Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 1, 1980 MINUTES Cit@ <Df N7ii-&Xi@i4a "WORLD'S LARGEST RESORT CITY" CITY COUNCII, MAYOR J. HENRY M@COY JR., D.D.S., a --- gh VICE-MAYOR HAROLD fiEISCHOBER. A, L.,,. JOHN A. BAUM, Bi.@i-I., B-gb P. REID ERVIN, A, L.,,. BARBARA M. HENLEY. P..,. B-.gb CLARENCE A. HOLLAND, M.D., S.yid, B...gb W. H. KITCHIN, lit, Vigi.i. B-,h B...gb REBA S. M@CLANAN, P,,.c... A-, B.-gh DOt4ALD W. MERRICK, Ly..I.@.. 3...gb MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, A, L.,g, 222 CITY HALL BUILDING PATRiCK L. STANDING, A, L.,g, MUNICIPAL CENTER VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456 RUTH HODGES SMITH, Ci@Y Cl-lk (804),W-4303 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM I INFORMAL SESSION: 1:00 p.m. - December 1, 1980 A. CALL TO ORDER - ViCe maYOr Harold Heischober, presiding B. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL C. MOTION TO RECESS INTO INFORKALIEXECUTIVE SESSION D. PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION OF PERTINENT 14ATTERS 1. Rural Farm Flag Lot Variances: Report ITEM II FORMAL SESSION: 2:00 p.m. A. INVOCATION: Reverend Ardele F. McClung Pastor Princess Anne Plaza United Methodist Church B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL D. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 1. Motion to accept/approve the Minutes of 24 November 1980. ITEM II E. RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution - Legislative Proposals for consideration by the 1981 Virginia General Assembly. 2. Resolution requesting the State Corporation Commission to rescind the temporary authority granted to Yellow Cab of Norfolk, Inc., t/a Brown's Auto Service; and to schedule a public hearing at an appropriate time to determine if permanent authority should be granted. 3. Resolution adopting the Property Rehabilitation Standards for Community Development target neighborhoods. 4. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement to develop and implement a Deferred Compensation Plan for City and School Board employees. F. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be reinoved from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. 1. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to reinvest title in Kings Grant West to the dedicated right-of-way as shown in said deed. 2. An Ordinance authorizing certain events conducted on City property to be exempted from the prohibition from working on or transacting business on Sunday. 3. An Ordinance, on @o d n , entering into contracts totaling $301,452 with the Southeastern Tidewater Area Man- power Authority to continue the City's CETA Employment Pro- qrams, and to appropriate these funds. G. ORDINANCES 1. Appropriations a- An Ordinance, on to appropriate funds of $28,400 for the Rudee Inlet Sand Trap dredging project. b. An Ordinance, on fir@t d@in , to accept grants totaling $30,734.00 from the Division of Justice and Crime Preven- tion and to appropriate these funds. ITEM II G. ORDINANCES 2. General a. An ordinance authorizing exemptions to the Emergency water Allocation Ordinance of October 13, 1980. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS I. NEW BUSINESS J. ADJOURNMENT 1. Motion to adjourn. M I N U T E S VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia I December 1980 The Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, was called to order by Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, in the Conference Room, in the City Hall Building, on Monday, I December 1980, at One o'clock in the afternoon. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. ITEM #15938 Acting Mayor Heischober entertained a motion to permit Council to conduct its INFORMAL SESSION to be followed by an EXECUTIVE SESSION for the purpose of discussing the following: 1. Discussion or consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, salaries, discipline or resignation of public officers, appointees or employees of any public body. (Personnel Matters). 2. Discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition or use of real property for public purpose, or other disposition of publicly held property. (Acquisition, use or disposition of publicly held prope@). 3. Consultation with legal Counsel and briefing by staff members, consultants, or attorneys pertaining to actual or potential litigation, or other legal matters within tbe jurisdiction of the public body. (Legal Matters). 2- Upon motion by Councilman Standing, seconded by Councilman Merrick, City Cot4ncil voted to proceed into the EXECUTIVE SESSION following the INFORMAL SESSION. Voting: 9- 0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, Ill, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry MCCoy, Jr. 1 2 1 80 - 3- M A T T E R S B Y T H E A C T I N G M A Y 0 R ITEM #15939 Acting Mayor Heischober advised Council of the Joint meeting with the Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 2, 1980, at Six-Thirty in the evening. ITEM #15940 Acting Mayor Heischober advised Council of a letter received from Mayor McCoy advising that appointments to Boards and Commissions will be made on December 15, 1980. ITEM #15941 Acting Mayor Heischober advised Council that on Monday, December 8, 1980, Council will be meeting with the City's representatives from the General Assembly to discuss the proposed 1981 Legislative Package. I N F 0 R M A L S E S S I 0 N ITEM #15942 Robert J. Scott, Planning Director, appeared before Council in the INFORMAL SESSION to report on Rural Farm Flag Lot Variances. Mr. Scott advised Council Section 200(c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance governs all Flag Lots within the City of Virginia Beach, and has three (3) requirements attached: 1. Fifteen feet of a Flag Lot must touch a public street. 2. The original lot must meet the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requirements in all respects. 3. Isolated in character, and not be reoccurring in the area or subdivision. - 4- Mr. Scott further advised Council if the matter is a "hardship case" then City Council has to decide on whether to grant the request. Councilwoman Henley requested the City draft a uniform policy governing all Flag Lots, and requested the Staf f prepare a report indicating those flag lots which have and have not been approved by City Council. Acting Mayor Heischober requested Councilwoman Henley to draft a policy regarding flag lots for Council perusal. ITEM #15943 Councilman Merrick requested information as to why the proposed Charter changes were not in the Legislative Package. The City Attorney advised Council they have to be advertised for Public Hearing; however, the proposed changes can be placed in the Legislative Package before the Hearing is held. The City has received "clear" direction on two (2) Charter changes; however, they have some concern regarding the election of the Mayor by the citizens. Councilman Standing advised Council of his concerns over the proposed Charter change with regards to Council Members salary. Councilman Ervin advised Council could approve the Charter change, but delete the amount of salary. This matter will be brought up under NEW BUSINESS at today's meeting (December 1, 1980). ITEM #15944 Councilwoman Henley advised Council they have only received one attendance and annual report from a Board or Commission (Wetlands Board), and further advised Council of the lack of communication between Council and the Boards and Commissions. It was the consensus of Council that one set of minutes from the various Boards and Commissions be placed in the City Clerk's Office for Council's perusal. Councilwoman McClanan suggested a workshop for all members of Boards and Commissions regarding parlimentary procedure. ITEM #15945 Councilman Merrick requested information concerning the City's Revenues through September 30, 1980, with regards to Use of Money and Property. For 1981 the amount is $693,695; 1980 the amount is $999,055; and, for 1979 the amount is $1,198.446. Councilman Merrick was advised by the Director of Finance that the declining figures were due to the accrued interest, (monies due but not paid to the City). - 5- ITEM #15946 The City, Manager advised Council the matter of Community Development Property Rehabilitation Standards will be discussed in the FORMAL SESSION. ITEM Y@15947 The City Manager advised Council he forwarded for their information two Ordinances: 1. Amend and reordain Sections 37-2, 37-4, 37-29(a) 37-32, and 37-33 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, relating to water supply and rates. 2. Amend and reordain Section 29-4 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, relating to sewer service maintenance charges. City Council recessed into the EXECUTIVE SESSION, (1:50 p.m.) 6- F 0 R M A L S E S S I 0 N VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia 1 December 1980 2:20 p.m. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. COUNCILMAN ERVIN VOICED A VERBAL "PRESENT". INVOCATION: Reverend Ardele F. McClung, DD Pastor Princess Anne Plaza United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 7- M I N U T E S ITEM II-D.1 ITEM #15948 Upon motion by Councilman Standing, seconded by Councilman Merrick, City Council voted to APPROVE the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 24 November, 1980, with the following correction: ITEM #15936 - Seventh (7th) paragraph, second (2nd) line - proposed construction does itet- represent a hazard ... Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. 8- R E S 0 L U T I 0 N S ITEM II-E.1 ITEM #15949 Upon motion by Councilman Merrick, seconded by Councilwoman Henley, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT the Resolution concerning the 1981 Legislative Proposals. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan*, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. *Councilwoman McClanan advised she was voting in favor of the Legislative Package, with the following exceptions: Carry-Over Bills - House Bill 467 House Bill 84 Senate Bill 278 Senate Bill 467 Legislative Proposals - Numbers 2, Section 3; 6, and 13 9- At a Regular Meeting of tbe Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, held on the First day of December, 1980, the following Resolution was adopted: R E S 0 L U T I 0 N WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia has reviewed the presentation concerning certain legislative proposals; and, WHEREAS, after due consideration the Council is of the opinion that such proposals would be beneficial to the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the document attached and marked "Exhibit A" and entitled "COMMENTS ON CARRIED OVER BILLS AND 1981 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS" presented for consideration by the 1981 Virginia General Assembly and dated December 11, 1981, is hereby endorsed by said Council as the City's official legislative requests and recommendations for the 1981 Session. The City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to each member of the General Assembly representing the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. ADOPTED:- First day of December 1980 JDB:er 11-25-80 -10- C I T Y 0 F V I R G I N I A B E A C H COMMENTS ON CARRIED-OVER BILLS AND 1981 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Presented for Consideration By the Virginia General Assembly Exhibit A December 1, 1980 -11- C 0 M M E N T S 0 N C A R R I E D - 0 V E R B I L L S -1 2- Bill# HOUSE COUNTIES, CITIES, AND TOWNS COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 125 & These Bills are similar to H.B. 630, but go beyond H.B. 415 what is needed. Therefore, H.B. 630 is preferred in lieu of these Bills H.B. 630 This Bill would provide for a formula in local Subdivision Ordinances to require participation by developers for improvements to roads adjacent to their development. The Virginia Beach City Council strongly supports this Bill because the cost of public highways should be at least partially borne by those generating the need for such facilities. Also, with the reduction in State highway construction funds, localities with numerous over-crowded roads must be able to widen and reconstruct them as development occurs. Bill# HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 152 Tbis Bill provides that no agricultural or forestal operation which has been in operation for at least one year shall be considered a nuisance because of changed conditions and surrounding land uses. The Virginia Beach City Council generally supports this Bill. However, it should be expanded to include an appropriate definition of agricultural and forestal operation, which is the position taken by the Virginia Farm Bureau and the Virginia Agri-Business Council. Bill# HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 731 This Bill would place a cap on the retirement benefits received under the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System. It proposes a retirement benefit structure which imposes a cap for lower salaried employees at tbe earliest retiring period of 25 years. Higher salaried employees would begin to lose money as longevity increased beyond 30 years. It would, therefore, be an incentive toward earlier retirement. The Virginia Beach City Council strongly opposes this Bill. An individual currently under VSRS is employed with the full knowledge of what his retirement benefits will be. To reduce these benefits after years of service and contributions to VSRS would be a breach of faitb by the State. - 1 3- Bill# HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 804 This Bill would establish a "Virginia Alternative Retirement System", which would cover all employees coming in to service after July 1, 1981, and at the option of the employer or employee, would cover employees in service prior to that date. This alternative system would have a different retirement benefit structure from the current VSRS benefit structure. The Virginia Beach City Council opposes this bill because it would violate tbe doctrine of equal pay for equal work. No change should be made to tbe existing retirement benefit structure under VSRS for all employees. Bill# HOUSE CORPORATIONS, INSURANCE, AND BANKING COMMITTEE I Comments H.B. 467 Tbis Bill would allow the State Corporation Commission to regulate any City-owned utility company as to the services it provides outside its jurisdictional limits. In effect, it would allow the State Corporation Commission to set rates charged Virginia Beach by the City of Norfolk for water. The Virginia Beach City Council opposes this Bill, because there is no need for the State Corporation Commission to become involved in rate making for a municipal utility. There is no apparent benefit to be derived from this State intervention. Bill# HOUSE COUNTIES, CITIES, AND TOWNS COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 84 This Bill would require certain general procedures for all local governments to follow in preparing budgets, making appropriations, and general financial record keeping. It goes beyond the uniform fiscal reporting requirements that were mandated by tbe General Assembly in 1978. Some provisions would tend to restrict Virginia Beach City Council irl making budget adjustments and approving expenditures, which it is currently allowed to do by tbe Charter. It appears to be an attempt to make local budgeting procedures uniform throughout the State and not allow for local differences as currently provided in local Charters. The Municipal Finance Officers Association of Virginia is currently reviewing this Bill, and unless it is modified to continue to provide for local differences, it sbould not be enacted. -1 4- Bill# HOUSE COUNTIES, CITIES, AND TOWNS COMMLTTEE Comments H.B. 766 This Bill would provide an additional means for a property owners, witb the locality's approval, to vacate a portion of a subdivision plat. The Virginia Beach City Council opposes this Bill because it seems to provide a back-door approach to the closing of streets. There are enough methods in the State Code for the vacation of a subdivision plat or closing of a public street without this proposal. Bill# HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 420 This Bill would allow a locality to impose a gross receipts tax on revenue received by a newspaper for the distribution of separately printed advertising material which is not an integral part of the news- paper, such as @n advertising supplement. The Virginia Beach City Council supports this Bill, because it will provide an additional source of revenue if needed. H.B. 838 This Bill would allow localities to exceed the current limitations on the tax allowed on consumers of electric light and power services if tbe locality exempts at least the first $25.00 of tbe monthly bill. Localities are currently empowered to tax up to 20% of the first $15.00 of a residential utility bill. The Virginia Beach City Council generally opposes this Bill because by exempting the first $25.00 of a monthly bill, a locality would be forced to raise the tax rate for those who consume greater amounts of electricity and power. This would place an unfair burden on those higher users who may not be able to afford it. H.B. 920 This Bill is similar to H.B. 838 in that it changes the manner in which localities may impose utility taxes on consumers of electric light and power or gas utility service. It would limit the tax rate to no more than 10% of a consumer's monthly residential bill and, at the same time, would exempt the first $39.99 of the Bill from the tax. The Virginia Beach City Council generally opposes this Bill because of exempting the f irst $39. 