tn seeking to move forward posttlvely with an eye on the total needs of the City. I thank you for allowtng me to enter these remarks into the record" Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution re: Virginia Beach Schools: Policy Report and Plan for financing the modernizatton of seventeen (17) schools, establish a continuing school modernization program; and, direct implementatton of the Plan. b Re-approprtate $14,614,324 from Elementary School Moderntzatton (CIP #1-212) to (1) Creeds Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-214) $5,787,371 (2) Bayside Elementary School Modernization (CIP #1-216) $8,826,953 February 2, 1999 -16- Item V-H. la/b. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS ITEM # 44589 (Continued) Voting 10 -0 (By Consent) Counctl Members Vottng Aye Margaret L. Eure, William W Harrison, Jr., Harold Hetschober, Barbara M. Henley, Louts R. Jones, Reba $. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, A. M. "Don" Weeks and Vtce Mayor Wtlham D Sessoms, Jr. Counctl Members Voting Nay' None Counctl Members Absent: Linwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT A POLICY REPORT AND PIJ~N FOR FINANCING THE MODERNIZATION OF 17 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, ESTABLISH A CONTINUING SCHOOL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM, AND DIRECT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council and School Board have 8 identified a need to modernize schools within the City of Virginia 9 Beach to ensure adequate, safe and functional facilities for all 10 children; 11 WHEREAS, a November 1998 bond referendum to provide 12 partial financing for this modernization was not approved by the 13 citizens; 14 WHEREAS, the modernization of schools remains a key 15 priority for both governing bodies; 16 WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Virginia has 17 proposed that lottery profits be fully committed to the support of 18 public schools, including construction; 19 WHEREAS, the Governor's program was proposed after the 20 referendum, and now makes possible a meaningful program of 21 modernization without a real estate tax increase or additional 22 long-term debt; 23 WHEREAS, the City Council strongly endorses and supports 24 the Governor's proposal, and intends to use these lottery funds 25 exclusively for modernization; 26 WHEREAS, the School Board and City Council each appointed 27 two members to a committee to review modernization needs and 28 develop a feasible plan which would encompass the 17 elementary 29 schools currently most in need of renovation, as well as establish 30 a continuing program of modernization to serve all children over 31 time; 32 WHEREAS, the committee has diligently met, and has 33 developed such a plan, which was presented in the form of a Policy 34 Report and audio-visual presentation to a joint meeting of the 35 School Board and City Council on January 19, 1999; and 36 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to put this plan into 37 effect as soon as practicable. 38 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 39 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 40 1. That the Policy Report entitled "School 41 Modernization Project Financing," dated January 19, 1999, and 42 attached hereto, is hereby accepted and adopted as a policy of City 43 Council; 44 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed, and the 45 Superintendent of Schools is hereby requested, to take such steps 46 as are appropriate and necessary to implement the report, including 47 placing funds, as detailed in the report, in modernization projects 48 in the FY 1999/2000 - FY 2004/2005 Capital Improvement Program, and 49 ensuring that lottery-related funds received in FY 1998/1999 are 50 appropriated for modernization purposes; and 51 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to coordznate 52 the transmittal of a copy of this resolution and the accompanyzng 53 Policy Report, along with a copy of a similar resolution enacted by 54 the School Board, to the Governor and to all members of the 55 Virginia Beach General Assembly delegation, whzch will stress the 56 importance of the lottery proceeds to the City of Virginia Beach in 57 maintaining a safe and adequate infrastructure for educating our 58 children. 59 60 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 2 day of February , 1999. CA-7247 ORDIN\NONCODE~.SCH-MOD.RES PREPARED: JANUARY 26, 1999 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL ~epart~ent of Law Date to Counctl and Board January, 19, 1999 POLICY REPORT School Modernization Project Financing Background: Over the past two years, the School Board and City Council worked together to study and define modernization needs in the system's oldest elementary schools, those constructed before 1970. Planning studies were conducted involving parents, administrators and teachers at each candidate school. A 6-year Capital Program was developed based on the study results. The W.T. Cooke school(the oldest school in the system) was determined to be in need of complete replacement. It was fully funded in 1997 and will open anew in January 2000. The Old Donation Center for the Gifted and Talented (ODC) was studied with an eye toward more than doubling its capacity (from 400 to 1,000). However, the evolution of School Board policy regarding Gifted and Talented programming as well as the cost and perception that such an extensive enlargement was not consistent with renovation and modernization parameters led to the removal of ODC from the program. Separately, and at the same time, the original study of noise zones and crash potential zones associated with Oceana Naval Air Station necessitated the replacement of Linkhom Park and Seatack Elementary Schools, originally constructed in 1955 and 1952, respectively. With these commitments fulfilled, the City Council funded Architectural and Engineering design for the next four (4) schools in the modemlzation program (Creeds, Bayside, Shelton Park and Thalia.) There remained a total need of $132.8 milhon~ to complete the ! 7 schools included in the modernization program over a six- (6) year period. Regular CIP funding provided for $75.3 milhon. Consequently, a referendum was scheduled for November, 1998 to provide for the remaining $57.5 million. It was anticipated that a real estate tax increase of up to 2.8¢ would be required to address the referendum costs. On November 3, 1998, the voters d~d not approve the referendum. Continuing their collaborative approach, the School Board and City Council appointed a School Modernization Committee to review options and propose plans and policies to address the modernization needs and related matters. The School Board was represented by Ms. Rosemary Wilson, Vice-chair and Mr. Arthur Tate. City Council was represented by Ms. Margaret Eure and Mr. Linwood Branch. The Superintendent and City Manager have provided staff assistance to the Committee. The Committee met four times and received and reviewed materials from staff. This policy report is the final product of the Committee recommended unanimously to the Board and Council for favorable action. ~With completion of the 17 schools, a total of 20 elementary schools built before 1970 will have been replaced/modernized. Full replacements already funded are W. T. Cooke, Linkhorn Park and Seatack. Including study and advance design funds, pre-referendum investment totaled $33,679,361. -1- Unresolved Fiscal Issues It ~s not possible or desirable to consider a program of over $130 million in isolation. While not specifically w~th~n ~t's charge, the Committee reviewed several unresolved or unclear issues the fiscal implications of which might impact the modernization program in the future. These included: Technology-The Committee received a briefing on the School Technology Initiative which is needed to meet state Standards of Learning. Numerous issues remain; in particular, annual recurring cost impacts and a financial plan to address them. In addition to this instructional technology, there are data collection/technical system needs for instructional support (such as student tracking and records) and non-instructional activities (such as human resources/payroll.) Some of these systems have cost estimates while others have yet to be studied in that depth. Technology is currently funded primarily with year end balances and state grant funds and matches. Alternative Education-A growing need among students, particularly as the student population becomes more diverse and presents many students with complex needs, is for alternatives to regular classroom instruction. Whde some alternatives may involve regional efforts, local efforts are also being reviewed for modifications or enhancements. These needs may or may not require operating fund support at a level above current budget amounts. Buses-Virgima Beach School Division maintains a fleet of some 600 buses which are recommended (by state gmdelines, but not mandate) for replacement on a twelve year cycle. While not every bus is in use every day, mmntalning the full fleet at this cycle would require 50 replacement buses per year at a cost of over two m~llion dollars. These needs are currently funded primarily through ending operating budget balances. Noise Attenuation- The expansion of flight activities at Oceana Naval Air Station (both in number of flights and type of jets) has increased noise potentml. The noise zones encompass an area which includes 22 schools. A study is currently underway to determine what, if any, modifications will be needed at some or all of these schools to ensure an acceptable noise level. While some of these schools are included in the modernization effort and can have noise issues addressed within the modernization, other schools may need some work. No costs are available at this time and no funding beyond the study is included in the proposed School CIP currently being considered by the School Board. Other Existing Facilities--Within the next several years, both the existing Seatack and Old Linkhorn Park schools will be vacant. Disposition of those facilities and the associated land has not been determined. Further, the Old Donation Center was removed from the modernization program and remains in use as a 400-student elementary Gifted and Talented Academy. Additional New Facilities The Capital Improvement Program anticipates that a new high school will be constructed beginning in 1999. The only other new facilities (not currently under construction) included in the current, approved 6-year School CIP is the thirteen million dollar City share of the Advanced Technical Center being developed with Tidewater Community College (Project # 1-208) and $600,000 for design of Elementary School 2006 (Project #1-090) to serve the Red Mill/Sandbridge area of the city. -3- Facts and Considerations: State Funding-Changing Circumstances, Uncertain Outcomes At the time of the referendum, the General Assembly had just approved (effective July 1, 1998) the first state aid for school construction. This action provided $2.46 million to the City of Virginia Beach for FY 1998-99. The General Assembly, and later the Governor appointed commissions to study school construction needs. In mid-November (after the referendum), the Govemor surprised the Commonwealth by announcing a program to return lottery profits to localities for education (including for construction). Th~s proposal would result in $17 4 million to V~rgima Beach for FY 1998-99 and FY 1999-2000 biennium. The extent to which localities can rely on these funds over the long-run may depend on factors such as the continued growth ~n the economy, the cost of the "car tax" ehmination program, other program demands and calls for additional tax relief (e.g., reducing the sales tax on food). These changes are at once welcome and yet increase dependency on the state appropriation process. A faithful reliance on that source in the past has not always been rewarded. Any solution to the need, however, must bring state funding into the m~x. The Committee had to develop alternatives which recognized these reahties. Use of Future End-Of-Year Reversions The School system has ended the past two fiscal years with substantial school operating fund ending balances ($16.9 mdlion for FY 1996-97 and $15.2 million for FY 1997-98.) These have been directed to a variety of needs, including the modernization program. While balances of the magnitude recently experienced may not continue, the Committee considered what, if any part of such future ending balances could and should be applied to the modernization. Given the importance of the modernizat~on effort and the ability to adjust schedules depending upon availability of resources, modernization was considered a prime use for ending balances (when compared to possible uses which would require on-going commitments such as compensation issues or new or expanded program initiatives.) However, the Committee recognized that instructional technology and buses were also strong candidates for use of such ending balance resources. Un-Proerammed Future Demands on School Resources One of the areas of concern expressed by the Council members of the Committee was past experiences in which School Board/Council agreements were reached on an issue only to have another large, resource-~ntens~ve ~ssue arise shortly after such agreement was reached. The School Board members and School staff to the Committee identified several outstanding ~ssues which will require commitment of some resources. None, however, in the magnitude of the modernization needs. The recommendations crafted by the Committee did not direct all possible resources to modernization in view of these needs. However, it was assumed no large cost demands would be forthcoming. Any change to this assumption could require a review of the Committee's recommendation should the emerging issue to be deemed a higher priority to the community, the School Board and Council. -2- Program/Project Scale and Scope While not universally understood, the modernization plan was not to simply repair or renovate the subject elementary schools. Through the program/design studies, "modernization" came to mean raising the schools to a instructional program and square footage standard comparable to the newer elementary schools (i.e., Christopher Farms.) Classrooms, core areas (libraries, cafeterias, etc.), administrative and storage spaces were all to be significantly expanded and upgraded. Major additions to most of the schools are a part of the plans. The additional space and capacity to be added across all the modernized schools is the equivalent of approximately two (2) new 900 student capacity elementary schools. When plans and studies were being made, the school system still anticipated future growth in both programs and overall pupil population (although not necessarily in the neighborhoods served by schools to be modernized.) However, as the Modermzation Committee took up its work, new school demographic estimates forecasted a downturn in pupil population, particularly in the elementary grades. Given this trend, additional space will not be needed for student growth-- leaving a need only for current and foreseeable instructional program growth. The Committee, therefore, examined the scale and scope of the program from two perspectives: · Reducing the scope and cost of each school modernization; · Reducing the