The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPTEMBER 12, 1995 MINUTESCity of Virginia Beach "WORLD'S LARGEST RESORT CITY" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF, At Large VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D SESSOMS, JR At Large JOHN A BAUM Blacktoater Borough LINWOOD 0 BRANCH Ill Vzrgmza Beach Borough ROBERT K DEAN Pnncess Anne Borough W W HARRISON JR, Lynnhaven Borough HAROLD HEISCHOBER, At Large BARBARA M HENLEY, Pungo Borough LOUIS R JONES Bayszde Borough NANCY K PARKER At Large LOUISA M STRA YHORN, Kemps~nlle Borough JAMES K SPORE, Czty Manager LESLIE L LILLEY, Czty Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH, CMC / AAE, Ctty Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA OUR N/~'~O~ 281 CITY HALL BUILDING MUNICIPAL CENTER VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA 23456-9005 (804) 427 4303 September 12, 1995 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 10:30 AM ae Bo Co Do CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY OVERVIEW Pam Ltngle, Director, Public Information CHANGE ORDER REPORT John Herzke, City Engineer CORPORATE LANDING TASK FORCE REPORT Donald Maxwell, Director, Economic Development RECOMMENDATIONS re SCHOOL DEFICIT II. AGENDA REVIEW SESSION - Conference Room - 12:30 PM ae Be REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS CITY COUNCIL CONCERNS III. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 1:00 PM ae Be Ce CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION IV. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 2:00 PM ae Be CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf INVOCATION: Sister Barbara Gerwve Hispanic Apostolate of Tidewater Ce De PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL & FORMAL SESSIONS September 5, 1995 G. ADOPT AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA 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. I. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES I · Resolution re issuance by the Virginia Beach Development Authority of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds not to exceed $1,500,000 to Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc., re financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 10,000 square foot manufacturing facility (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). · Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Section 16-35 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach re unsafe structures. · Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Chapter 16 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach by ADDING Article IV, Sections 16-36 and 16-37 re buildings and other structures harboring illegal drug activity. · Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Ordinance 95-2344B re the Virginia Beach Advertising Agency Selection Committee· (Sponsored by Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.) · Ordinance to RESCIND Resolution No. R-83-822 re procurement of Professional Architectural and Engineering Services by the City of Virginia Beach adopted January 3, 1983; and, authorize the City Manager to adopt and implement the Administrative Directive for the procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services· (Deferred August 22, 1995) · Ordinance to authorize WALLACE ODUM, JR., SETH MIZELLE, JOSEPH A. MONACO, and WILLIAM H. RUSSELL, Trustees of the CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER to take and hold title to more than fifteen (15) acres of land within the City as provided by Section 57-12 of the Code of Virginia (1950), subject to certain limitations (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). · Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $46,290 from the Virginia Division of Tourism Cooperative Advertising Fund to the FY 1995-1996 Operating Budget of the Virginia Marine Science Museum re increased marketing of the Museum's expansion; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of Virginia be increased accordingly. · · Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a 83,750 Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts to the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission re supplement funding to Arts Organizations; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of Virginia be increased accordingly· Ordinance to authorize a temporary encroachment into a portion of the right-of-way of Winwood Drive and Laskin Road to CHANTICLEER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP re constructing and maintaining two identification signs (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). J. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING 3:00 PM PLANNING BY CONSENT - To be determined during the Agenda Review Session. i · 0 · · · · RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION (NUMBER ONE) in the February 12, 1990, approved Application of ROBERT and JANET KOTTKE for a Conditional Use Permit for a private school at 5009 Providence Road (KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH). Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of BOBBY DeFORD, III, DeFORD COMPANIES, INC., for a ~ to Section 4.1(m) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires that street right-of-way widths shall be as specified in officially adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan relating to streets in the City Zoning Ordinance; 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all lots created to meet all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance; and 5.5(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance re curbs and gutters as required in the City Zoning Ordinance at 576 Ingram Road (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH)· Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of LITTLE NECK ASSOCIATES for a ~ to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all lots created to meet all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance on property on the East side