99 of a monthly Bill, a locality would be forced to raise the tax rate for those who consume greater amounts of electricity and power. This would place an unfair burden on those higher users who may not be able to afford it. Bill# HOUSE GENERAL LAWS COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 300 This Bill would provide tbat an applicant for a change of zoning on property may be someone other than the property owner, such as a contract purchaser, optionee, or agent. Currently, only the property owner can request a change of zoning. As a part of any con- sideration of zoning changes by a locality, tbere are usually certain understandings established, commitments made, or conditions for the rezoning that a party otber than the owner will not necessarily be in a position to carry forth. Therefore, the Virginia Beach City Council fees it should not be permissible for any other party to engage in the business of zoning changes except the property owner. -1 5- H.B. 986 This Bill would establish a procedure for titling water craft with certain exceptions. it would also exempt tbe sale of these water craft from the State sales tax and place a 2% titling tax on them. It is intended to offer a better means of financing tbe sale of boats and for locating lost or stolen boats and their owners. The general concept of tbe Bill is good; however, it will cause a loss in sales tax revenues in localities. Virginia Beach could lose from $30,000 to $60,000 in sales tax; however, some of this would be offset by better personal property tax collections on boats because of titling. The Bill should be amended to include all boats at least 14 feet long and weighing at least 200 pounds. It should almost be amended to require that boats which must be titled must also be numbered. If these changes are made, the benefits of being able to account for all boats registered and numbered in Virginia Beach may offset the loss in local sales tax revenues. Bill# HOUSE PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 810 The State Code currently prohibits anyone from loitering or congregating within 40 feet of any polling place during an election. This Bill would continue that prohibition, but would provide further that only one representative of each political party or independent candidate could be within 300 feet of any polling place. The City Council supports this Bill, because it will reduce the number of people congregating around polling places during an election. Bill# SENATE COMMERCE AND LABOR COM14ITTEE S.B. 278 This Bill would require that a locality place its property and casualty insurance out of competitive bidding every three years. The Virginia Beacb City Council opposes tbis Bill, because the option to bid should be left totally up to the locality. Other States have found that in the long run, mandatory bidding has resulted in higher premium costs and restricted insurance markets. The lowest bid does not always provide adequate coverage and service. Bill# SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE Comments S.B. 257 This Bill would, on a graduated basis over a number of years, eliminate the State sales tax on food purchased for human consumption. Localities could still have their local 1% sales tax on food and would continue to receive one-third of the 3% State sales tax now being collected. The Bill would greatly reduce State sales tax revenues and could result in the City being pressured to eliminate its local tax. Therefore, the Virginia Beach City Council opposes this Bill unless the loss revenue is made up from some other source. S.B. 459 This Bill would provide for the reimbursement by the Commonwealth to localities for their loss in real estate tax revenues due to deferrals or exemptions for the elderly and handicapped. The Virginia Beach City Council strongly supports this Bill, because it would offset lost tax revenues. -1 6- S.B. 467 This Bill would limit local real estate tax increases, excluding new construction and additions to existing improvements to no more than 7% of the real estate tax levied during the preceeding tax year. The Virginia Beach City Council strongly opposes this Bill, because it would limit their authority to increase the real estate tax rate beyond 7%. This decision should be left totally to the local governing body. H.B. 3 This Bill would eliminate the sales tax on non- prescription drugs. The Virginia Beach City Council opposes this Bill, because it would result in a decrease in City revenues. H.B. 322 This Bill would create the "Neighborhood Assistance Act of 1980", and provide an income tax credit for business firms providing certain types of assistance to impoverished neighborhoods as approved by the Act. The Virginia Beach City Council supports this Bill because it could result in a decrease in the amount of funds spent by the State and City in the areas of public assistance, law enforce- ment, and education. Bill# SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE Comments S.B. 213 This Bill would establish the "Virginia Municipal Leasing Authority", whose primary function would be to acquire equipment for lease to municipalities upon request. The Authority would acquire the equipment primarily through the issuance of tax-free revenue bonds to be payable solely from the funds of the Authority. The Virginia Beach City Council supports this Bill, because it could benefit localities by giving them an alternative source for leasing or financing certain capital expenditures. The economies of scale derived by the Authority making bulk purchases could be passed along to localities and decrease their leasing cost. H.B. 16, 17, 18, and 19 These Bills are an attempt to reorganize, revise, and standardize Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia as it relates to all local governments. Tbey speak to forms of local government and powers, duties, rights, and procedures of local governing bodies. These Bills have been introduced in varying forms over the past several years and, originally, they were intended to standardize local governments and eliminate many of the different Charter powers certain localities have. These Bills, however, include a provision which states that they do not overrule any provision currently included in a City Charter. While they appear watered down and innocuous enough at the moment, there is some concern over what impact they will have on City Charters which bave adopted the State Charter Act by reference. if provisions of the State Charter Act are changed by these Bills, it could inadvertently change the Virginia Beach Charter. - 1 7- H.B. 252 This Bill further clarifies how local zoning Ordinances must provide for homes for certain handicapped persons by adding the words "physically handicapped and mentally ill" to the Sections already including "mentally retarded and other developmentally disabled persons". This Bill does not present a particular problem in Virginia Beach; bowever an adequate definition of mentally ill should be provided since this phase can cover a variety of meanings. Bill# SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Comments H.B. 215 This Bill would provide a procedure whereby every State agency which proposes to adopt regulations must advertise this fact prior to their adoption. Also, immediately following the adoption of any agency regulations, a copy must be sent to the appropriate committee of the General Assembly for their review. The Committee could then act to delay the regulations until approved by the full General Assembly if they so desire. The Virginia Beach City Council generally supports this Bill, because it would provide for a means of legislative review of State agency rule making. -1 8- 1 9 8 1 L E G I S L A T I V E P R 0 P 0 S A L S -1 9- I N D E X 1 9 8 1 L E G I S L A T I V E P R 0 P 0 S A L S ITEM NUMBER TITLE 1 Inter-Basis Transfer of Water With Ultimate State Control 2 Increased Highway Construction Funding 3 Funding of Education 4 Indirect Cost Reimbursement for Certain Welfare Programs 5 Arrest on Past Misdemeanors Upon Probable Cause and Reasonable Complaint 6 Issuance of Summons in Pre-Trial Release of Persons Charged with Certain Misdemeanors 7 Disability from Respiratory Disease, Hypertension, and Heart Disease 8 Smoke Detectors in All Residential Units 9 Credit of All VSRS Contributions to Employee's Account 10 Permitted Provisions of Local Zoning Ordinances 11 Erosion and Sediment Control Law 12 Consolidated Mosquito Control District., 13 Assessments for Street Improvements 14 Membership in the Virginia Supplementa-- Retirement System 15 Determination As to Seasonal Employment and Seasonal Employers 16 Redistricting for Virginia Beach - 20- 1. Inter-Basin Transfer of Water With Ultimate State Control Comment: Southeastern Virginia is currently facing the most critical water shortage in its history. A Water Allocation Plan has been implemented in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, which requires that all water customers cut their consumption by 25%. The citizens have risen to the challenge during this crisis; however, they cannot live forever in emergency condi- tions. The State Water Study Commission is currently considering three alternatives for solving the surface and ground water supply and alloca- tion problems throughout the State. Alternative A offers no significant changes to the present State Law. Alternative B would allow for inter- basin transfer of water and is somewhat of an improvement over the present law. Alternative C would completely replace the present Reparian Doctrine and would make all water in Virginia the property of the State to be dis- tributed by State officials for tbe most beneficial use. In order to solve the problems currently existing in Southeastern Virginia, provisions for inter-basin transfer of water