number of schools included. That is, eliminating one school from the program, closing that school, and modernizing the remaining schools. Both of these issues proved difficult. The former confronted the Committee with the reality that the first four (4) schools have essentially been designed and that major changes would involve delays. Further, the planning process for all schools involved teachers, administrators and parents, increasing expectations. The latter approach would necessitate choosing a school to close (the closing would not take place for 3-5 years, allowing most, if not all current students to complete their K-5 education in the school in which they started), and the gradual realignment of attendance districts. The Committee determined that these issues were under the sole purview of the School Board and could be addressed by the Board as appropriate. However, the Committee concluded that modest cost and related scope reduction would not significantly impact modernization plans and was essential to achieving the mission of the Committee. Program Length/Schedule The 17 school program was planned for implementation over a six-year period. The Committee considered various alternatives for adjusting the schedule to better match implementation with funding availability, recognizing that the impact of a three percent annual inflation factor could increase program costs if the schedule was greatly lengthened. Long-Term Program Needs The 17-school program was designed to "catch-up" to modernization needs and establish a basis for a continuing modernization program of approximately two (2) schools per year. As schools in the -4- system age, there will be an on-going need to systematically modernize schools on a 30-35 year cycle. By that time, instructional programs, curriculum and technology advances will necessitate modernization. These efforts should also extend to middle and high schools. The Committee was concerned that any financing plan for the 17 school program incorporate this long-term perspective. Contingency Plans The Committee ~dentified a series of uncertainties which could impact any adopted plan including reduced state aid, cost over-runs, recession-caused city funding reductions or construction delays. A series of policies was considered in order to formulate "fall-back" positions and to protect the integrity of the program. Any plan which removed the State lottery proceeds as a part of the plan required multiple year delays in the program and increased costs due to inflation over those years. These alternatives highhghted the dependence which the C~ty and Schools must have upon the State in order to maintain instructional ~nfrastructure. Operating Budget Impacts Because the schools will be both larger and better eqmpped, additional operating and maintenance costs will be ~ncurred for such costs as l~ghting, HVAC and custodial services. These annual costs were estimated at $125,000 - $150,000 per school and were provided for through the referendum. They remain a consideration as the funding for this need included within the recommended plan of action may not cover the incremental cost of adequately operating the modernized facilities, even when increased efficiencies in new systems are taken ~nto account. However, these costs will have to be reviewed as they actually occur, recognizing that new sources of funding are unlikely. Alternatives: The Committee revtewed over ten scenarios, reflecting assumptions regarding state aid (both lottery funding and existing school infrastructure funding), length of program, scope of work, use of other school/non-school CIP resources, and economic conditions. Criteria for Recommended Alternatives Having considered the issues outlined above, the Committee developed criteria which were to be fulfilled by any alternative recommended to the School Board and City Council. These criteria are: . An alternative is financially responsible (no negatives in the total program bottom line in a given year or cumulatively.) An alternative does not rely on a local tax rate increase. An alternative cannot so heavily utilize available school resources as to sacrifice school technology needs. An alternative assumes there is available in the first six years of the program $75.3 million in place in charter bonds, pay-as-you-go and identified ending balances, except as reductions in state aid to construction are projected. -5- Se , . . 10. 11. An alternative addresses the need to continue modemization after completion of the first 17 schools and addresses an average of two schools per year in the "out" years. The funding needed to study the next set of schools as well as begin design of modernization plans for them is incorporated into an alternative. An alternative includes pay-as-you-go funding of $1 million/year from resources within the City/School Revenue Sharing Policy and any addition for technical accounting adjustments necessitated by the methods of distribution of lottery / state aid proceeds. An alternative will gradually shit~ the one million dollars pay-as-you-go School resources within the Revenue Sharing Policy from the modernization program to the school operating fund to address operation and maintenance costs assocmted with the modernized schools. An alternative does not rely upon year end school operational balances (except for FY 97-98) but such balances may be directed toward the program as they become available. Depending upon how FY 1998-99 lottery proceeds are received, these may be realized as part of the school operating fund balance in that year thus requiring action to direct those funds to keep the proposed modernization program whole. An alternative will be reviewed every two years to verify economic conditions, state revenue and other assumptions. An alternative wall not reduce scope of modernization by more than 5% average. Anything larger would significantly alter the modernization plan. Delays in scheduling of schools within the various alternatives will be accompanied by a three percent per year increase for inflation. This inflation rate will be reviewed with other assumptions at the biennial review of the plan. Consensus Scenario Based on these criteria, the Committee developed a "Consensus Scenario" which addresses all the criteria and ~ncluded the following assumptions: o . e o Reduce the $2.4 million in state school infrastructure funding to only the current biennium with some reduction in the second year for possible "double-counting" of lottery funds. Assume that lottery proceeds are available in perpetuity but will decline by 2% per year over time due to overall decline in lottery profits. And assume current and future School Boards will direct all newly allocated lottery resources to Modernization, in keeping with the plan. Assume a five percent reduction in scope of the program with the exception of the first four schools. Design is complete on these and such a reduction would cost more in design. A one - percent reduction will be applied to them to preserve a sense of equity for later schools. (10% reduction was considered but not recommended because such a cut would seriously harm the proposed program of modernization.) Assume the program will be spread out to eight years Assume that twelve million dollars per year in charter bond authority available for school purposes will be allocated to modernization from FY 2001-02 onward. Assume that $1.5 million will be available to the Modernization program in FY 1999-00 from unexpended balances in New Castle Elementary and W.T. Cooke Elementary projects. These balances are expected to be available as a result of favorable bids for these projects. A local real estate tax rate increase will not be required for the program. -6- Recommendations: The Committee recommends that the City Council and School Board adopt this report as policy, by Resolution, to encompass the following: Adopt the Consensus Scenario (attached) for moving forward with the modemization program. The School Board will incorporate the plan in its FY 1999-2000 - FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program now under review. City Council will appropriate FY 1998-99 funds ($14.6 million) now available and will proceed with the appropriation of 1999 state funds of approximately $8.6 million in April (or when made available by the State) to the program. The City Council will ~ncorporate the plan in its FY 1999-2000 - FY 2004-2005 CIP , Adopt a policy for the use of School Reversion funds which will commit them on a continuing basis to the modernization program/fadditional resources derived from the provision of state lottery funds are reduced below the levels anticipated in the Consensus Scenario Alternative. Absent such reduction, priorities for use of year-end school funds should be: Modernization initiative, Technology, and Buses. While this order is a ranking, it is understood that specific circumstances as well as the amount of resources available may dictate some change in order. ge Adopt a policy to direct any balances in completed school CIP modernization/replacement projects to other modernization/replacement projects. . Adopt a policy which directs all funds freed up as a consequence of State provision of Lottery funds to the Modernization program for the duration of the program. This assumption is a critical component of the Consensus Scenario Alternative, accounting for over $80 million in resources over the ten year study period. This is not an amount that could be made up from other identified sources. . Request that the existing School Technology Committee provide information as to school technology funding needs, including a recommended long-term plan regarding that issue. Provide C~ty Council representation to that Committee to provide a Council perspective. t Adopt a pohcy to review the modemization plan every two years (on or before January 31 to ensure inclusion of the findings in capital program amendments) to reflect most recent estimates of revenues, costs and related data. , Maintain the policy of including in the School CIP at least one million per year pay-as-you-go funding derived from within the City/School Revenue Sharing Policy and accept the component of the Proposed Modernization Plan that gradually shifts the one million dollars pay-as-you-go to the school operattng fund to address operation and maintenance costs associated with the modernized schools beginning in FY 2000-01. -7- While action on these recommendations is proposed as a prelude to or part of capital budget development for FY 1999-2000, it ~s recognized that adjustment to the chosen Alternative may be necessary, depending upon General Assembly action on the Governor's Proposed Budget Amendments for the FY 1998-2000 Biennium. Once these recommendations are approved by both the School Board and the City Council, it is incumbent upon both bodies to communicate to the Virginia Beach General Assembly delegation the importance of the Lottery proceeds to the City of Virginia Beach in maintaining a safe and appropriate infrastructure for housing and educating our children. Mrs. Rosemary 6d Wilson Vice-Chair, School Board Mr. Linwood O. Branch III Council Member MrTArthur T. Tate School Board Member Superinten~t, Schoo~Divisi~ ~;~:gKe} Spore~ ~tm's,5~argaret L. Eure Council Member ' -8- MODERNIZATION SUMMARY DATA School Year school Current size Sq feet/ Opened (sq fi)) student Renovated size Additional Modem~zabon (sq feet) Sq fi/student classrooms Cost Creeds Bays~de Shelton Park Thaha Woodstock Kempav~lle Meadows Louise Luxford Kempswlle Pembroke Trentwood Lynnhaven Herm~je Windsor Woods Brookwood Pembroke Meadows 1939 38.480 115 2 1941 68.982 114 6 1954 53.822 119 6 1956 56.932 102 0 1957 54.798 96 8 1959 52.674 97.9 1961 54.469 102 0 1961 56.015 108 2 1962 55.351 117 8 1962 91.123 122.3 1963 56.344 87 5 1963 56.462 117 6 1964 73.903 121 2 1965 54.649 97 2 1966 53.854 101.6 1968 51.730 94 7 1969 54.945 101 0 62.370 130 5 7 74.935 111 0 5 76.047 128 0 4 89.183 107 4 14 82.364 106 4 9 80.010 106 4 8 80.233 113 3 5 78.511 119 7 6 71.957 151 8 0 110.599 121 1 6 81.885 99 6 8 80.028 131 6 8 96.237 118 8 12 79.322 115 3 9 77.005 125 8 7 75.052 119 1 6 79.013 109 7 4 TOTALS Averages Excluding Bays~de 17 986,533 58.031 16 57.347 Average sq ft ~ncrease Cost/total sq ft renovation 1,374,751 80,868 81,239 23,892 $95 41 66% NEXT PHASE OF MODERNIZATION Elementary schools built pHor to 1990 which Old Donalx)n Windsor Oaks Newtow~ Road College Park North Landmg Green Run Fa,rfield Wh,te Oaks Indmn Lakes Rosemont Prov~lence Centerville Birdneck Rosetnont Forest Parkway Red M~II Tallwood 1965 1970 1970 1973 1975 1976 1976 1978 1979 1981 1981 1984 1986 1987 1987 1988 1989 1989 have not been modernized or had major addition 53.111 54.612 57.208 50.360 57.541 54 625 54 525 77 333 66.456 63 378 61 468 66 779 145 863 75 496 67 567 66.663 69.500 69.500 113.721 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 175.036 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 80.239 {addition programmed} Middle Schools Kemps Landing Virg,nia Beach Bays~e 6th Grade Great Nec~ Kempswlle Bays~de Plaza Lynnhaven Pti _nc~__-~_ Anne Independence Brandon Landatown Cor~rate Landing 1941 1952 1958 1961 1969 1969 1969 1974 1974 1974 1978 1988 1992 1994 1997 55.748 104.015 43.911 145.000 150.000 152.067 148.766 140.072 136.040 137.656 184,000 217,500 201,000 247,264 235,093 0 4266 Increase 55.748 218.047 43.911 145.000 1 50.000 152.067 148.766 140.072 136.040 137.656 218.047 218.047 n/a n/a n/a 118 $6.205.81~ $9.751.919 $6.752.758 $7.816.233 $6.699.087 $6.928.143 $7.538.742 $7,447,731 $7,030,428 $7.834,548 $8,110,776 $7,592,983 $10,126,612 $8,874,742 $7,553,208 $7,610,539 $8,947,413 $132,821,674 $7.813.040 7.691.860 ~$94/sq fl $10.689.774 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $16.453.346 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $7.542.428 $5,240,312 $20,496,371 $4,127,634 $13,630,000 $14,100,000 $14,294,298 $13,984,004 $13,166,768 $12,787,760 $12,939,664 $20,496,371 $20,496,371 D~ o/~ $ltl,~ces C~hoO/Ststudycmt w~2 01111/99 [est,mates] AN ORDINANCE TO RE-APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,614,324 FROM CI P # 1 - 212 "ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION" TO CIP #1-214 "CREEDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION" AND C I P # 1 - 216 "BAYS I DE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REPLACEMENT" WHEREAS, as part of the FY 1998-99 Capital Improvement 9 Program, on May 12, 1998, City Council adopted Ordinance # 98-2489Q 10 entitled "An Ordinance Establishing A New School Capital Pro~ect 11 [CIP # 1-212] and Appropriating $86,714,324 to Fund the New Project 12 Subject to Passage of a Proposed November 1998 Bond Referendum and 13 the Availability of Year-End Fund Balance" with an effective date 14 of November 12, 1998; 15 WHEREAS, on September 12, 1998, City Council amended 16 Ordinance # 98-2489Q, revising funding sources for the school 17 modernization project and appropriating the reduced amount of 18 $72,114,324 (Ordinance # 98-2506B); 19 WHEREAS, upon failure of the November 3, 1998, bond 20 referendum, City Council amended Ordinance # 98-2506B to delay 21 effective date, so that the amounts appropriated, funding sources, 22 and the scope and timing of the school modernization program could 23 be re-evaluated and modified as required (Ordinance # 98-2515E); 24 WHEREAS the School Board and the City Council each 25 appointed two members to a committee to review modernization needs 26 and develop a feasible plan that would encompass the seventeen 27 elementary schools and provide a continuing program of 28 modernization for all schools over time; 29 WHEREAS, the committee developed such a plan and 30 presented the same in the form of a Policy Report and audio-visual 31 presentation to a joint meeting of the School Board and City 32 Council on January 19, 1999; 33 WHEREAS, the plan establishes the continued support of 34 school modernization as a key priority for both governing bodies; 35 WHEREAS, design work is complete for Creeds Elementary 36 School, Bayside Elementary School, and Shelton Park Elementary 37 School, and construction can begin as soon as funds are available; 38 and 39 WHEREAS, following failure of the November 3rd bond 40 referendum, funds in the amount of $14,614,324, which represent a 41 portion of the above-referenced appropriation of $72,114,324, 42 remain available from the following sources within CIP # 1-212 to 43 support construction of the first two schools, Creeds Elementary 44 and Bayside Elementary: 45 FY 1997-98 School Reversion $ 9,747,088 46 FY 1998-99 School Pay-as-You-Go Funding 2,424,339 47 First Year of $14,475,661 State Contribution 2,442,897 48 TOTAL $14,614,324 49 5O 51 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 52 That funds in the amount of $14,614,324 are hereby re- 53 appropriated from CIP # 1-212 "Elementary School Modernization 54 Program" to: 55 56 CIP # 1-214 "Creeds Elementary School Modernization" - $5,787,371 57 58 CIP # 1-216 "Bayside Elementary School Replacement" - $8,826,953 59 6O Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 2 day of February , 1999. CA-7249 ORDIN\NONCODE\REAPPSCH. ORD R-4 PREPARED: January 27, 1999 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Dept.