of Watersedge Drive, 780.65 feet North of Kline Drive (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of MILLER ENTERPRISES for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals at the Northwest corner of Shore Drive and Cherry Place (3304 Shore Drive), containing 19,079 square feet (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH)· Recommendation- · DENIAL Application of EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC., for a Conditional Use Permi% for a motel on the Northeast side of Bonney Road beginning at a point 1214 feet more or less Southeast of Independence Boulevard (4548 Bonney Road), containing 3.385 acres (KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH). Deferred-. August 22, 1995 Recommendation'. APPROVAL Application of GARRETT and DOREEN WANZOR for a Conditional Use P_~ for a home occupation (day care) on the West side of General Hill Drive, 137.66 feet North of Lovell Drive (917 General Hill Drive), containing 30,300 square feet (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). Recommendation: APPROVAL · · . Applications of 0 & R, INC., for Conditional Changes of Zoning District Classifications (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH): From AG-1 Aqricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential District 600 feet North of Painters Lane beginning at a point 150 feet East of Kerr Drive, containing 1.4329 acres; From AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential District on the North and South sides of Painters Lane beginning at a point 520 feet more or less East of Townfield Lane, containing, 6.4785 acres. Deferred: August 22, 1995 Recommendation: DENIAL Application of HANNAFORD BROS. CO., for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential -- D~ to B-2 Community Business District on the North and -- South sides of Bonney Parkway beginning at a point 980 feet more or less West of First Colonial Road, containing 3.65 acres (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of THOMAS R. GIROUX (British-European Antique Imports, Ltd.) for a Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 LiGht Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District on the South side of Dean Drive, -- East of Lynnhaven Parkway (2645 Dean Drive), containing 2.450 acres (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). Deferred: July 11, 1995 August 22, 1995 Recommendation: APPROVAL Ko APPOINTMENTS ADVERTISING AGENCY SELECTION COMMITTEE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS 1. COUNCIL-SPONSORED ITEMS a· bo Resolution to request UNITED STATES CONGRESS NOT close the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S (FCC) NORFOLK OFFICE located in Virginia Beach. (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf and Vice-Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. ) Resolution to request the GOVERNOR'S OFFICE refrain from declaring as SURPLUS, and offering for sale, fifteen (15) acres of Tidewater Community College campus properties (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Ob·md.ri) C. Resolution to support the application of GTE SOUTH in seeking approval of the State Corporation Commission re revising its local exchange, access and intraLATA long distance rates. (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf) N. ADJOURNMENT fl fl * * * fl * * * COUNCIL SESSION OF OCTOBER 10, 1995 RESCHEDULED TO OCTOBER 17, 1995 fl fl fl * * fl * fl fl * fl fl fl * fl * * fl PUBLIC HEARINGS - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER OCTOBER 24, 1995 - 6:00 PM NOVEMBER 14, 1995 - 2:00 PM RE: ELECTION DISTRICTS * * * * * * * * * * 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) fl fl fl fl fl fl * fl * 09/07/95BAP AGENDA\09-12-95. PLN MINUTES VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia September 12, 1995 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Conference Room, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 10:30 A.M. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndoff, Nancy K. Parker, and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Absent: Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Louis R. Jones Robert K. Dean [ENTERED; 11:02 A.M.] [OUT OF CITY~FAMILY VACATION] [ENTERED: 10:38 A.M.] William W. Harrison, Jr. [ENTERED: 11:02 A.M.] -2- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY OVERVIEW 10:30 A.M. ITEM # 39729 Pamela Lingle, Director of Public Information, advised this is the third year of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey. The results of the survey are very positive with a 94.8% of the City's citizens indicating Virginia Beach is a good place to live. The report was coordinated with the Office of Public Information and a committee of experienced employees representing the Quality and Productivity Team assisted in presenting the data. Continental Research Associates, Inc., a Norfolk based marketing research firm, performed the study and analyzed the results. The telephone survey of 500 randomly-selected citizens was conducted during June and July of 1995. Nanci A. Glassman, President - Continental Research Associates, Inc., advised the survey was conducted by choice, with an equal percentage of males and females to afford a balance of gender. This sample ts accurate within a + (plus or minus) 4.4% margin of error. This is an improved margin over many other communities. Ninety-four percent considered Virginia Beach to be a good place to live. This figure is remarkably favorable in relation to many other communities in the United States. Eighty-three percent of Virginia Beach residents felt valued as citizens. This rating is higher than in previous years. Ninety-three percent of those interviewed said that they can conveniently' access City services. Almost 97% felt that City buildings and facilities' are accessible to everyone without regard to race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, or disability. Further, 95.4% believed that City services are available to everyone. Maintaining a safer