including harmless use legislation must be enacted now by the General Assembly. However, because surface and ground water in Virginia is such a precious natural resource and should not be denied to any locality which needs it, the best long term,solution is for water to be completely controlled by the State and allocated through a permit process to those who need it the most. Recommendation: The General Assembly should enact legislation which would implement Alternative B (inter-basin transfer of water), as an interium step during the 1981 Session. The General Assembly should also continue the State Water Study Commission another year so that it can hold public hearings to develop and refine Alternative C (substitution of a public trust doctrine for Riparian Common Law), for enactment during the 1982 Session of the General Assembly. - 21 - 2. Increased Highway Construction Funding Comment: Virginia Beach is the third fastest growing City in the United States, with a 1980 population of approximately 260,000. We also have over 21/2 million overnight tourists each year. These two factors create a need for continual upgrading and improving of City highways. Through the next five years, there is an estimated need of over $106 Million for highway construction and design in Virginia Beach. In 1979, with the decrease in gasoline tax revenues to the State, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation adopted a policy of applying State funds only as a match to Federal Highway Administration funds for highway con- struction. This policy has eliminated the previous practice of applying 95% State funds to certain highway construction projects and placed more of a burden on localities. Many localities have had to resort to local Highway Bond Referendums in order to meet their needs and offset decreased funding from the State. It is clear that increased funding for highway construction is needed and must be allocated to districts and localities based upon need. Recommendation: The General Assembly should: [1] Amend Section 33.1-23.1 of the Code of Virginia to substitute a new system for allocating construction funds to primary, secondary, and urban highway systems based upon need, instead of the current formula which requires that 50% be allocated to the primary system, 25% to the urban system, and 25% to the secondary system. [21 Amend Section 33.1-23.1 of the Code of Virginia to allow Federal highway bridge repair and replacement funds to be allocated to localities separately from all other State highway construction f unds . [31 Convert the State gasoline tax to a percentage of the wholesale price instead of a fixed amount per gallon. 2 2- 3. Funding for Education Comment: The Constitution of Virginia states, "The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of higb quality is established and continually maintained." To meet this requirement, the legislature has established the Standards of Quality which mandates the existence of educational programs throughout the State. Because the General Assembly is responsible for providing a system of free public education, it should also support financially those aspects of the educational program which it mandates by law. These mandates should be funded on the basis of realistic average costs and the State should bear a fair share of the cost. It is the re spons ib il ity of the State to fund, on a stat ewide basis, the Basic Education Program to a student in the Commonwealth. Foremost tonsideration should be given to realistic funding of the 1981-82 Standards of Quality basic aid formula. Last year, the Governor's 1980-81 biennium budget for education included a Standards of Quality per pupil allocation'of $1,027 for school year 1980-81, and $1,099 for school year 1981-82. The total cost of this proposal is approximately $285 Million below th6 request of the State Board of Education which realistically projected the actual cost of the Basic Educational Program in Virginia. The Gerieral Assembly approved an increase in the 1980-81 per pupil allocation from $1,027 to $1,075. There was no change in the Governor's recommended 1981-82 per pupil allocation of $1,099. However, the General Assembly did commit itself to raising the 1981-82 per pupil allocation if addi-tional funding became available for the second year of the biennium. Recommendation: The General Assembly should raise the per pupil allocation for 1981-82 to $1,373 which was recommended by the State Board of Education and reflects the actual cost of the Standards of Quality in Virginia. - 2 3- 4. Indirect Cost Reimbursement for Certain Welfare Programs Comment: The City of Virginia Beacb, like a number of otber localities throughout the State, has prepared and had approved a Central Service Cost Allocation Plan. Under this Plan, the indirect costs of providing such services as accounting, payroll, data processing, and personnel are allocated to all City agencies. The Virginia Beach Department of Social Services has included these indirect costs as part of the City's costs of administering certain welfare and grant programs when requests for reimbursement are submitted to the State Board of Welfare. The State Board of Welfare has now changed its policy regarding the reimbursement of indirect cost to localities for certain programs. Localities are no longer to be reimbursed for the State's share of indirect costs applicable to the administration of Aid to Dependent Children, Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs. This will cost Virginia Beach approximately $26,700. In addition, localities can only be reimbursed for their indirect costs on the federal share of the locality's allocation under the Title XX Program if there is a surplus in funds for that locality after all direct costs for the program year have been met. Indirect costs could be reimbursed if a surplus of Federal Title XX funds existed at the State level, but this is unlikely. In the past, localities could decide whether or not to use the Federal Title XX allocation for indirect as well as direct costs. However, under the new policy, localities no longer have this option. Since some local welfare departments have accounting, payroll, data processing and personnel functions totally within their department, they are able to charge these as direct costs of administering various welfare and grant programs. However, the new policy of the State Board of Welfare penalizes those local welfare departments who rely on centralized administrative services from their locality and could cost Virginia Beach approximately $120,000 in indirect cost reimbursement for administering the Title XX Program. Recommendation: The General Assembly should enact legislation which would require the State Board of Welfare to provide reimbursement to all localities for the indirect costs (accounting, payroll, data processing, personnel, etc.), of administration of the Aid to Dependent Children, Medicaid, Food Stamp Programs, and the Federal Title XX Program. - 24- 5. Arrest on Past Misdemeanors Upon Probable Cause and Reasonable Complaint Comment: Section 19.2-81 of the Code of Virginia specifies that various State and local police forces may arrest persons without a warrant for any crimes committed in their presence and for felony offenses not committed in their presence. However, the only misdemeanor not committed in their presence for which they can arrest involves shoplifting. In 1966, the American Law Institute recommended that a power of arrest be authorized without warrant for misdemeanors not committed in the officer's presence in case of necessity. Several States have since passed legislation abolishing the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. Illinois, for example, provides that a peace officer may arrest a person when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense. In the case of certain misdemeanor offenses like destruction of property or assault and battery, many citizens are reluctant to swear out a warrant against an individual they know committed the crime for fear of reprisals. However, they would gladly testify against the offender if subpoenaed by the arresting officer. Also, multiple offenses which show a pattern can readily lead to an offender. However, without an eye witness, the offender cannot be arrested by an officer. Petit larceny is another major misdemeanor which, in many cases, goes unresolved because of the inability of an officer to arrest the offender. Specific problems in Virginia Beach occur when people fail to pay a hotel or restaurant bill and most recently with the gasoline shortage, fail to pay for gasoline at a self-service pump. During the 1980 Session of the General Assembly, Senate Bill 451, introduced by Senator Stanley Walker, would have allowed police officers to make arrests for assault and battery, larcency, and destruction of property charges, not committed in their presence, but based upon probable cause and reasonable complaint. This Bill passed the Senate, but was killed in the House Courts of Justice Committee. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 19.2-81 of the Code of Virginia by adding on line 24 af ter 18. 