~ o~~gement Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: -17- Item V-H. 2. ORDINANCES/RES OL UTION$ ITEM t4 44590 Upon motion by Vtce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Counctlman Harrtson, Ctty Counctl ADOPTED: Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $75,000 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to the FY 1998-1999 Operattng Budget of the General Services Department re replacing trees on Atlantic Avenue damaged by Hurrtcane Bonme in 1998. Vottng. 10 -0 (By Consent) Councd Members Vottng Aye' Margaret L Eure, Wtlliam W Harrtson, Jr, Harold Heischober, Barbara M Henley, Louts R Jones, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K Parker, A M "Don" Weeks and Vice Mayor Wtlham D. Sessoms, Jr. Counctl Members Voting Nay' None Counctl Members Absent' Ltnwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $75,000 FROM FUND BALANCE IN THE TOURISM GROWTH INVESTMENT FUND TO THE FY 1998-99 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING TREES ON ATLANTIC AVENUE WHEREAS, the Landscape Services Division of the 9 Department of General Services planted 650 new Southern Wax Myrtle 10 trees along the sidewalks of Atlantic Avenue in March of 1998; 11 WHEREAS, in late August, 1998, the heavy rains and winds 12 from Hurricane Bonnie uprooted or damaged most of these newly 13 14 planted and not yet established trees; · WHEREAS, 250 of these trees require replacement, which 15 will cost $75,000 for the plant materials, with installation to be 16 performed by Landscape Services staff; and 17 WHEREAS, the City will bear 100% of the cost of the 18 trees, since FEMA has determined that the cost of these replacement 19 trees is non-reimbursable. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 21 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 22 That funds in the amount of $75,000 are hereby 23 appropriated from the fund balance in the Tourism Growth Investment 24 Fund to the FY 1998-99 Operating Budget of the Department of 25 General Services for the purpose of replacing trees on Atlantic 26 Avenue. 27 Requires a affirmative vote by a majority of the members 28 of City Council. 29 30 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 2 day of February , 1999. 31 32 33 34 CA-7245 DATA\ ORD IN\ NONCODE \ TREES. ORD JANUARY 21, 1999 Ri 35 36 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 37 38 CITY ATTORNEY Item V-H. 3 -18- ORDINANCES/RES OL UTIONS ITEM # 44591 Upon motton by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councdman Harrison, City Councd ADOPTED: Or&nance to TR~INSFER $2,231 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to reimburse the water and sewer fund for fees assoctated wtth the constructton of a Habitat for Humanity single-famdy home at Alberthas Drive (L YNNHA VEN - DISTRICT 5) Voting' 10 -0 (By Consent) Councd Members Voting ~lye. Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr, Harold Heischober, Barbara M Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy K Parker, ~1 M "Don" Weeks and Vice Mayor Wdham D Sessoms, Jr. Councd Members Voting Nay: None Councd Members Absent' Linwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $2,231 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REIMBURSING THE WATER AND SEWER FUND FOR THE COSTS OF WATER AND SEWER FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WHEREAS, several local churches have joined together to 10 form a coalition known as the Virginia Beach Covenant; 11 WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Covenant, in association with 12 South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc.("Habitat for 13 Humanity"), is constructing a single-family home at 635 Alberthas 14 Drive in the Lynnhaven District; 15 WHEREAS, the cost of construction of this home includes 16 water and sewer fees in the amount of $2,231; and 17 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach wishes to show its 18 support for this project by reimbursing the Water and Sewer Fund, 19 as a charitable gift to Habitat for Humanity, for the costs of such 20 water and sewer fees. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 22 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 That City Council hereby authorizes the transfer of 24 $2,231 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies for the 25 purpose of reimbursing the Water and Sewer Fund, as a charitable 26 gift to Habitat for Humanity, for the costs of water and sewer fees 27 associated with the construction of a single-family home at 635 28 Alberthas Drive in the Lynnhaven District. 29 30 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 2nd day of February, 1999. 31 32 33 34 CA-7246 ORDIN~NONCODE~HABITAT. ORD PREPARED: JANUARY 22, 1999 R2 35 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 37 MANAGEMENT SERV~E~" APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY- CITY ATTORNEY' S OFF~CE Item V-H. 4 -19- ORDINANCESfRES OL UTIONS ITEM # 44592 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, Ctty Counctl ADOPTED: Ordinance to provtde for the lease ora portton of Ctty property at 701 Chantry Drive re constructton, matntenance and operatton of wireless telecommunications facilities (Rosemont Water Tower) (ROSE HALL - DISTRICT 3 Voting 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye Margaret L. Eure, William W Harrtson, ,Ir, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louts R Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, A M "Don" Weeks and Vtce Mayor Wilham D Sessoms, Jr Councd Members Voting Nay. None Councd Members Absent Linwood O. Branch, III February 2, 1999 AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE LEASE OF A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 CHANTRY DRIVE, IN THE ROSE HALL DISTRICT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 9 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 ARTICLE I. There shal 1 be granted, in the mode 11 prescribed by Article 1, Chapter 21, Title 15.2 of the Code of 12 Virginia, as amended, upon the conditions hereinafter specified, a 13 lease of property more fully described in the attached document 14 entitled "Antenna Lease Agreement (Rosemont Water Tower), City of 15 Virginia Beach, Lessor, and , Lessee," for the 16 purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating wireless 17 telecommunications facilities, including antennas, connecting 18 cables and appurtenances and for the construction, maintenance and 19 operation of an accessory building housing equipment to be used in 20 conjunction with the aforesaid facilities. 21 ARTICLE II. That upon approval of this Ordinance by 22 the City Council, it shall be the duty of the City Clerk to cause 23 to be advertised once per week for four successive weeks, in a 24 newspaper having general circulation in the City, a descriptive 25 notice of the proposed ordinance, and in addition the Clerk shall, 26 by such advertisement, invite bids for the privileges and rights 27 proposed to be granted by such ordinance, which bids shall be in 28 writing and shall be delivered to the Mayor, or in the absence of 29 the Mayor, to the Vice-Mayor, in open session at the day and hour 30 of the next regular meeting of the City Council to be held after 31 such advertisement is completed, which bids shall then be presented 32 to the City Council by the Mayor, or in the absence of the Mayor, 33 by the Vice-Mayor, to be dealt with and acted upon in the manner 34 prescribed by law. Such advertisement shall expressly reserve the 35 36 37 right to reject any and all bids, and the successful bidder shall be required to pay all costs of advertising such ordinance in addition to the sum bid by it. 38 39 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 2 day of February , 1999. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 CA-99-7243 wmm~ordres[rosemont, orn R-1 January 20, 1999 APPROV~AS TO CONTENT: Department i 1 it ies APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department of Law Antenna Lease Agreement (Rosemont Water Tower) City of Virginia Beach, Lessor and , Lessee ,, 1999 wmm\telecomm~rosemont ise TABLE OF CONTENTS Leased Premises ............................................................ 1 Term .................................................................... 1 Rent ..................................................................... 2 Security Deposit ........................................................... 3 Governmental Approval ...................................................... 3 Use of Premises ............................................................ 5 Equipment Upgrade ......................................................... 7 Interference ............................................................... 7 Termination .............................................................. 8 Cure by Lessor ............................................................. 9 Condemnation ............................................................. 9 Defense and Indemnlficat~on .................................................. 9 Insurance ................................................................ 11 Assignment and Sublease ................................................... 12 Notices ................................................................ 12 M~scellaneous Provisions .................................................... 13 Tests and Constructions ..................................................... 15 RF Comphance ........................................................... 15 Marking and Lighting Requirements ........................................... 15 Waiver of Lessor's L~en ..................................................... 16 Brokers .................................................................. 16 Taxes ................................................................... 16 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE lS made as of the day of ,1999, by and between the C~ty of V~rg~nla Beach, a mumc~pal corporatton of the Commonwealth of V~rg~nia and , a ., having ~ts pnnc~pal place of bus~ness ~n~ ("Lessee"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Lessor ~s the owner of a parcel of land (the "Owned Premises") situated in the City of V~rgm~a Beach, Vlrg~ma, legally described on the attached Exhibit A, on which a mummpal water tower (the "Water Tower") ~s located; and WHEREAS, Lessee is a telecommunications carrier, as defined in Section 3 of the Commumcat~ons Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 153), and is hcensed to provide personal wireless telecommumcatlons service to the general pubhc w~th~n the C~ty of Virg~ma Beach; and WHEREAS, Lessee desires to lease space on the Water Tower, and to lease a portion of the aforesaid parcel, for the purpose of constructing, operating and mmntaining certain facihttes for the purpose of prowding personal w~reless telecommumcat~ons service to the general public; NOW, THEREFORE, For good and valuable consideration, the parties do hereby agree as follows' 1. Leased Premises. (a) Lessor leases to Lessee, and Lessee leases from Lessor, space on the Water Tower for four (4) sets of antenna arrays, at heights above ground level of 135' and 115' (two arrays at each height), together w~th sufficient space on the Water Tower for necessary appurtenances, for the purpose of constructing, malntmning and operating antennas, connecting cables and appurtenances (collectively, the "Antenna Facilities"), as shown on the attached Exhibit C, and a port~on of the aforesaid parcel, together w~th easements for vehicular and pedestrian access and the lnstallat~on, mmntenance and replacement of necessary utilities, w~nng, cables and other condmts, for the construction, mmntenance and operation of an Accessory Building housing equipment to be used in conjunction w~th the Antenna Facihtles (the "Ground Faclhtles"), as shown on the attached Exhibit C. The Antenna Facfl~tles and Ground Facilities shall collectively be referred to as the "Lessee Facilities," as shown on the attached Exhibit B (the "Leased Premises"). 2. Term. The ~mt~al term of this Lease shall be ten (10) years, commencing on the date of ~ssuance of the building permit authorizing construction of the Lessee Faciht~es, or any portion thereof (the "Commencement Date"), and ending on a date ten (10) years after the Commencement Date (the "Imt~al Term"). At the option of Lessee, this Lease may be extended for two (2) additional renewal periods of five (5) years each (the "Renewal Terms") on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein. This Lease shall automatically be extended for each successive Renewal Term unless Lessee notifies Lessor of its intention not to renew at least sixty (60) days prior to commencement of the succeeding Renewal Term. 3. Rent. (a) Lessee shall pay to Lessor as rent for the Leased Premises the sum of Dollars ($ .) per year. Rent for the first year of this Lease shall be paid by the Commencement Date, and Rent for the remainder of the term shall be paid annually in advance on each anniversary of the Commencement Date. Rent shall be increased annually as described hereafter. (b) The Rent shall be increased annually effective as of each anniversary of the Commencement Date by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the CPI over the prior CPI for the month twelve (12) months prior to the adjustment date, but not to exceed seven per cent (7%) in any year. "CPI" means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, All Items, ~ssued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the United States Department of Labor (1982-84 = 100). If the CPI is converted to a different standard reference base or otherwise revised, the adjustment set forth in this paragraph shall be made with the use of the conversion formula published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (c) For each additional antenna installed by Lessee beyond the initial array depicted in Exhibit C, Lessee shall pay an additional fee of Dollars ($ ) per year, prorated in the event such an antenna is installed on other than an anniversary of the Commencement Date, which amount shall increase annually under the same terms provided herelnabove and shall become part of the Rent. No such add~tional antennas not shown in Exhibit C may be installed without the consent of Lessor, which consent shall not be unreasonably w~thheld, delayed or conditioned. (d) In addition to the amounts set forth in subparagraphs (b) and (c), Lessee shall also pay to the Lessor, as Additional Rent, an amount equal to fifty per cent (50%) of any and all rents charged under any sublease of all or a portion of the Leased Premises entered into by Lessee. Lessee shall, upon reasonable request of Lessor, allow Lessor to inspect any such sublease. (e) In accordance with requirements of Section 15.2-2101 of the Code of Virginia, upon execution of this Lease by Lessee, Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for the cost of publishing the advertisement for bids for the use of the Leased Premises. (f) Lessee shall pay to Lessor all actual and reasonable increased costs of maintenance of the Leased Premises directly attributable to Lessee's use and occupancy thereof within thirty (30) days of presentation to Lessee of an ltermzed statement dehneat~ng such costs, accompamed by reasonable documentation supporting such costs. In addition thereto, Lessee shall, within thirty (30) days after the date of ~nspection approval of the Antenna Fatalities, reimburse Lessor for the actual and reasonable fees and costs, ~nclud~ng actual and reasonable travel expenses, charged to Lessor by Lessor's consulting engineer for rewew of plans and ~nspect~ons of the installation of the Antenna Facd~t~es, including on-s~te meetings, not to exceed the sum of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00). (g) Lessee shall pay to Lessor a late payment charge equal to five percent (5%) of the late payment for any payment not paid when due. Lessor shall provide Lessee w~th written not~ce of non-receipt of any amounts due within five (5) days of the due date. Any amounts not prod when due shall bear ~nterest at the rate of one per cent (1%) per month from the date which ~s five (5) days after the mailing of such notice untd paid. (h) SubJect to the provisions of Paragraph 5(d) and Paragraph 9(b), in the event of terrmnat~on of this Lease, all prepaid Rent shall be refunded to Lessee, w~thout ~nterest, w~thin sixty (60) days of the effective date of such termination. 4. Security Deposit. Upon commencement of th~s Lease, Lessee shall deposit with Lessor the sum of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000), which shall be fully refunded to Lessee upon the timely removal of the Lessee Facdit~es, and related equipment, and the repair and the restoration of the Leased Premises in accordance w~th the terms of this Lease. If the Lessee Faclht~es and related equipment are not removed to the reasonable satisfaction of Lessor w~th~n s~xty (60) days after the termination or expiration of th~s Lease, they shall be deemed abandoned and shall become the property of Lessor and Lessee shall have no further rights thereto. Lessee has notified Lessor that the following entities have an interest ~n the Antenna Facditles and related eqmpment because of financing arrangements with Lessee: If Lessor removes the Lessee Facilities or any port~on thereof, Lessor must g~ve written notice to Lessee and the hsted entities at the addresses provided, ~nforming them that the Lessee Facilities or port~on thereof, have been removed and will be deemed abandoned if not clmmed by smd entitles and the storage fees and other reasonable costs paid w~th~n thirty (30) days. 5. Governmental Approval. (a) Lessor represents and warrants that ~t has ~ssued a conditional use permit authorizing the construction and use of the Lessee Faciht~es for the purposes contemplated by th~s Agreement. Lessee agrees that such construction and use shall comply w~th all terms and conditions of such conditional use permit or any modifications or amendments thereof made by the City Councd of the City of V~rginia Beach. (b) Lessee's right to use the Leased Premises is contingent upon Lessee obtaimng all other certificates, permits, zomng and other approvals (whether discretionary or ministerial), specffically Including, without hm~tation, s~te plan approval and a budding permit, that may be required by any federal, state, or local authority, for Lessee's use to take place at the Leased Premises ("Governmental Approvals"). It shall be the sole and entire responsibility of Lessee to determine what Governmental Approvals are needed for the construction and operation of the Lessee Facdltles. Lessor agrees to reasonably cooperate with Lessee (at no cost to Lessor) in ~ts efforts to obtmn such approvals; prowded, however, that Lessor's agreement to cooperate shall not ~n any way hmlt or otherwise affect the authority or discretion of Lessor's governing body, or any department, d~v~s~on, officer or employee of Lessor, in the conduct of ~ts or h~s duties w~th respect to any such Governmental Approval and promded further, that Lessor shall not be required to jo~n, be joined, or otherwise participate as a party in any judmlal or administrative action brought by Lessee, or any person or entity clalnung under Lessee, in which the demal or conditions of any Governmental Approval is ~n ~ssue. Lessee hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that neither the execution of this Lease by Lessor nor any act by Lessor or any of Lessor's officers, agents or employees or Its govermng body ~n anticipation or ~n furtherance of the execution of this Lease, shall entitle Lessee to any Governmental Approval, whether discretionary or m~mstenal, and Lessee shall not be entitled to reimbursement of any costs or expenses of any kind or nature made or Incurred in expectation of, or preparation for, the use of the Leased Premises. (c) Lessee warrants that ~t has performed, or caused to be performed, a radio frequency emissions study ("RF Study") showing that Lessee's ~ntended use w~ll not Interfere with any emstlng commumcatlons famhties, and that such RF Study was conducted by a quahfied engineer licensed to practice ~n the Commonwealth of Vlrglma. Lessee shall, prior to the Issuance of a bmld~ng permit for any of the Lessee Facdlt~es, deliver a copy of such RF study to Lessor. Lessor shall, upon request of Lessee, promde such ~nformat~on regarding Lessor's commumcatlons facd~t~es as ~s necessary for Lessee to avoid ~nterference with such facihties. (d) If any apphcatlon for a necessary Governmental Approval is denied, or ~f any certificate, permit, hcense, or other Governmental Approval issued to Lessee is canceled, expires, lapses, or ~s otherwise withdrawn or terminated by governmental authority so that Lessee wall be unable to use the Leased Premises for Lessee's ~ntended purpose, and all adm~mstratlve and judicial appeals of such action have been exhausted or the time for filing of such appeals has expired, both Lessor and Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease by written not~ce to the other, and upon such termination, th~s Lease shall become null and void. (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (c), in the event of termination by Lessee pursuant to subparagraph (c), Lessee shall be hable to Lessor for Rent for a period of 120 days from the date of such tem~lnat~on, unless such termination ~s by reason of the denial of a conditional use permit or other approval of a discretionary nature by Lessor's governing body. Nothing in this subparagraph shall relieve Lessor of its duty to mitigate its damages in the event of termination by Lessee. 6. Use of Premises. (a) Lessee may use the Leased Premises for the installation, operation, and mmntenance of the Antenna Facd~t~es and the Ground Factl~t~es for the transmission, reception and operation of a commumcat~ons system and uses ~nc~dental thereto, and for the storage of related equipment, in accordance w~th the terms of this Lease. Storage of items shall only be inside the Accessory Building. Lessee may erect and operate such Antenna Facdltles and Ground Facilities as are depicted on the attached Exhibit C, and may expand such Antenna and Ground Facilities only with Lessor's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably demed, delayed or conditioned, and only after Lessor has obtained, at Lessee's expense, a certified evaluation under seal of a licensed professional engineer indicating that each antenna will not interfere with the signals of existing antennas, and that the Water Tower can structurally support the antennas and related equipment. In connection therewith, Lessee shall have the right to do all work necessary to prepare, maintain and alter the Leased Premises for Lessee's business operations under this Lease and to Install transmission hnes connecting the antennas to the transmitters and receivers. If Lessor fails to respond in writing in the manner provided in th~s Lease for the giving of notices within thirty (30) days following the receipt of Lessee's request for such approval, such request shall be deemed to have been approved by Lessor; prowded, however, that if such approval requires the issuance of a new or modified conditional use permit, the provisions of Paragraph 5(a) of this Lease shall apply. (b) Lessee shall, at ~ts sole cost and expense, construct, operate and mmntain the Antenna Facilities and Ground Facdltles in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities, all applicable City ordinances, permits and other reqmrements, and all apphcable FCC rules and regulations. Lessee's ~nstallat~on of the Antenna Faclhtles and construction of the Ground Facdlt~es shall be ~n accordance w~th the plans approved by Lessor, which approval shall not bt unreasonably withheld, denied or conditioned. Any damage done to the Owned Premises or any other property of Lessor during installation or operation of the Lessee Facdlt~es shall be repaired at Lessee's expense within thirty (30) days after notification of damage. Title to the Lessee Facilities shall be held by Lessee, and all such Lessee Facilities shall be deemed to be the personal property of Lessee and not fixtures. Lessee shall have the right to remove all Lessee Facdlt~es at its sole expense on or before the expiration or earlier terrmnat~on of this Lease, provided that Lessee shall be reqmred to repair any damage and to restore the Leased Premises to their original condition, ordinary wear and tear, casualty and the acts or omissions of Lessor or third parties excepted. (c) All modffications or improvements of the Leased Premises made for Lessee's benefit shall be at the Lessee's expense, and such Improvements shall be maintmned in a good state of repair by Lessee at Lessee's expense. Lessee shall provide written notice to Lessor not less than forty-eight (48) hours before commencing any mmntenance of the Lessee Facihties or construction of additional Lessee Facdities. The Antenna Facilities shall, at all times and at Lessee's expense, be pmnted such color as Lessor deems appropriate. (d) Lessee shall promde Lessor w~th as-built drawings of the eqmpment and ~mprovements ~nstalled on the Leased Premises showing the actual location of all Antenna Facilities and Ground Facd~t~es and of all other ~mprovements ~nstalled on Lessor's property by Lessee ~n connection w~th th~s Lease. The drawings shall be accompanied by a complete and detailed ~nventory of all eqmpment, personal property, Ground Facihties and Antenna Facihties to be placed on the Leased Premises or other property of Lessor ~n connection with this Lease. At Lessor's option, such as-bmlt drawings and ~nventory may be attached to th~s Lease as Exhibit E. (e) Lessee shall, at ~ts expense, maintain any equipment on or attached to the Leased Prermses in a safe condition, ~n good repmr and ~n a manner reasonably statable to Lessor so as not to conflict w~th the use of the other property of Lessor, subject to the prowsions of Paragraph 8 of th~s Lease. Lessor shall mmntmn, at ~ts sole expense, access roadways to the Leased Premises ~n a condition which wdl allow pedestrian and vehmular access under normal weather conditions; provided, however, that Lessee shall be responsible for the repair of any damage or deterioration caused by Lessee's use of such roadways. (f) Lessee, at all t~mes dunng th~s Lease, shall have reasonable access during normal working hours to the Leased Premises in order to install, operate, and maintain ~ts Lessee Facdit~es, provided, however, that Lessee shall be reqmred to not~fy Lessor forty-eight (48) hours ~n advance of accessing the Antenna Faciht~es. If ~t ~s necessary for Lessee to have access to the Leased Premises at some t~me other than the normal working hours of Lessor, Lessor may charge Lessee for whatever actual and reasonable expense, ~nclud~ng employee wages, that Lessor may incur ~n providing such access. For purposes of this Paragraph 6(f), "normal working hours" are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (g) Lessee shall ~nstall utilities to serve the Antenna Fatalities and Ground Facdit~es ~n the location shown on Exhibit B at Lessee's sole expense. Lessee shall separately meter all utd~t~es associated w~th ~ts use of the Leased Prermses and shall promptly pay all costs for such ut~hty servmes. Lessor shall, w~thout charge to Lessee, s~gn such documents as may be reqmred by utd~ty providers to provide such service to the Leased Premises, ~nclud~ng the grant of permits reqmred by Lessor or a utd~ty prowder to promde service as promded herein. (h) Lessor warrants and agrees that: (i) Lessor owns the Owned Premises and has rights of access thereto; (n) Lessor has full right to make and perform this Lease; and (iii) Lessee, upon paying the rent and performing the covenants here~n prowded, shall peaceably and qmetly have and enjoy the Leased Premises for the purposes herein contemplated. Lessor shall not cause or permit any use of the Owned Premises which materially and unreasonably ~nterferes w~th or ~mpairs the operation of the cormnumcat~ons facilities or the quality of the commumcations services being rendered by Lessee from the Leased Premises, nor shall Lessor have unsupervised access to the Leased Premises, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate access to the Leased Premises. 0) Lessee shall remove the Lessee Facd~t~es upon termination of this Lease unless Lessor otherwise agrees, in writing, and shall restore the affected area to its original condition, ordinary wear and tear, casualty and the acts or omissions of Lessor or third parties excepted. Such removal shall be done in a workmanhke manner and without ~nterference or damage to any other equipment. All costs and expenses for such removal and restoration shall be borne by Lessee. 