2-103 the words "as sault and battery, larcency, and destruction of property." - 2 5- 6. Issuarrce of Summons in Pre-Trial Release of Persons Charged With Certain Misdemeanors Comment: During the 1980 Session of the General Assembly, House Bill 332 was introduced by Delegate James F. Almand. This Bill, which was passed by the General Assembly and signed into Law created Section 19.2-74.1 of the Code of Virginia, which says that a police officer arresting a person committing a misdemeanor for which he cannot receive a jail sentence, may not take tbe person before a Magistrate if he refuses to give written promise to appear or sign a summons. Therefore, the police officer must let the person go if he refuses to sign a summons. For the most part, this provision applies to Class III and Class IV misdemeanors. This means there are over 150 State and Local laws under which a police officer cannot arrest a person who violates them. The violator may actually go about his business if he refuses to sign a summons or he may continue to commit the offense. The officer is helpless to take any action against him. Recommendation: The General Assembly should repeal Section 19.2-74.1 of the Code of Virginia. 2 6- 7. Disabi lity from Respiratory Disease, Hypertension, and Heart Disease Comment: Section 65.1-47.1 of the Code of Vi rginia says in part that the death of or any condition or impairment of health of firefighters caused by respiratory disease and of any firefighters, policemen, sheriffs, and City Sergeants caused by hypertension or heart disease shall be presumed to be an occupational disease suffered in the line of duty subject to certain limitations. Employees or their beneficiaries who fall into this category may make claims for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The death or impairment of health does not have to take place on the job, but is presumed to be job related. Since the enactment of this legislation, there have been three police officers and one firefighter, employed by the City of Virginia Beach, to file disability claims under this Section. Two of the claims were definitely job related, however, two police officers' claims were questionable. Under Section 65.1-47.1, the Courts have held the presumption of heart disease and hypertension for police officers to be almost irrefutable. Therefore, in two cases, the City'of Virginia Beach incurred an expense of $98,000 in disability claims which were not clearly job related. The Law and Procedures Subcommittee of the Workmen's Compensation Study Committee, established by the 1980 General Assembly, is studying this problem. Hopefully, tbe Committee will address the question regarding tbe ability of a locality to reasonably protect itself from claims of police officers and firefighters when competent evidence indicates such impairment did not arise out of the line of duty. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 65.1-47.1 of the Code of Virginia to state that heart and lung disabilities for firefighters and police officers which are presumed to be job related, may be refuted when competent evidence indicates such impairment did not arise out of the line of duty. 2 7- 8. smoke Detectors in All Residential Units Comment: In 1975, the Statewide Uniform Building Code was amended to require the installation of smoke detectors in all new construction. However, there are still a considerable number of residential units constructed prior to 1975, which do not bave smoke detectors. It is generally believed that the presence of functioning smoke detectors in a home will reduce the likelihood of death or injury and reduce property loss in the event of a fire. A study prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in September 1980, includes data covering 1,168 fire incidents attended by fire departments in 12 jurisdictions throughout the United States. The data indicates that in the cases of unwanted fires, the presence of a smoke detector in the building would have reduced the likelihood of death or injury by 40%, and a reduction in property loss by over 50%. These statistics are brought,close to home by tragedies such as occurred in Virginia Beach on August 9, 1980. On that day, three children died in a fire in a townhouse, which was constructed prior to 1975. There was no smoke detector in the house, and Virginia Beacb fire officials believe the chances of survival in this incident would have been much greater with a functioning snioke detector in the home. Recommendation: The General Assembly should enact legislation which would allow localities to adopt local Ordinances requiring the installation of smoke detectors in all residential units, both new and old. 2 8- 9. Credit of all VSRS Contributions to Employee's Account Comment: During tbe 1980 Session, tbe General Assembly adopted House Bill 9, which placed a cap on retirement benefits for individuals entering the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System (VSRS), after March 31, 1980. The Attorney General has ruled tbat under House Bill 9, if employers choose to pay their employee's share of contributions to VSRS, these payments can only be credited to the employee's account for those employees hired on or after April 1, 1980. Payments made on behalf of employees hired prior to that date must be credited to the employer's account. This places localities currently paying the employee's sbare in an untenable position, and bas caused morale problems among employees of the City of Virginia Beach. Recommendation: Tbe General Assembly should amend Sedtion 51-111.46 of the Code of Virginia to allow employee contributions paid to VSRS by the employer to be credited to employee accounts for all employees in tbe system. - 2 9- 10. Permitted Provisions of Local Zoning Ordinances Comment: Section 15.1-491 of the Code of Virginia contains numerous provisions which may be included in local Zoning Ordinances. One provision states that the local governing body may reserve unto itself the right to issue special exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance or Use Permits. While the State Code appears to grant localities broad authority to allow these exceptions, the Courts have construed this authorization very narrowly and in many cases in Virginia Beach, have overruled the City Council's decision to allow or not allow an exception. As elected representatives of the citizens, it is important for the local governing body to have absolute discretion in granting exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance, which they feel are in the best interest of the general public. Another Section of this Statute allows localities to establish a specified interval of time between one consideration of a proposed zoning change and the second consideration, providing the specified interval does not exceed one year. The Virginia Beach City Council has a full agenda of zoning matters to consider every month. This includes an average of ten applications for rezonings plus applications for special use permits and street closures. Because of the workload placed upon the City Council and Staff, and tbe inconvenience imposed upon the public who may oppose a rezoning, it appears that a longer interval between considerations of applications for rezoning on any particular property should be established. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 15.1-491 of the Code of Virginia to: [1] Add the following sentence to the end of Subsection C: "in issuing such special exception or use permit, the governing body shall have absolute discretion." [21 Amend Subsection G to allow a maximum of two years for consideration of proposed amendments to a Zoning Ordinance involving the same property. 30 - 11. Erosion and Sediment Control Law Comment: The State Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires that no person may engage in a land disturbing activity after the adoption of a local Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance until he has submitted to the locality an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Land Disturbing Activity, and the Plan is approved. Section 21-89.3(a) of the Code of Virginia defines a Land Disturbing Activity but allows for certain exceptions. One exception is the tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops. Although it is presumed necessary that agricultural or horticultural lands must be cleared before they are used and adequate drainage provided, these particular activities are not included as exceptions to Land Disturbing Activities. In order to expand local Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinances to allow exceptions for clearing of agricultural lands and digging of adequate drainage ditches, the State Code must be amended. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 21-89.3(a)(v) of the Code of Virginia by adding the following clause: "The clearing of wooded or brush lands for agricultural or horticultural production and the digging of ditches for agricultural drainage." - 31 - 12. Consolidated Mosquito Control Districts Comment: The City of Virginia Beach has created three Mosquito Control Districts, as provided under Section 32.1-187 of the Code of Virginia, which encompass the entire City. Each of the district Commissions perform tbe same function, and there is no longer any special tax with- in each district. The three Commission's activities are paid for from the General Revenues derived by the City Government. Section 32.1-188 of the Code of Virginia provides that the governing body of any City which has established more than one Mosquito Control District may consolidate such Districts under a single Commission which shall function under the Health Department of the City. While the control and elimination of mosquitoes is generally considered necessary for health reasons, the actual operations of Mosquito Control personnel are similar to those public works functions performed by Cities, such as digging and maintaining canals and ditches. In fact, it is often confusing to the public as to which agency within a City has responsibility for certain drainage maintenance work. Therefore, it may be appropriate, for coordination of work, to place Mosquito Control Commission functions under another department besides the local Health Department, should a City choose to consolidate its Mosquito Control Districts. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 32.1-188 of the Code of Virginia to allow localities to choose to consolidate their Mosquito Control Districts under a single Commission to place the Commission under the appropriate City Department as determined by the local governing body. - 3 2- 13. Assessments for Street Improvements Comment: In 1977, at the request of the Virginia Beach City Council, legislation was introduced to amend Section 15.1-239 of the Code of Virginia to allow local governing bodies to impose assessments upon adjacent property owners for the initial improving and paving of streets. The Bill was passed, however, it was amended to include a limit of no more than $5.00 per front foot, not to exceed $500.00 for each property owner. Section 15.1-239 allows localities to impose assessments for many public improvements such as sewer and water, side- walks, curbs and gutters, and storm water sewers. However, the only restriction upon these assessments is that they shall not be in excess of the peculiar benefits resulting from the improvements. Because of the decrease in State funding for highway construction and the continued need for highway improvements in Virginia Beach estimated over $100 Million for tbe next five years, it is necessary to expand available alternatives for financing street improvements. Recommendation: The General Assembly sbould amend Section 15.1-239 of the Code of Virginia by eliminating the following phrase at the end of the third paragraph: "and in no event shall such amount exceed the sum of $5.00 per front foot of property abutting such street or the sum of $500.00 for any one subdivided lot or parcel abutting such street, whichever is the lesser." 3 3- 14. Membership in the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System Comment: Section 51-111.31 of the Code of Virginia provides that the governing body of any locality in Virginia may elect to have its officers and employees who are regularly employed full time on a salary basis, whose tenure is not restricted as to temporary or provisional appointment, become eligible to participate in VSRS. Prior to 1977, State and Local legislators were not eligible to become members of VSRS. However, in 1977, the General Assembly amended Section 51-11.10 of the Code of Virginia to define a member of VSRS as including "any member of the General Assembly serving in such capacity on January 1, 1972, regardless of age." it seems logical that if State Legislators are eligible to become members of VSRS and receive certain benefits upon retirement from service to the citizens of the Commonwealth, then governing bodies of localities which are members of VSRS whould also receive that benefit. These part time local governing bodies serve the citizens of their community on a daily basis. Their service should be rewarded upon retirement just as members of the General Assembly. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 51-111.31 of the Code of Virginia to allow any locality which chooses to have its employees become eligible to participate in VSRS also have its local governing body become members of VSRS. - 34- 15. Determination As to Seasonal Employment and Seasonal Employers Comment: Sections 60.1-53 through 60.1-57 of the Code of Virginia was repealed by the General Assembly in 1978. These Sections provided that any employer in Virginia could petition for a hearing and determination as to declaring a seasonal employer, thereby rendering seasonal employees ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Considering the current financial status of the trust fund, as a result of the national and local economic environment, there is a need to re-enact these seasonal employment provisions to provide some relief to the trust fund and reserve unemployment funds for land-off permanent employees. Recommendation: The General Assembly should re-enact Sections 60.1-53 through 60.1-57 of the Code of Virginia to allow any employer to determine which of its employees are seasonal and, in such cases, have those seasonal employees declared ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. 3 5- 16. Redistricting for Virginia Beach Comment: Since the 1971 State reapportionment and the combining of the 5th, 6th, and 7th Senatorial Districts by tbe Courts, in the case of Mahan vs. Howell, Virginia Beach has had two Senatorial Districts overlapping with adjacent localities and one floater House District with two adjacent localities. Tbe 5th, 6th, and 7th Senatorial Districts were combined by the District Court because during the 1970 census, all Naval personnel home-ported at the U. S. Naval Station in Norfolk were counted in the 5th Senatorial District even though at least two-thirds lived in other portions of Norfolk and Virginia Beach. The 1980 census regulations will not allow this disparity to take place again. All persons home- ported at Norfolk Naval Base but living within a 50-mile radius will be counted in the City in which they reside. Therefore, it will no longer be necessary to have a multi-member Senatorial District between Norfolk and Virginia Beach. The projected 1980 population for Virginia, as determined by the State Department of Planning and Budget, is 5,313,000. The projected Virginia Beach population in 1980 is 260,000. This should give Virginia Beach at least five State Delegates and two State Senators. Recommendation: The General Assembly should redistrict the Tidewater area to provide for two Senatorial Districts totally within the boundaries of Virginia Beach and five House of Delegates seates totally within the boundaries of Virginia Beach. - 3 6 - PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGES Ill Section 3.09 Advisory Referendums. Alternative A: Eliminate the requirement that City Council must call for an Advisory Referendum if a petition is signed by 25% of the qualified voters in the last election. Replace this with a requirement that the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court must call for the Referendum. Alternative B: Eliminate Section 3.09 from the Charter altogether. Change the last line of Section 6.05:1 to refer to Section 3.05(f). [21 Section 3.04 Compensation of Members of Council. Eliminate dollar amount and amend to allow City Council to establish their own salaries. If this runs into trouble in the General Assembly, bave the dollar amounts changed to $8,000 for Council Members and $10,000 for Mayor. 3 7- ITEM #15950 Upon motion by Councilman Ervin, seconded by Councilman Baum, City Council voted to ADOPT the following Charter amendments, which will be forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration; AND, schedule the Public Hearing as soon as possible. Compensation of Council Members: Alternative A - Eliminate the dollar amount. Council could establish their own salaries. Section 3.09 - Advisory Referendum: Alternative A - Eliminate the requirement that City Council must call for an Advisory Referendum if a petition is signed by 25% of the qualified voters in the last election. Replace this with a require- ment that the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court must call for the Referendum. Voting: 9- 0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan*, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. *COUNCILWOMAN McCLANAN VOICED A VERBAL "AYE". 12/1/80 - 3 8- ITEM #15951 Upon motion by Councilman Ervin, seconded by Councilman Merrick, City Council voted to schedule for Public Hearing the amendment to the CitY Charter concerned with the Direct Election of the Mayor; AND, to include this in tbe Legislative Package. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. - 3 9- ITEM II-E.2 ITEM #15952 Upon motion by Councilwoman Oberndorf, seconded by Councilwoman Henley, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT the Resolution requesting the State Corporation Commission to rescind the temporary authority granted to Yellow Cab of Norfolk, Inc., t/a Brown's Auto Service; AND, to schedule a public hearing at an appropriate time to determine if permanent authority should be granted. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. -40- The Regular Meeting of tbe Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers of tbe City Hall Building on the First day of December, 1980. On motion by Councilman Standing, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, the following Resolution was adopted. R E S 0 L U T I 0 N WHEREAS, Yellow Cab of Norfolk, Inc., trading as Brown's Auto Service, has applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach for a Certif icate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate seven [ 71 for-hire cars in the City of Virginia Beach; and, WHEREAS, the State Corporation Commission has issued temporary authority to Yellow Cab of Norfolk, Inc., to operate the same service in Virginia Beach, a service which is now being provided by for-hire cars and taxicabs properly registered in the City of Virginia Beach; and, WHEREAS, the temporary authority was granted without public hearing or comment upon the request by telephone by the Attorney for the applicant, Thomas W. Moss, with no confirmation of the information solely by the applicant; and, WHEREAS, Council acknowledges the State Corporation Commission's authority to issue this temporary authority, but objects to the procedures followed by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: THAT the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach requests the State Corporation Commission to immediately rescind the temporary authority granted to Yellow Cab of Norfolk, Inc., on the basis that no immediate or urgent need exists for this service and to schedule a public hearing at an appropriate time in the future to determine if permanent authority should be granted. - 41- ITEM II-E.3 ITEM #15953 Mr. Benjamin C. Moore, Director of Community Development, appeared before Council concerning this matter. Upon motion by Councilman Standing, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT the Resolution adopting the Property Rehabilitation Standards for Community Development target neighborhoods. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. tiolland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. -4 2- Requested by: Office of Housing And Community Development A meeting of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers, in the Administration Building, on the First day of December, 1980. On motion by Councilman Standing, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, the following Resolution was adopted: R E S 0 L U T I 0 N WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach is a participant in the Community Development Block Grant Program established by legislation designated as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and continued under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1970: and, WHEREAS, the Housing Assistance Plan is an integral component of that Program; and, WHEREAS, the Housing Assistance Plan requires the statement of a goal of the number of units to be rehabilitated with Block Grant funds; and, WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has a Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program in target neighborhoods; and, WHEREAS, official rehabilitation standards will aid the City to obtain credit towards its Housing Assistance goals; and, WHEREAS, the Minimum Housing Code of the City of Virginia Beach does not provide standards for property rehabilitation; and, WHEREAS, the Citizen Advisory Committee for Housing and Community Development has adopted standards which take into consideration the age, type and caliber of construction in target neighborhoods. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGlNIA BEACH that Property Rehabilitation Standards, dated 8 October 1980 be adopted as the official standards for property rehabilitation with Block Grant Loan and Grant funds in Community Development target neighborhoods; and be it further resolved - 4 3- That these standards become the official standards to be imposed upon property owners requesting assistance under the Community Development Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program; and, be it further resolved That officials of the Office of Housing and Community Development and any other such official as is autborized by the City Manager, is hereby authorized to communicate these standards to target area civic leagues and individuals; and be it further resolved That the City Manager is hereby autborized to forward these standards to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as the official standards of the Community Development Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program and request their immediate approval as rehabilitation standards for Community Development funded housing rehabilitation activities in the City of Virginia Beach. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the First day of December, 1980. -4 4- ITEM II-E.4 ITEM #15954 Upon motion by Councilman Standing, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement to develop and implement a Deferred Compensation Plan for City and School Board employees. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. - 4 5- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CITY AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, City Council is interested in developing and implementing a Deferred Compensation Plan for City and School Board employees; and, WHEREAS, Stanley E. Clarke & Associates, Inc., Retirement Plan Specialists, have offered to assist the City in developing, implementing and servicing a Deferred Compensation Plan; and, WHEREAS, the entire cost of this Plan will be paid by those employees who wish to participate on a voluntary basis in the Plan with compensation to the consultant derived from a deducation from any deferrals at a rate of $1.75 per participant per pay period for the first four years of the Plan; and, WHEREAS, after the first four years of the Plan, utilization of the consultant will be determined on a year-to-year basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH that tbe City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement under tbe above conditions with Stanley E. Clarke and Associates, Inc., to develop, implement and service a Deferred Compensation Plan for City and School Board employees. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the First day of December, 1980. - 4 6- C 0 N S E N T A C E N D A EACH ITEM OF THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS VOTED ON SEPARATELY. ITEM II-F.1 ITEM #15955 Attorney Joseph W. Lawler appeared in behalf of Kings Grant West Upon motion by Councilman Merrick, seconded by Councilman Baum, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to reinvest title in Kings Grant West to the dedicated right-of-way as shown in said deed. Vot ing 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. - 4 7- The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall Building, on the First day of December, 1980. Upon motion by Councilman Merrick, seconded by Councilman Baum, the following Resolution was adopted. R E S 0 L U T I 0 N WHEREAS, on March 5, 1979, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, deleted Old Donation Parkway from the Master Street and Highway Plan; and, WHEREAS, by deed dated August 6, 1975, and recorded in Deed Book 1506, at Page 177, Kings Grant West, a Virginia Partnership, dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach a parcel of land for the proposed Old Donation Parkway; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of Kings Grant West that it be reinvested with title to the dedicated right-of-way as described in said deed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: THAT the City Manager is hereby directed and autborized to proceed to reinvest title in Kings Grant West to the dedicated right-of-way as shown in said deed. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the First day of December, 1980 -4 8- ITEM II-F.2 ITEM #15956 Upon motion by Councilman Kitchin, seconded by Councilman Merrick, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT the Ordinance authorizing certain events conducted on City property to be exempted from the prohibition from working or trans- acting business on Sunday. January 23-25, 1981 S and S Productions HoMe and Energy Show March 15, 1981 Cruise international Travel Expedition Voting 8-1 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin*, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: Meyera E. Oberndorf Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. *COUNCILMAN ERVIN VOICED A VERBAL "AYE". - 4 9- AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN EVENTS CONDUCTED ON CITY PROPERTY TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE PROHIBITION FROM WORKING OR TRANSACTING BUSINESS ON SUNDAY WHEREAS, Section 18.2, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach to designate on a case-by-case basis the events which are exempt from working or transacting business on Sunday; and, WHEREAS, the following City property has been designated by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach for the following dates, as the site for the following events: DATE CITY PROPERTY EVENT January 23-25, 1981 Pavilion S and S Products Home and Energy Show March 15, 1981 Pavilion Cruise International Travel Expedition BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the above-mentioned events are exempt from the prohibition of working or transacting business on Sundays as provided by General Law. That the City Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Commonwealth Attorney. This Ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the First day of December, 1980. - 50- ITEM II-F.3 ITEM #15957 Upon motion by Councilwoman Oberndorf, seconded by Councilwoman Henley, City Council voted to uphold the recommendations of the City Manager and ADOPT on SECOND READING the Ordinance to enter into contracts totaling $301,452 with the Southeastern Tidewater Area Manpower Authority to continue the City's CETA employment programs, and to appropriate these funds. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye. John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. - 51- AN ORDINANCE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TOTALING $301,452 WITH THE SOUTHEASTERN TIDEWATER AREA MANPOWER AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE THE CITY'S CETA EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, AND TO APPROPRIATE THESE FUNDS WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue its Title II and Title IV Employment Programs under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (CETA); and, WHEREAS, the Southeastern Tidewater Area Manpower Authority (STAMA), has issued new contracts to continue funding the City's Programs with funds from the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINlA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager hereby be authorized to enter into contracts with STAMA to continue the CETA employment programs as follows: Estimated Revenue Total From Other Agencies Appropriations Administration $ 18,791 $ 18,791 CETA - Title IID 20 7 , 1 70 20 7 , 1 70 CETA - Title VI 75,491 75,491 Total $ 301,452 $ 301,452 That the appropriations be financed 100% by Federal funds from DOL thru STAMA, with no local match required; and, That a total of three personnel positions for Administration, two hundred seventy personnel positions for CETA - Title II, and fifty-nine personnel positions for CETA - Title VI, be authorized for the duration of the Grants, to be paid from the Grants, with classes of employment to be determined by the City Manager. FIRST READING: November 24, 1980 SECOND READING: December 1, 1980 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the First day of December, 1980. This Ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. 52- 0 R D I N A N C E S F I R S T R E A D I N G S ITEM II-G.I.a ITEM #15958 Upon motion by Councilman Baum, seconded by Councilman Kitchin, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT ON FIRST READING the Ordinance to appropriate funds of $28,400 for the Rudee Inlet Sand Trap dredging project. Voting: 7- 2 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: Reba S. McClanan, and Donald W. Merrick Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. - 53- AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS OF $28,400 FOR THE RUDEE INLET SAND TRAP DREDGING PROJECT WHEREAS, City Council has recognized the need to dredge Rudee Inlet Sand Trap and has appropriated funds for the project; and, WHEREAS, a design adjustment to the project to remove an additional quantity of 10,000 cubic yards of material will allow the sand trap to function mare efficiently and will provide more beach replenishment; and, WHEREAS, the removal of an additional 10,000 cubic yards of material from the trap will cost $28,400. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, that $28,400 be appropriated from the General Fund Balance to the FY 1981 operating budget of the Department of Public Works for the recommended design adjustment to remove an additional 10,000 cubic yards of material from Rudee Inlet Sand Trap. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 1 9-. FIRST READING: December 1, 1980 SECOND READING: - 54- ITEM II-G.I.b ITEM #15959 Upon motion by Councilman Ervin, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT on FIRST READING the Ordinance to accept Grants totaling $30,734.00 from the Division of Justice and Crime Prevention and to appropriate these funds. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr. 5 5- AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT GRANTS TOTALING $30,734.00 FROM THE DIVISION OF JUSTICE AND CRIME PREVENTION AND TO APPROPRIATE THESE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Juvenile Courts wisb to continue to aid runaways and juveniles in learning about the Criminal Justice System; and, WHEREAS, tbe Division of Justice and Crime Prevention (DJCP), has awarded Grants to continue programs to accomplish the above objectives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to accept Grants for the City, and funds are hereby appropriated, for the following purposes: Estimated Revenue Total From Other Agencies Appropriations Runaway Hotline Program $ 25,039.00 $ 25,039.00 Court Docent Program 5,695.00 5,695.00 Total $ 30, 7 34 . 00 $ 30,734.00 That the appropriations be financed by $30,734.00 in estimated revenue from DJCP; and, That a total of one personnel position is hereby authorized for the duration of the Runaway Hotline Grant, to be paid from the Runaway Hotline Grant, with the class of this employee to be determined by the City Manager. FIRST READING: December 1, 1980 SECOND READING: Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 1980. - 56- ITEM II-G.2.a ITEM #15960 Upon motion by Councilman Ervin, seconded by Councilman Standing, City Council voted to uphold the recommendation of the City Manager and ADOPT the Ordinance authorizing exemptions to the Emergency Water Allocation Ordinance of October 13, 1980; AND, the Ordinance to waive imposition of the mandatory Water Allocation Surcharge. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Jobn A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Acting Mayor Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, W. H. Kitchin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Donald W. Merrick, Meyera E. Oberndorf, and Patrick L. Standing Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Clarence A. Holland, and Mayor J. H@nry McCoy, Jr. - 5 7- AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXEMPTIONS TO THE EMERGENCY WATER ALLOCATION ORDINANCE OF OCTOBER 13, 1980 WHEREAS, on October 13, 1980, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, provided for imposition of water allocation measures; and, WHEREAS, Council desires to eliminate undue hardship upon certain customers which may result from such allocation plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, that: The City Manager is authoriz(!d to increase the allotments for the following customers: [11 For hospital/convalescent homes - to the amount necessary for such institution to provide minimum service to their patients. [21 For customers for whom excess water consumption is necessary for treatment of a proven medical condition to the amount necessary to accommodate the treatment of such conditions. [3] For household with four [4] or more resident persons who actually consume less than fifty [501 gallons per person per day - to the amount of such actual consumption. This Ordinance shall be effective on and after the date of its adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the.First day of December, 1980. - 5 8- AN ORDINANCE TO WAIVE IMPOSITION OF THE MANDATORY WATER ALLOCATION SURCHARGE WHEREAS, on October 13, 1980, tbe Council of tbe City of Virginia Beacb, did, by Ordinance, provide for the imposition of mandatory water allocation measures; and, WHEREAS, such Ordinance provided for payment of a surcharge by those customers exceeding their designated allocation; and, WHEREAS, such surcharge was based upon the allocation and surcharge imposed upon the City of Virginia Beach by the City of Norfolk; and, WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Norfolk has changed the effective date of impbsition of such surcharge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the surcharges provided for in the Mandatory Water Allocation Ordinance of Octo,ber 13, 1980, shall be waived and such surcharges shall be effective December 1, 1980, and shall be in effect for at least one complete billing period for each and every meter. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the First day of December, 1980. 5 9- A D J 0 U R N M E N T ITEM II-J.1 ITEM #15961 Upon motion by Councilman Merrick, seconded by Councilman Baum, and by ACCLAMATION, the meeting ajourned at 3:55 p.m. Diane M. Hickman, Deputy City Clerk Ruth Hodges @mith, City Clerk Mayor J.@enry y, J@D. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia 1 December 1980 dmh/asb 12/1/80