7. Equipment Upgrade. Lessee may update or replace the Antenna Facilities or the Ground Facilities, or both, from time to t~me with the prior written approval of Lessor, which approval shall not be unreasonably w~thheld, delayed or conditioned, provided that any change in their location is satisfactory to Lessor. Lessee shall submit to Lessor a detailed proposal for any such replacement faclht~es and any supplemental materials as may be requested for Lessor's evaluation and approval. 8. Interference. (a) Lessee's installatmn, operation, and mmntenance of the Antenna Factlities and Ground Facdit~es shall not damage or ~nterfere in any way with Lessor's current operations. If the Lessee Facilities cause interference to such operations, Lessee shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and ehmlnate the ~nterference. If the interference cannot be ehm~nated in a reasonable t~me, Lessee shall immediately cease operating the Lessee Facilities to the extent necessary to stop the interference. If the interference cannot be ehminated within thirty (30) days, Lessor may terminate th~s Lease. (b) Lessee's use and operation of the Leased Facilities shall not ~nterfere with the use and operation of other commumcat~on facd~ties on the Leased Premises which pre-existed the Lessee Faclhtles. If the Lessee Facilities cause interference, Lessee shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the ~nterference. If the ~nterference cannot be eliminated in a reasonable t~me, Lessee shall immediately cease operating the Lessee Faciht~es to the extent necessary to stop the ~nterference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within thirty (30) days, Lessor may terminate this Lease. (c) Subsequent to the ~nstallation of the Lessee Faciht~es, Lessor shall not permit ~tself, ~ts lessees or licensees to install new eqmpment on the Owned Premises or property contiguous thereto owned or controlled by Lessor, ff such eqmpment ~s likely to cause interference with Lessee's operations. In the event ~nterference occurs, Lessor agrees to take all action necessary to ehm~nate such Interference w~th~n thirty (30) days If the interference cannot be ehm~nated w~th~n thirty (30) days, Lessee may terminate this Lease. 9. Termination. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease may be terminated upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party as follows: O) by either party upon a default in the performance of any covenant or term hereof by the other party, which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of the default (without, however, llmmng any other rights of the parties pursuant to any other provisions hereof); (ii) subject to the prowslons of Paragraph 5(c) of this Lease, by Lessee if it is unable to obtmn or maintain any license, permit or other Governmental Approval necessary for the construction or operation of the Lessee Facilities or of Lessee's business; (m) by Lessee ~f the Lessee Facilities are destroyed or damaged by an act of God so as to, in Lessee's judgment, substantially impair Lessee's effective use of the Lessee Facilities, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Lessor, which notice must be given within thirty (30) days of the date of such destruction or damage. If Lessee so terrmnates this Lease, Lessee shall be entitled to reimbursement of prepaid Rent coveting the period subsequent to the date of destruction or damage; (iv) by Lessor, upon six (6) months' notice, if it determines that a potential user which is a pubhc safety agency of the federal or state government or of the City of Vlrglma Beach cannot obtain another adequate location; (v) by Lessor, if after a public hearing, the Virginia Beach City Council determines that Lessee's use of the Leased Premises is not in compliance with any applicable ordinance, or state or federal law, or any conditions of any Governmental Approval, and Lessee fails to cure such noncompliance w~thin thirty (30) days after such determination is rendered. Such failure shall be a default of Lessee's obligations under the terms of th~s Lease; (v0 by Lessee, if Lessee is unable to occupy and utilize the Leased premises due to an action of the FCC, including, without limitation, a take-back of channels or change or reallocation of the frequencies at which Lessee may operate its commumcatlons facilities which renders Lessee's operation of ~ts communications facilities at the Leased Premises obsolete; or (vn) by Lessee within ninety (90) days of the execution of this Lease if Lessee determines that the Leased Premises are not suitable for its operation for economm or technological reasons, including, without limitation, signal interference. For purposes of th~s subdiws~on, "economic reasons" shall not include the availability of an equivalent s~te at commercial terms more favorable to Lessee than are contained in this Lease. (b) The part~es shall give not~ce of termination in writing. Lessee shall be hable to Lessor for all Rent and other consideration under Paragraph 3 of th~s Lease for the period of this Lease prior to smd termination date. (c) Upon termination or expiration of th~s Lease, Lessee shall have sixty (60) days from the date of termination or expiration to remove the Lessee Facdities and related equipment from the Leased Premises and to restore the Leased Premises to their condition prior to ~nstallat~on of the Lessee Facd~t~es, ordinary wear and tear and damage caused by casualty, Lessor or third part~es excepted. 10. Cure by Lessor. In the event of any default of th~s Lease by Lessee not cured by Lessee w~thin the apphcable cure pertod, Lessor may at any ttme, after not~ce, cure the default for the account of and at the expense of Lessee. If Lessor ~s compelled to pay or elects to pay any sum of money or to do any act which wall reqmre the payment of any sum of money or ~s compelled to ~ncur any expense, including reasonable attorney fees in instituting, prosecuting or defending any action to enforce the Lessor's rights under th~s Lease, the sums so paid by Lessor, w~th all ~nterest, costs and damages shall be deemed to be Additional Rental and shall be due from the Lessee to Lessor on the first day of the month following ten days' written not~ce by Lessor and submission by Lessor to Lessee of an ~tem~zed statement, w~th supporting ewdence, of Lessor's costs and expenses. 11. Condemnation. In the event the Leased Premises ~s taken by ermnent domain by the state or federal government, or any ~nstmmentahty thereof, or by the City of Virgima Beach, th~s Lease shall terminate as of the date title to the Leased Premises vests ~n the condemmng authority. In the event a portton of the Leased Prermses is taken by eminent dommn, etther party shall have the right to terminate th~s Lease as of smd date of t~tle transfer, by giving thirty (30) days' written not~ce to the other party. In the event th~s Lease ~s not thereby terminated, Rent shall be reduced or abated in proportion to the actual reduction or abatement of use of the Leased Premises. Lessor and Lessee shall each be entitled to pursue its own separate awards ~n the event of a taking of the Leased Premises. 12. Defense and Indemnification. (a) Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Lessor and ~ts elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives from and agmnst any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of action, ~nclud~ng reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses of htigation, arising from the neghgence, wdlful m~sconduct, or other fault of Lessee. Lessee shall defend all claims arising out of Lessee's use of the Leased Premises and out of the ~nstallation, operation, use, mmntenance, repmr, removal, or presence of Lessee's Antenna Facd~t~es, eqmpment and related facilities on the Leased Premises. In no event shall the liability of Lessee under this Sub- paragraph include damages for lost profits, consequential or punitive damages. (b) Without hmltlng the scope of Subparagraph (a) above, Lessee shall be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify, and hold Lessor, its agents, officers and employees harmless from and. against any and all claims, costs, and liabilities, including reasonable attomeys' fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or restoration of the Leased Premises associated with Lessee's use of hazardous materials. For purposes of this Lease, "hazardous materials" shall be interpreted broadly and specifically include, without hmltatlon, asbestos, fuel, batteries or any hazardous substance, waste, or materials as defined in any applicable federal, state, or local environmental or safety statute, ordinance, regulation or requirement. Lessor represents that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, it has received no notice of any action, suit, proceeding or claim concerning a release of hazardous substances on or affecting the Leased Premises, and that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, there is no release of hazardous substances on or affecting the Leased Premises which would render the Leased Premises unsuitable for the purposes contemplated by this Lease. Lessor agrees to notify Lessee of any such release as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving notice thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall be the responsibility of Lessee to determine whether or not there are any adverse conditions, Including, without limitation, a release of any hazardous substance on or affecting the Leased Premises which would prevent Lessee's proposed use thereof, and in no event shall any llablhty of Lessor for any such condition include damages for lost profits, consequential or punitive damages. (c) Lessee represents and warrants that ~ts use of the Leased Premises will not generate, and Lessee will not store or dispose of on the Leased Premises, nor transport to or over the Leased Premises on the property of Lessor, any hazardous materials other than those ordinarily used ~n the provision of communications services as permitted hereunder and in compliance with all applicable laws, unless Lessee specifically Informs Lessor thereof in writing twenty-four (24) hours prior to such storage, disposal or transport or otherwise as soon as Lessee becomes aware of the existence of hazardous materials on the Leased Premises. (d) Lessor and Lessee release each other and their respective principals, officers, directors, employees, representatives and agents, from any claims for damage to any person or to the Leased Premises or to the Lessee Facilities thereon caused by, or that result from, risks insured against under a standard all risk insurance policy. Lessor and Lessee shall cause each insurance policy obtained by them to provide that the insurance company waives all right of recovery by way of subrogation against the other in connection with any damage covered by any policy. (e) Lease. The obhgatlons of this Paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this l0 13. Insurance. (a) During the Initial Term and Renewal Terms of this Lease, Lessee shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, in full force and effect and at its sole cost and expense, the following types and limits of insurance. All policies other than those for Worker's Compensation shall be written on an occurrence and not on a claims made basis. The coverage amounts set forth below may be met by a combination of underlying and umbrella policies so long as in combination the limits equal or exceed those stated. Worker's compensation insurance meeting applicable statutory requirements and employer's liability insurance with minimum limits of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for each accident. ll. Compr'ehenslve commercial general habihty insurance with minimum limits of One Mflhon Dollars ($1,000,000) as the combined slngle limit for each occurrence of bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy shall provide blanket contractual hablhty insurance for all written contracts, and shall include coverage for products and completed operations liability, independent contractor's hablhty; coverage for property damage from perils of explosion, collapse or damage to underground utilities, commonly known as XCU coverage; and broad form property damage coverage. Lessor shall be named as an additional insured under such policy. iii. Automobile hablhty insurance covering all owned, hired and non-owned vehicles in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), combined single limits. (b) Certificates of insurance for each insurance policy required to be obtained by Lessee in compliance with this paragraph shall be filed with Lessor annually during the term of the Lease. Lessee shall immediately advise Lessor of any claim or litigation that may result in liability to Lessor. (c) All insurance pohcles maintained pursuant to this Lease shall contain the following endorsement: "At least thirty (30) days prior written notice shall be given to Lessor by the insurer of any intention not to renew such policy or to cancel, replace or materially alter same, such notice to be given by registered mail to the parties named an the Lease." (d) All insurance shall be written by insurers hcensed to conduct the business of insurance in the Commonwealth of Virginia and rated A- or better by Best. (e) Lessee shall reqmre that each and every one of its contractors and their subcontractors who perform work on the Leased Premises carry, in full force and effect, ll workers' compensation, comprehensive public hablhty and automobile liability insurance coverages of the type which Lessee is required to obtain under the terms of this paragraph with hke limits of insurance. 14. Assignment and Sublease. (a) This Lease, and the rights hereunder, may not be sold, assigned, or transferred at any time by Lessee except upon prior written notme to Lessor and with Lessor's written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned; provided, however, that Lessee may assign its interest to its parent company, any subsidiary or affiliate of it or its parent company or to any successor-in-interest or entity acqulnng fifty-one (51%) or more of its stock or assets, subject to any financing entity's interest, if any, in th~s Lease, without Lessor's consent. Lessee shall be reheved of all future performance, habiht~es and obhgat~ons under this Lease upon such assignment. Lessee shall have the right to sublet all or a portion of the Leased Premises and space on the Water Tower without Lessor's consent, but shall remain liable to Lessor for the payment of Rent, Additional Rent and all other payments from Lessee required or contemplated by this Lease unless otherwise consented to, ~n writing, by Lessor. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Lease, Lessee may assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise transfer without consent its interest in this Lease to any financing entity, or agent on behalf of any financing entity to whom Lessee 0) has obhgatlons for borrowed money or in respect of guaranties thereof, (i0 has obligations ewdenced by bonds, debentures, notes or similar instruments, or (m) has obhgatlons under or with respect to letters of credit, bankers acceptances and similar facilities or ~n respect of guaranties thereof. (b) This Lease shall run with the property and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective successors, personal representatives, heirs and assigns. 15. Notices. All notices hereunder must be in writing and shall be deemed validly given if sent by certified mall, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, addressed as follows or if sent by facsimile to the facsimile number set forth below, w~th a hard copy contemporaneously mailed as previously specified: If to Lessor to: City Manager Municipal Center, Building One 2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Fax No. With a copy to: City Attorney Mumc~pal Center, Building One 2401 Courthouse Drive 12 If to Lessee, to: Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Fax No. Attn: Fax No. Attn: Fax No. With a copy to: Lessor or Lessee may from time to time designate any other address for this purpose by written notice to the other party. 16. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to th~s Lease shall be effective only if made in writing and executed and acknowledged by both parties. (b) Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in executing or having executed any documents (including a Memorandum of Lease m a form acceptable to both parties attached hereto as Exhibit D, Non-Disturbance Agreement, easement agreements, or other documents) necessary to protect its rights or use of the Leased Premises. Either party may record a Memorandum of Lease or easement agreement, but neither party may record this Lease. (c) This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any court action relating to this Lease may be maintained only in the Circmt Court of the City of Virginia Beach or Umted States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. (d) If any term of this Lease is found to be void or lnvahd, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Lease, which shall continue in full force and effect. The parties Intend that the provisions of this Lease be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. Accordingly, the parties shall agree that if any provisions are deemed not enforceable, they shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary to make them enforceable. (e) The persons who have executed this Lease represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Lease in their representative capacities as indicated. 13 (f) The submission of this document for examanat~on does not constitute an offer to lease or a reservataon of or optmn for the Leased Premises and shall become effective only upon execution by both parties. (g) Thas Lease may be executed in any number of counterpart copaes, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single anstmment. (h) The part~es understand and acknowledge that Exhibit A (Description of Owned Premises), Exhibit B (Description of Leased Premises) and Exhibit C (Description of Antelma Facilities and Ground Facilities) may be attached to thas Lease in preliminary form. Accordingly, the parties agree that upon the preparation of final, more complete exhabats, Exhibits A, B and C may be replaced by the partaes with final, more complete exhibits which shall be agreed to and conformed by the parties. (i) Th~s Lease shall be governed as to all matters, whether of vahdity, interpretation, obhgatlons, performance or otherwise, exclusively by the laws of V~rgama, and all questions arising wath respect thereto shall be determined in accordance with such laws. Regardless of where actually dehvered and accepted, this Lease shall be deemed to have been delivered and accepted by the partaes an the Commonwealth of Virginia. (j) During the performance of thas Lease, the Lessee agrees that ~t will not dlscnnunate agmnst any employee or apphcant for employment because of race, rehgion, color, sex, handicap or national orig~n, except where rehglon, sex, handicap or nataonal origin as a bona fide occupataonal quahficat~on or consaderation reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Lessee. The Lessee agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimanation clause. The Lessee, in all sohcatations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Lessee, wall state that such Lessee is an equal opportumty employer. Notices, advertisements and sohcitataons placed an accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements herein. (k) Lessee hereby certifies that it did not, directly or indirectly, enter anto any combination or arrangement wath any person, firm or corporataon or enter into any agreement, partlc~pate an any collusion, or otherwise take any action in restraint of free, competitive b~dding for thas Lease an violation of any of the laws of the United States or the Commonwealth of Virginia. (1) Lessee represents and warrants that, as of the date of its execution of this Lease, at was the holder of a vahd hcense issued by the Federal Communication Commission to construct and operate radio transm~ttang faclhtles within a temtory ancluding the City of Varginla Beach pursuant to Section 309 (h) of the Communlcataons Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. {} 309 (h)). 14 Lessee hereby agrees that, if for any reason, such license is revoked or otherwise terminated, it will immediately so notify Lessor, and Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease pursuant to Paragraph 9 (a) (n) of this Lease. 17. Tests and Constructions. Lessee shall have the right following the full execution of this Lease, upon the giving of forty-eight (48) hours' advance notice to Lessor, to enter upon the Owned Premises for the purpose of making appropriate engineering and boundary surveys, inspections, soil test borings or other reasonably necessary tests. In the event of any inconsistency between this Lease and any survey performed, Lessor shall make such amendments to this Lease and adjustments in the location of Leased Premises as shall be reasonably necessary for Lessee's use and satisfactory to Lessee. If the title search or the survey discloses any matters which Lessee deems unsuitable or which interfere with Lessee's use and enjoyment of the Leased Premises, Lessor shall cure such defects within sixty (60) days. If Lessor does not or cannot cure such defect within such sixty (60) days, Lessee shall have the right, without obligation, to terminate this Lease and render it null and void from the date of termination. 18. RF Compliance. (a) Subsequent to the installation of the Lessee Facilities, Lessor shall not permit itself, its lessees or licensees to install new equipment on the Owned Premises or property contiguous thereto owned or controlled by Lessor, if such equipment is likely to cause the Owned Premises to exceed the FCC radiated power density maximum permissible exposure ("MPE") limits for workers and the general public. Such excess radiated power densities shall be deemed a material breach by Lessor. In the event excess radiated power densities occur, Lessor agrees to take or to cause any subsequent lessee or licensee whose use of the Owned Premises results in the FCC specified MPE lirmts being exceeded to promptly take all mitigation action necessary to eliminate such excess radiated power densities within thirty (30) days. In the event Lessor fails to comply with this paragraph, Lessee may terminate this Lease and/or pursue any other remedies available under this Lease, at law, and/or at equity, including injunctive rehefi (b) Lessee shall operate the Lessee Facilities in a manner that will not cause the Owned Premises to exceed the FCC specified MPE. Such excess radiated power densities shall be deemed a material breach by Lessee. In the event Lessee fails to comply w~th this paragraph, Lessor may terminate this Lease and/or pursue any other remedies available under this Lease, at law, and/or at eqmty, including injunctive relief 19. Marking and Lighting Requirements. (a) Lessor shall be responsible for compliance with all marking and lighting requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and the FCC, provided that if the requirement for compliance results from the Lessee Facd~tles, Lessee shall pay for such reasonable costs and expenses 0ncludlng for any lighting automated alarm system). Should Lessee be cited because the Owned Premises is not m 15 comphance and, should Lessor fail to cure the conditions of noncompliance, Lessee may either terminate this Lease or proceed to cure the conditions of noncompliance at Lessor's expense, which amounts may be deducted from the Rent. (b) If hghtlng requirements apply and a hghting automatic alarm system has been installed by Lessor, Lessor shall allow Lessee to bridge in to the system to permit a parallel alarm or to install a second alarm if a bridge would interfere with Lessor's alarm. Lessee shall be responsible for the cost and expense of maintaining the bridge or parallel alarm. Notwithstanding anything in this Paragraph 19(b), the responsibility for compliance with FAA and FCC requirements shall remain with Lessor as provided in Paragraph 19(a) above. 20. Waiver of Lessor's Lien. (a) Lessor waives any lien rights it may have concerning the Lessee Facilities which are deemed Lessee's personal property and not fixtures, and Lessee has the right to remove the same at any time without Lessor's consent. (b) Lessor acknowledges that Lessee has entered into a financing arrangement including promissory notes and financial and security agreements for the financing of the Lessee Faclhtles (the "Collateral") with a third party financing entity (and may in the future enter into additional financing arrangements with other financing entities). In connection therewith, Lessor (i) consents to the Installation of the Collateral; (n) disclaims any interest in the Collateral, as fixtures or otherwise; and (in) agrees that the Collateral shall be exempt from execution, foreclosure, sale, levy, attachment, or distress for any Rent due or to become due and that such Collateral may be removed at any time without recourse to legal proceedings. 21. Brokers. Lessor and Lessee represent to each other that they have not negotiated with any real estate broker In connection with this Lease. Lessor and Lessee agree that, should any claim be made against the other for a real estate broker's commission, finder's fee or the like by reason of the acts of such party, the party upon whose acts such claim is based shall indemnify and hold the other party free and harmless from all losses, damages, claims and expenses in connection therewith. 22. Taxes. Lessee shall be responsible for paying all personal property taxes assessed upon the Lessee Facilities and for paying taxes on its leasehold interest pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3203, or any successor statute. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have respectively executed this Lease to be effective as of the date hereinabove stated. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH by City Manager or Designee ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department of Law LESSEE by, Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ., a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that of the City of 17 Virginia Beach, whose name as such is signed to the foregoing Lease Agreement, has acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand this day of ,19m. Notary Pubhc My Commission Expires: STATE OF CITY OF , a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that of the above- named Lessee, whose name as such is signed to the foregoing Lease Agreement, has acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand this __ day of ., 19__. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 18 EXHIBIT A (DESCRIPTION OF OWNED PREMISES) All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land lying, being and situate in the Clty of Virginia Beach, Vlrglma, having the Geographic Position Identification Number (GPIN) 1486-74-3899. See attached deed for a more complete property description. 19 I ; TIMe faf mM tm oOumidm,m~ of ~ho om ®l ~ (J~O.O0) DOLLd~ iud .e~r Bmod smd va%vmb%a eeMLdi~a~ou, abe reeet~ ef ddJh' fi tmr~l~'~eJmovbdled, the meld pmcL~ of ~he fire1 pm, t doth fraud', tmuMIB, eeL%0 asa%gu iud e~u~e7, . . i : I , · . i- __: .m, ..... I mi la I ..... l JUL. 082 ,,,169 . , e , . . I ~ _ wg m -~ V' 5 ' ' ~"1 . STATE Z, ~~ ~/~ .... :~' , m .ou~ hk~ m mud br ~e Ct~ mM.mid. '.' , t EXHIBIT B (DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES) [TO ~1~ COMPLETED BY BIDDER] 20 EXHIBIT C (DESCRIPTION OF ANTENNA FACILITIES AND GROUND FACILITIES) [TO BE COMPLETED BY BIDDER] 21 EXHIBIT D (MEMORANDUM OF LEASE) 22 EXItlBIT E (AS-BUILT DRAWINGS AND INVENTORY OF EQUIPMENT) [TO BE ATTACHED AT LESSOR'S OPTION] 23 - 20- Item V-H. 5. ORDINANCES/RES OL UTIONS ITEM # 44593 Upon motion by Vtce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Counctlman Harrtson, City Councd ADOPTED: Resolution to request the Virgima Department of Transportatton (VDOT) proceed with final design of the Ferrell Parkway - Phases H and V projects, ustng the followtng locations for the proposed roadway improvements as presented at the 23 Aprtl 1998 Pubhc Hearing a. Corrtdor 1 -Extsttng Prtncess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Juchcial Boulevard b Corridor 4 - New alignment between Judicial Boulevard and Ferrell Parkway - Phase V-A -following the entire length of the extsting City-owned Ferrell Parkway right-of-way Voting 10 -0 (By Consent) Councd Members Voting Aye' Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrtson, Jr, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louts R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy K Parker, A M "Don" Weeks and Vice Mayor Wtlltam D Sessoms, Jr Counctl Members Voting Nay None Counctl Members Absent' Ltnwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 LOCATION PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a Location Public Hearing was conducted April 23, 1998 in the City of Virginia Beach by representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed location of FerreH Parkway- Phases Il and V, VDOT Project No. 0165-134-V05 in the City of Virginia Beach, at which drawings and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with the state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said public hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation were present and participated in said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Council had previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Council had considered all such matters; now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Virginia Beach hereby approves Corridors 1 and 4 as the location of the proposed roadway improvements as presented at the Public Hearing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Council requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to proceed with final design of the Ferrell Parkway - Phases II and V projects using location Corridors 1 and 4. 2 February Adopted this ~ day of ., 1999, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. ATTEST: Clerk of Council Mayor/City Manager APPENDIX A Alternative Drawings · ~ ,,. ~ , .-.._e:'~ ":'-7 "-,, ' <,.-."-~-., '--. ~. ....... , - , ~ ' %'.,.. -,. --,~ ~. ~ j..,, ,~ ~ , ,r--.~,---- ~ ,., _ ,~: ~01~.----~' .. -~ '. I I , !~ .~-~,.:_~,MJ_-.-'-~?.:~.,~-,~~C . ,. ~,~~ "~ ,'-~. '~1[ ,-, ~, ?- "-T.V -~ ~ -" ~' ~"~-'-~ ' -'-~'-- " '"-.. / ~'- -- - - ' . ~ '' I '""'i ~ /' ' ' ' ' ~ - ' ' '~' , ~ -,-- ~~ " ~ ' -- ~ --- ~ :2!- -- - ~ F __ -._ .--: -:----/-----.- ' -. - _~ - -'" I..L'~ -- ~ - : "-~ C~C~-"~. , - ~ ~ -,',.. ,, ~ .a, ~ . , ~- "~c- _z - - ,,, ,-,,-,,~ ' . -< ' _ - , - ~'"~'~- ~'~ ~. -- ~ :' -.-~- '. - ;: <- , . x~F.~ ~_ T ..... , --___ _ -~ :--' ~ ,-r'- .-, '- = '-_ ~ ' '~ :: '-- -~ 'r ~.- ~ ~ -.. .... ~ .... -- d, ---~_~ - -2~,~ __~-- '~_~.~. . ~ '~ 0 , ~ ----:. (~ .~ ~,..~_ ~--,~0~]s ~ N~ ~, ~ - -: --= - ~ o ~ --'" '-" ' ~ ~ ~~= .,~ [ ~ - '.,, . "~ ~ o ....::~: ~~ - ' ~ __~ ~___ ~ - -: _2- ~ . ~ [ XX .x~ __~- __- . Z~ ~ XX .,.--- --:: -. zo .... ~ ~_ , , APPENDIX B Comparison Matrices Table 3-17 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT EFFECTS Segment 1: Dam Neck Road to Judicial Boulevard Corridor Corridor Category 1 2 Length (kilometers/miles) 3.16/1.97 3.22/2.00 Homes Displaced 23 11 Businesses Displaced 2 5 Schools Displaced 0 0 Churches Displaced 0 1 Cemeteries Displaced 0 0 Other Community Facilities I 1 Displaced (rescue squads, (post office) (post office) fire stations, etc.) Cultural Resource Sites 0 1 (44VB166) Noise Receptors Impacted Forest Land (hectares/acres) 4.6/11 2 7.0/17.2 Farmland (hectares/acres) 1.3/3.1 2.0/5.0 Cultivated (hectares/acres) 1.3/3 1 2.0/5.0 Pasture (hectares/acres) 0 0 Wetlands (hectares/acres) 1.9/4.8 2.1/5.3 Water Resources 0 0 (hectares/acres) Stream Crossings 0 0 Length of Streams Impacted 0 0 (meters/feet) 'Floodplains (hectares/acres) 0 0 Additional Right of Way 18.4/45.4 18.7146.1 Required (hectares/acres) Estimated Right of Way Cost 6.4 4.6 (millions of $) Estimated Construction Cost 4.3 4.4 (millions of $) NOTE: All numbers are subject to change after surveys and more detailed design studies are made. Table 3-18 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT EFFECTS Segment 2: Judicial Boulevard to General Booth Boulevard Corridor Corridor Corridor Category 3 4 5 , , Length (kilometers/miles) 4.80 / 2.98 3.35 / 2.08 3.39 / 2.11 Homes Displaced 12 0 0 , Businesses Displaced I0 0 0 Schools Displaced 0 0 0 , Churches Displaced 0 0 0 , , , Cemeteries Displaced 0 0 0 Other Community Facilities Displaced I 0 0 (rescue squads, fire stations, etc.) (Mason Lodge) Cultural Resource Sites Affected 0 0 0 Noise Receptors Impacted Forest Land (hectares/acres) 2.7 / 6.7 8.7 / 21.4 10.6 / 26.1 ,, , Farmland (hectares/acres) 0.1 / 0.2 0.4 / 0.9 0.4 / 0.9 Cultivated (hectares/acres) 0.1 / 0.2 0.4 / 0.9 0.4 / 0.9 Pasture (hectares/acres) 0 0 0 ~ . Wetlands (hectares/acres) 1.5 / 3.7 6.9 / 17.0 5.8 / 14.2 .. , Water Resources (hectares/acres) 0.1 / 0.1 0.1 / 0.3 0.1 / 0.2 Stream Crossings 5 7 6 Length of Streams Impacted (meters/feet) 110/360 295 / 968 260 / 852 · Floodplains (hectares/acres) 5.4 / 13.3 7.3 / 18.2 7.4 / 18.2 Additional Right of Way Required (hectares/acres) 15.4 / 38.0 10.2 / 25.2 * 10.4 / 25.8 * Estimated Right of Way Cost (millions of $) 6.5 0.4 0.4 Estimated Construction Cost (millions of $) 9.2 6.8 7.1 . , · Does not include 120-foot-wide utility right of way already owned by City of Virginia Beach. NOTE. All numbers are subject to change after surveys and more detailed design studies are made. . . ~' ' <- ' '~'~F ~(~ ',I.', rFRRELL '~ \RKV, ~'~ 3-37 Draft EA/Januav, 1998 APPENDIX C Army Corps of Engineers Letter /q! pm(.,,?, TO A?'rwN?ION DEPARTMENT OF: THE ARMY NOIIIFOLI< Oll'rlqlcT, COIIIIII OF [NOINEEIq$ FOIlyr NOMI"'OI.K, I05 FMON'r lTIqww? NOIqlrOLK, vIIq(31NIA l)$i0*lOti November 6, 1998 Eastern Virginia Regulatory Section 98-4510-i$ (West Neck Creek) 786 ~01;; 2 Mr. Earl T. Robb Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Ric.hmond, Virginia 23219 This is in Eurther reference to the proposed Ferrell Parkway in the City of Virginia Beach. The Federal Highway Administration (THWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) have proposed to separate for document purposes this se~rment of ?errell Parkway from the segment planned on the east side of General Booth Boulevard. At a meeting in June, VDOT and FHWA, along with your consultants, gave verbal presentation of your reasons for separating the projects. In our letter dated July 3, 1998, we requested those reasons in writing, along with any additional information you have supporting that position. In all of our previous letters on this subject, we have indicated our willingness to consider any information submitted to us supporting the decision to include only certain phases in a document. We received a packet from your consultants on August 24 and have reviewed it. It contains information concerning the issue of separating the segments for document purposes, as well as additional information related to the alternatives analysis for this segment. We have reviewed the information and have determined that the Corps of Engineers does not object to preparing separate documents for the two sections of Ferrell Parkway. Concerning the alternatives analysis, we have evaluated the new information concerning the ~COE" alternatives, which are other segments/alternatives which we requested you to evaluate. Based on the ~ocumentation provided, mn~ as ~lscusse~ Dy telephone with Mr. Ken W~lhinson of your staff on October 30, it appears &hat there are practicable alternatives to Alternatives B and C which would involve less impacts to wetlands. Tor example, it appears that a combination of the "COE" Alternatives 2 and 3 would minimize Lmpacts to wetland resources while also minimizing displacements and other impacts, if Alternative 3 were shifted over into the ~erimeter of the wetlands to its west side and out of the homes to its east side. In addition, it appears that the "Optimal A" Alternative along existing ~rincess Anne Road is practicable, although we understand that the City of Virginia Beach finds that alignment unacceptable. As we have noted previously, the West Nec~ Creek wetlands are considered to be a high quality and valuable aquatic resource. The current proposal for I , -2- Alternatives B and C involves minimal bridging with long fill causeways across t~is system. A narrow band of fill extends partially across that wetland system now (associated with utility lines), c=eati~g some damming effect, as is evidenced by =he differences in the character of the wetlands up and downstream of that fill. However, by widening and extending the fill as proposed for Ferrell Parkway Alternatives B and C, the dam would be widened and lengthened, resulting in not only the direct filling of wetlands but also the alteration to =he hydrology of many other acres of forested wetlands. It does not appear that those impacts would be acceptable. During the conversation with Mr. Wilkinson, we suggested that VDOT evaluate further the economic feasibility of more extensive bridging on Alternatives ~ and C, since those alignments are preferable to VDOT and the City. In response to a request f=om the Co.~os last week, your consultant provided us with cost estimates for various bridge lengths. We recognize that the cos: to bridge the floodway, or, mo=e preferably, the entire system, would be several times more =hat the currently proposed ll4-foo~ bridge designed to meet =he minimum hydraulic stands=ds. We would be willing to consider . somewhat less bridging with removal of the existing utility fill. However, withou= additional bridging, it appears from the information submitted that there are less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives. In our letter dated May 18, 1998, we in,ica=ed that in order for us to further evaluate your proposal and compare the alternatives, you would need to conduc:a hydrologic analysis of the Wes~ Nook Creek we=land system in tho vicinity of the project. We noted =hat it is anticipated that such a study will demonstrate that bridging of much of the wetland system will be necessary to avoid secondary tmpac%s to extensive areas of wetlands. The hydrologic analysis should be conducted by you if you propose =o pursue Alternatives B or C without subs=an=iai bridging of the West Neck Creek system. We also asked some 9uss=ions in our May letter concerning the cost comparisoas, and we do no= see that info.?mation included in what has been submitted ~o date. You are also reminded tha~ w9 indicated in that letter that the confirms:ion of =he wetlands delineation for =his project has expired, and i= will be necessary for you to submit a new request for verification of the wetland limits in the vicinity of the project. Mr. Wilkinson requested that we provide these comments in a letter. Should you have any questions, t~e ~ol~ of con, act for t~chnioal matters relate~ to this p=oJect is Alice Allen-Grimes, who can be reached at (757) 441-7219. Sincerely, %_Chief, Regulatory Branch , i i- O-O0 ~ I~' I I ~ -:3- Copy Furnishmd: Federal Highway Adminis:ra~ion, Richmond U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gloucester Environmmn~al ~=o:e¢~ion Agency, Res~on National Marine Fisheries Service, Oxford Virginia DeDar~mmn~ o£ Environmental Quail=y/Wa=mr Division, Richmond Virginia DeDartment of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond APPENDIX D Citizen Information Meeting - Summary of Comments Langley and McDonald, P.C. Engineers Surveyors Planners Landscape Architects Enwronmental Consult'ants July 22, 1997 GEORGE F_ LANGLEY T JOSEPH McDONALD Mr. Jim Lassiter Virginia Department of Transportation Location and Design 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Route 165 - Ferrell Parkway/Princess Anne Road 0165-134-V05, PE-101 City of Virginia Beach L&M Project Number 96089-01 Dear Mr. Lassiter: As a result of a comment received in our office this week from the Suffolk District, the Summary of Citizen Information Meeting Comments was revised to include the 126 responses. The responses are overwhelmingly for the Ferrell Parkway alignment at 125 to the 1 response for widening the existing Pnncess Anne Road alignment. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the comment summary. Very truly yours, LANGLEY AND McDONALD, P.C. Tabitha H. Crowder Project Engineer CC: Mr Leo Rutledge, Virginia Department of Transportation Mr. Bob Owen, Virginia Department of Transportation Mr Phil Pullen, City of Virgima Beach Mr Smart Tyler, DeLeuw Cather & Co. MAIN OFFICE 5544 Greenwich Road V~rgmla Beach, VA 23462 (757) 473-2000 FAX (757) 497-7933 201 Packets Court W~lhamsburg, VA 23185 (757) 253-2975 FAX (757) 229-0049 PRINCESS ANNE ROAD AND FERRELL PARKWAY STATE PROJECT: 0165-134-V05, PE101 SUMMARY OF CITIZEN INFORMATION MEETING COMMENTS JUNE 11, 1997 On June 11, 1997, a Citizen Information Meeting was held for the Princess Anne Road and Ferrell Parkway project at Kellam High School in Virginia Beach, Virginia from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. A total of 79 citizens signed in at the door. Comment sheets were received from a total of 126 citizens either at the meeting or the VDOT Suffolk District office. The following table summarizes the preferred corridor listed on the responses. Based on the responses, more citizens are concerned with the segment of Princess Anne Road connecting the Municipal Center to General Booth Boulevard than the segment between Dam Neck Road and the Municipal Center. After the table, the four questions on the comment sheet are listed with responses. Corridor 1 14 Corridor 2 2 Corridor 3 1 Corridor 4 or 5 125 Question 1 What areas of concern do you have that you would like to see addressed in this project? Effect on Princess Anne community 84 Loss of history and beauty of Courthouse area 25 Effect on Mount Zion AME ChurCh and Cemetery 21 Volume of traffic on Pnncess Anne Road 6 Reduction in traffic volumes and speed on North Landing Rd. 3 Easy access to property 2 CoUrthouse Commumty UMC'guaranteed access to Princess Anne 2 Road to plan future building projects Safety 1 Cost to the taxpayer .... ! Maintain name"of princess Anne Road .... ! Courthouse Community UMC turn lane maintained 1 InCreased commercial construction ' ' 1 Question 2a What existing traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project? Pnncess Anne Road has heavy traffic which increases congestion 72 and accidents None 7 Bottleneck at Princess Anne Road and Dam Neck Road 3 Bad T-intersection at Princess Anne Road and North Landing Rd. 3 Speed problem on North Landing Road 1 ,,, Traffic cutting through Courthouse Farms and Christopher Farms 1 Two-lane Dozier Bridge 1 Question 2b What future traffic problems do you feel could be solved with this project? . Prevent through traffic in the Municipal Center and Nimmo Area 5 Traffic can travel at highway speeds 3 Traffic from Amphitheater and new construction 1 Question 3a Which corridor do you prefer to connect Princess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Judicial Boulevard (1 or 2)? Why? Corridor 1 - Straight shot, cheaper 11 Corridor i - No reason 4 Corridor 1 - Traffic ~vould bypass North Landing Road 1 Corridor 2 - No reason 1 Corridor 2 - Fewer l~roblems during construction & low RoW co~ts 1 Question 3b Which corridor do you prefer to connect Judicial Boulevard/Ferrell Parkway to General Booth Boulevard (3, 4, or 5)? Why? Corridor 4 or 5 - Low cost & least disruption to church, graveyard, [ 94 historical, and residential areas Corridor 4 - Akeady under construction & moves fewer homes 11 ,, , Corridor 4- No reason 7 , con-idor 4 or 5 -'Reduces traffic at Courthouse, on Princess Anne 4 Rd. and Holland Rd. Corridor 4 or 5 - Bypass North Landing Road 3 Corridor 5 - Le~s wetlands damage 3 comdor 3 - If you buy my house, so I can get o(tt °fThree Oaks 1 Corridor 4 - Moves traffic away from Mt. Zmn community f Question 4 Please provide us with any other comments that you feel would assist us in the development of this project. 1. This project seems to be a city-driven project to provide access to their Golf Course and Sports Park. Most residents prefer no further development. (2) 2. Develop a plan that would take proposed project in another direction besides Princess Anne Road. (2) 3. More advance notice of meeting of hearings concerning this project and especially to those neighborhoods impacted by its path. (2) 4. If Corridor 3 is chosen, at least make the name Princess Anne Parkway, to keep the history. (2) 5. Please consider roads like North Landing Road and the impact that increased traffic would have on those who live there. Slow growth in this area until roads can handle the increased traffic. 6. The Southeastern Expressway, Princess Anne Road, and Ferrell Parkway should be developed earliest in order to expedite traffic between the Beach and Chesapeake. 7. Who comes up with these ideas? 8. Consider access from Seaboard Road to Ferrell Pkwy if Segment 2, Corridor 4 or 5 is selected. 9. A deep curve that ends at a cloverleaf is an unsafe situation. 10. The City and VDOT need to wisely plan together to prevent constructing housing developments in places where highways will later negatively impact neighborhoods 11. If corridor 3 is chosen, will the city buy all or part of my home? 12. Will sound barriers be provided if construction is near my house? 13. Corridor 3 will have a negative impact on my business and home. 14. Could you put a fight mm lane on Eastbound Princess Anne at Seaboard Road? 15. Could you reduce the speed limit to 35 mph or 25 mph? 16. I would like the speed limit reduced to 25 miles per hour. 17. Have a vegetation buffer along both corridors. 18. New roads are easier to build and don't totally jam the roads now filled with traffic. 19. Maintain traffic during construction. APPENDIx Location Public Hearing. Brochure (- KELLAM HIGH SCHOOL 2323 HOLLAND ROAD VIRGI~A BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456 APRIL 23, 1998 4 00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. II INTRODUCTION I The Vtrgima Department of Transportation is con- ducting tonight's Location Public Hearing along with the City of Virginia Beach and the engineer- lng consultant. This meeting will provide infor- mation about the project to local citizens and in- terested parties, as well as an oppommity to have questions answered A formal presentation will not be made tonight. Once you have met the various representatives and had your questions answered, arrangements have been made to take your comments in one of the following ways' 1 Oral comments will be recorded at the meetmg. 2. Written comments may be left in the comment box on the cmment sheet provided. 3 Written comments on the comment sheet pro- vlded may be ~naded to the address on the back of the sheet w~tlmi 10 days after die Location Pubhc Heanng I'I~O.IECT DES('RIPTION The first segment is along Princess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to the Judicial Boulevard/ Fen-ell Parkway intersection. The second segment is from the Judicial Boulevard/Ferrell Parkwa~l intersection to General Booth Boulevard. In th~ second segment, two main corridors will be ex- plored: Ferrell Parkway (from the Judicial Bou levard/Ferrell Parkway intersection to Generel Booth Boulevard) and Princess Anne Road (from the Judicial Boulevard/Ferrell Parkway intersec- tion to General Booth Boulevard). PROJECT BACKGROUND In November 1994, the Virginia Beach City CouJ~ cil requested VDOT to establish a project fron Dam Neck Road to General Booth Boulevard. Ot June 11, 1997, a Citizen Information Meeting wa held to introduce the Princess Anne Road/Ferr~ Parkway project to local citizens and intereste parties and provide an opportunity for input inl the location process. Based on the responses celved at this meeting it appears that Corridor,~ and 4 or 5 are locally preferred. The project has been separated into txvo segments 88888 ! · o ALTERNATIVES As previously described, and was shown at the Citizen Information Meeting, the roadway study has been divided into two segments. The Corridors in both segments are identified on the opposite page and described below. A range of alternatives is being evaluated to compare impacts to a variety of resources such as displacements and wetlands. In additton to the identified corridors, the No Build Alternative will also be considered. .Segment I Segment 2 Segment 1 begins at the Dam Neck Road inter- section with Princess Anne Road and continues along Princess Anne Road to the intersection with Judicial Boulevard?Ferrell Parkway. Segment 2 begins at the Princess Anne Road in- tersection with Judicial Boulevard/Ferrell Park- way and ends at the General Booth Boulevard intersection. The two corridors under consideration are de- scnbed below The three corridors being considered are described below. Corridor 1 W~den existing Pnncess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Judicial Boulevard from an exist- ing two-lane undivided roadway to an ultimate eight-lane facility. It is anticipated that initial con- struction will be a four-lane divided facility. In- tersections wall be located at Winterberry Lane, Curry Comb Court, and Judicial Boulevard/Ferrell Parkway Corridor 2 Follow existing Princess Anne Road with the ex- ception of the segment between Winterberry Lane and Curry Comb Court where the alignment will be shtfied to the north. Imt~al constmctton will w~den the exastmg two-lane undiwded roadway to a four-lane divided facility and eventually to an ultimate eight-lane divided facility. Intersec- tmns will be located at Winterberry Lane, Curry Comb Court, and Judicial Boulevard/Ferrell Park- way Corridor 3 Widen existing Princess Anne Road fi.om an eyast- ing two-lane undivided roadway to an ultimate six- lane divided facility. Intersections will be located at Judicial Boulevard, North Landing Road, Holland Road, Seaboard Road, Highgate Greens Boulevard. Three Oaks Drive, and General Booth Boulevard Corridor 4 The Ferrell Parkway alignment follows a new alignment between the existing Ferrell Parkway intersections with Princess Anne Road and Gen- eral Booth Boulevard. Initial construction will be a four-lane divided parkway that ultimately wil' be widened to six lanes. Intersections will be 1{~. cated at Princess Anne Road, Holland Road, ar~ Rocking Chair Lane. Corridor 5 Maintain the proposed Ferrell Parkway Corrido 4 alignment with the exception of an alignmer sluft to the north at West Neck Creek. The roah way wall be constructed as a four-lane div~d,~ park~vay and ulmnately wall be widened to ~,.I lanes Intersection locauons tnclude Pnnce.. game Road. Holland Road. and Rocking Cha Lane ,- ( Based on the information gathered to date, the study team prefers Corridor I (Princess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Judicial Boulevard/Ferrell Parkway) and Corridor 4 (Ferrell Parkway from Judicial Boulevard to General Booth Boulevard). Input received during project development and at this Location Public Hearing, along with the action of the Vkginia Beach City Council, will be considered by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in making the final location decision. PROJECT SCHEDULE Complete Corridor Analysis Location Public Hearing Final Environmental Document Begin Right of Way Acquisition Complete Final Design Begin Construction /.Be~tbnd 2002 . I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have further questions or need additional information, please contact: Mr. J. C. Cleveland Suffolk District Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation P.O. Box 1070 Suffolk, VA 23439 Local: (757) 925-2500 Toll Free: (888) 723-8400 Device of the Hearing Impaired (TTY): (800) 307-4630 WHAT IS A CORRIDOR? As shown below, a corridor is wider than the actual amount of right-of-way required for the roadway. When the comdor location is approved for final design, this extra width allows VDOT to align the roadway to minimize impacts to homes, businesses, schools, churches, cemeteries, and other commu- nity facilities. CONCEPTUAL TYPICAL SECTIONS 500 FT. CORRIDOR 25____~0 FT_~. RIGHT-OF-WA~Y PRINCESS ANNE ROAD FROM DAM NECK ROAD SOUTH TO JUDICIAL BOULEVARD 400 FT. CORRIDOR 145 FT. RIGHT-OF-WAY PRINCESS ANNE ROAD FROM JUDICIAL BOULEVARD TO GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD 400 FT. CORRIDOR 162 FT. RIGHT-OF-WAY FERRELL PARKWAY FROM PRINCESS ANNE ROAD TO GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD lllllt NaJlle. Address' KELLAM HIGH SCHOOL 2323 HOLLAND ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456 APRIL 23, 1998 400pm - 7.00 p m Zip Code: Please respond to the following I What concerns do you have that you would hke to see addressed as pan of this prolect? Which Comdor do you prefer, and why9 a ) Pnncess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Juchcal Boulevard/Ferrell Parkway (1 or 2)9 b ) Pnncess Anne Road/Fen'ell Parkway from Judical Boulevard to General Booth Boule, ard (3,4, or 5)? Please proxade us w~th any other comments you feel would assist us ~n the development of tlus roadway location study 4 Ho~. chd you hear about tins meeung? Newspaper__ Dtrect Mail .. Other VDOT S~gn__ Please leax e tins sheet in the comments box or marl your comments vatlun 10 days to the address on the rexerse sxde APPENDIX F Location Public Hearing - Summary of Comments Langley and McDonald, P.C. Engineers Surveyors Planners Landscape Arct~tects Enwronmental Consultants Mr. Jim Lassiter Virginia Department of Transportation Location and Design 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 May 28, 1998 GEORGE E. LANGLEY Consullar~ T JOSEPH Mc[X3NALD Route 165 - Ferrell Parkway/Princess Anne Road, 0165-134-V05, PE-101 L&M Project Number 1960089-000.01 Dear Mr. Lassiter: Attached is a summary of the written comments received from the Location Public Hearing held at Kellam High School in Virginia Beach on April 23, 1998. The summary is from the technical appendix of the location corridor study. There were 199 people who signed the sheet at the door. We have received copies of 95 written responses. Some of the people who responded were confused that the situation was Segment 1 versus Segment 2. Based on Question 2 (Which corridor do you prefer?), the majority of people who responded prefer Corridor 1 and Corridor 4, although there was a significant increase in the other corridor responses from the Citizen Information Meeting. Twenty-four oral comments were also taken, but they are generally repetitive of the written comments. The oral comments are also attached. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the comment summary. Very truly yours, LANGLEY AND McDONALD, P.C. Tabitha H. Crowder, E.I.T. Project Engineer cc: Mr. Leo Rutledge, Virginia Department of Transportation Mr. Bob Owen, Virginia Department of Transportation Mr. Phil Pullen, City of Virginia Beach Mr. Stuart Tyler, DeLeuw Cather & Co. MAIN OFFICE 5544 Greenwich Road V~rgm~a Beach. VA 23462 (757) 473-2000 FAX (757) 497-7933 201 Packets Court Williamsburg, VA 23185 (757) 253-2975 FAX (757) 229-0049 LOCATION PUBLIC HEARING RESPONSES Question 1 What concerns do you have that you would like to see addressed as part of this project? TABLE A-6 AREAS OF CONCERN Environmental impacts I II m i Home dhplacement L I I [ Dimin~h qu~ of ~e ...... Sound b~em Remove'~~ ~ ~e M~cip~ Center Cu~e south ;f e~'Comb Cou~ [ [ [ [ [ Historic prese~ation Cost More conche ~~e Low speed limits More defm~e mute B~e path ~' view of ~c not beh~ bem Cul-d~sac Roc~g Ch~ L~e before Fe~ P~ay No conside~fion of ci~wne~ prope~ south of P~. Road ii i [ i i Prefer no build option Difference ~ right-of-way ~~s be~een co.dom kI I ~l I Impact to neighborhood of~~ Oah I i al i s i Stop the rapid ~~h in ~~ia Beach i I [ I I II I Before grant~g bufld~g pemi~ ~onsider road ~p~ovements Con ect S~bo~ ~ad ~ .... Co dor2~u~e I I I I sm I Eight [~e~ not n i i i i i i ~pact to RoH~ood subdivision n I I I mi Noise and dust dung comtmcfion ....... Bea ' ' Too many ~ghways II I I I t Question 2 Which corridor do you prefer, and why? a.) Princess Anne Road from Dam Neck Road to Sudicial Boulevard/Fen~ll Parkway (1 or 2)? Responses were 33 for Corridor 1, 18 for Corridor 2, $ for neither corridor, and 2 for Alternative 7 not shown to the public. Table A-7 breaks down the reasoning it'provided. TABLE A-7 REASONS FOR PREFERRED CORRIDOR IN SEGMENT 1 Corridor 1 - Straight shot, cheaper, already exists Corridor 1 Less enviro'nmental impact Corridor I Lower cost Corridor 1 .'Long overdue' ' t i i ii Corridor 1 - Mnlntnin smooth traffic flow i l i i Corridor 1 Property access Corridor 1 Widen equally Corridor 2- Less residentinl impact Corrido'r 2 Increase my property value Corridor 2 - Lowe cost II I b )Princess Anne Road/Ferrell Parkway from ludicial Boulevard to General Booth Boulevard (3, 4, or 5)? Responses were 19 for Corridor 3~ 28 for Corridor 4, 9 for Corridor $, 7 for Corridors 4 or 5, and 2 for neither. Table A-8 displays the reasons , ' REASONS FOR PREFERRED CORRIDOR IN SEGMENT 2 Corridor 3- Already etists I · I I I Corridor 3 - Corridor~ 4 and 5 divides existing neighborhoods i I Corridor 3 - Construct Southeastern Parkway not Ferreil Parkway Corridor 3 - Improve~afety and corrects flood-prone areas Corridor 4- Less~entialunpact i i Corridor 4 - Lower east i · I I Il II Corridor 4 -' Bi~oric preservation · Corridor 4 More din~t route Corridor S - Less wdinnds dnmage Corridor $ - Less re~dentinl impact Co or 5 Historic err on C i i orridor 4 or 5- Lesst impact COrridor 4 or $ Hiforic preservation ii i Corridor 4 or 5. Li~s on Corridor 3 I I I Question 3 Please p~ovide us with any other comments you feel would assist us in the development of this roadway location study. 1. Do not divide SouthgateYHunt Club Forest neighborhoods. (7) 2 Advise residmts and civic associations of plans before moving ahead. (6) 3 Consider peoples homes and lives (6) 4 Corridor 3 wmdd be a disaster for our community. (5) 5 Safety ofch~en. (5) 6 Close Rocld~ Chair Lane and connect Seaboard Road to Ferrell Parkway (4) 7 Corridor 3 ~dened. (4) 8 Original Fenell Parkway best solution: lower cost, fewer homes displaced, and decreased etmgestion at Municipal Center (4) 9. Support somd barriers. (4) !0 Wetland im~cts. (4) 11 Bike path against road not berm. (3) 12 Continue Ferrell Parkway connection from General Booth Boulevard. (3) 13 General Booth Boulevard already has too much traffic (3) 14 No build option. (3) 15 16. 17 18 19 20. 21 22. 23 24. 25. 26 27 28. 29 30. 31. 32. 33 34. Consider building on pilings for Corridors 4 or 5 bridges as opposed to a dike through the middle of it. What about bridging the entire swamp? (2) Corridors 1 and 4 improve emergenT response time and provide easier route to Amphitheater, 5occer Stadium, and Golf Course. (2) Four lanes not eight lanes. (2) I will not be b~, ght or move from my home. (2) Overpass Corridor 5 to protect wetlands. (2) Shift corridors away from Landstown Meadows. (2) Thanks for tl~ opportunity to view erJaibits and voice our opinions, but we feel helpless in this venture. (2) What about the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt7 Instead of this project? Along with tlis project? (2) Any plan to l=ovide dry water and sewage to residences along Princess Anne Road? Corridor 5 should be chosen. Curve on P~s Anne Road is more aesthetic. Early decision will allow people to get on with their lives. Ferrell Parknray is a redundant roadway. Fix existing roads and don't waste money on new ones. Give Princess Anne Road property owners option of going commercial and allow businesses complimentary to golf course and recreation areas. Low speed ~'nit. Make use of noisy areas from navy jets when planning roads. Oppose Con'idor 2. What about going through the goffcourse? Ugly sound walls. Why do we need this road? Question 4 How clki, you hear about this meeting? TABLE A-9 NOTIFICATION OF MEETING Direct mail [ [ i ill [[[ [i Civic league/homeowners,, ,, association Friend, neighbor, or relative Newspap,e,r ~n~ ..... Ne.,w?p aper direct mail i Newspaper, 'di~t mail, and VD(~T sign i iii Newsp,.aPer a~d VDOT s!gn ..... By luck i Direct mail a~d V~, O'I; sign Real estate agen,t I I I I Il I APPENDIX G Location Public Hearing- Resolution - 21 - Item V-I. 1. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 44594 Upon NOMINATION by Vtce Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Sandra Smith-Jones REAPPOINTED: Irvin Beard Priscilla M. Beede Van Cunningham Robert C. Spadaccini, Sr. 3-Year Term 02/01/99 - 01/31/02 REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE Voting. 10 -0 Councd Members Vottng Aye' Margaret L Eure, Wtlham W. Harrison, Jr, Harold Heischober, Barbara M Henley, Louts R. Jones, Reba S McClanan, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, A M "Don" Weeks and Vtce Mayor Wtlham D. Sessoms, Jr Council Members Vottng Nay None Councd Members Absent: Ltnwood 0 Branch, III February 2, 1999 - 22 - Item V-L. AD JO URNMENT ITEM # 44595 Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf DECL4RED the City Counctl Meeting ADJOURNED at 2:38 P.M. Chtef Deputy Ctty Clerk ~E Ctty Clerk Meyera E Oberndorf Mayor Ctty of Vtrgtnta Beach Vtrgtnta February 2, 1999 - 23 - Item V-L ADJOURNMENT ITEM # 44595 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf DECLARED the City Counctl Meettng ADJOURNED at 2:38 P.M. Beverly 0 Hooks, CMC/AAE Chtef Deputy City Clerk Ruth Hodges Smtth, CMC/AAE City Clerk Mayor Ctty of Vtrginia Beach Vtrginia February 2, 1999