community has always been a priority for the City. Nearly 90% of the residents surveyed agreed that their own neighborhood is a safe place to live. Resident's overall satisfaction with City services was very high. Nearly 95% of those surveyed were satisfied. This is a 1.8% increase and attests to the continuing efforts of the City to provide residents with the desired services. When asked about specific services, respondents were generally very please~ Virginia Beach is doing an excellent job of meeting residents' expectations. O~er 90% were satisfied with recreation centers and programs, parks, City golf courses, hfeguard services at the beach, public libraries, museums, emergency response by police, fire, and ambulance, police services, fire services, court services, City buildings and facilities, agricultural services, public information services and City volunteer programs. Many municipalities use a threshold of 80% satisfaction as a way of focusing on these items. Comparatively, Virginia Beach is doing an excellent job of meeting citizens expectations. Many communities have only a few services that exceed the 80% threshold. In Virginia Beach, few services fell below the 80% threshold. These services include: construction of City roads (76.1%), maintenance of roads and bridges (67.5%) water and sanitary sewer services (74.9%), attracting more tourism/business expansion (67.5%), and services for needy families (77.2%). September 12, 1995 -3- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURFEY OFF, RVIEW 10:30 A.M. ITEM # 39729 (Continued) Although several areas have improved since 1994, citizens feel the City shouM continue to address them. These services include: City parking facilities (68.8%), planning for residential growth and development (58.6%), services for the homeless (67.7%), storm water drainage (67.3%), and keeping citizens informed on City issues and services (76.8%). These services also fell below the 80% satisfaction threshold for determining areas in need of improvement. Several items were measured for the first time this year. The maintenance of roads and bridges was separated from new construction of City roads. As such, the staff was unable to compare this data to prior years. Also, the services of the Commonwealth Attorneys' office were included. Additional clarifying questions concerning citizens'safety were also added. September 12, 1995 -4- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT POLICY 10:58 A.M. ITEM # 3973O John Herzke, City Engineer, referenced the material distributed to City Council relative Change Orders for Construction Contacts and advised a mistake in the September Eighth memorandum of Ralph A. Smith. Change Order policies and procedures are in place and are carefully followed by the staffs of both departments. Presently the construction contracts are executed by the Purchasing Agent and the design contracts are executed by the City Manager. The attached documents (Attachment #I) entitled "Policy for Construction Contracts, Change Orders and Formal Notification" was signed by City Manager Aubrey V. Watts on December 1, 1989. Mr. Herzke referenced page 2, Item 11, was amended after a Process Improvement Effort in 1992. A report is now given to the City Manager on all construction contracts awarded, out for bid, or being reviewed relative awarding of contract other than the lowest bidder. The Purchasing Agent actually does the execution without having to involve the process of going to the City Manager. More specific guidelines are further detailed in the attached policy entitled "Department of Public Works Policy for Negotiations of Design Contact Fees and Construction Contract Change Orders" (~ttachment #2). This document provides staff with specific direction and procedures for the negotiation of Change Orders. Each Change Order is subjected to detailed scrutiny by a negotiation team and then reviewed by the appropriate chain of command. Statistical data on Change Orders for projects completed over the past three years was depicted on Attachment #3. This data sheet also tabulates the compilation for projects managed by the Department of Public Works. This list includes Roadways, Buddings, Storm Water, and associated projects handled by Public Works. Construction Change Order amounts for these Public Works projects indicate an average of 9.1% of total construction cost. One of the most common occurrences which result in construction contract Change Orders is "changed conditions", which couM not have been reasonably anticipated or foreseen during the design phase. Attachment #3A provides a brief description and explanation for some of the projects which experienced higher than normal values of Change Orders. Attachment tt4 contains the Change Order information for sewer and water projects managed by the Department of Public Utilities. The average construction Change Order rate for these Public Utilities projects is 5.0% of the total construction cost. This lesser Change Order rate for Public Utilities is reflective oft he smaller average project cost amounts and fairly defined project scopes in comparison with many of the Public Works projects. The documents and attachments are hereby made a part of the record Highway, storm drainage and public utility projects are basically unit price contracts. The project plans and specifications have a detailed summary of the estimated quantities of in-place work items such as number of feet of curb and gutter, quantities of pavement, asphalt, etc. where unit prices are obtained from the contractor. The unit price contract then requires that the City have detailed measurements in the field. The City pays only on the measured items. Lump sum contracts are generally used on buiMing projects. Those generally have a lower Change Order rate. The staff of Public Works had very detailed discussions with the staff of Public Utilities. There are fairly significant differences in the types of projects, Public Utilities handles in comparison with Public Works. Generally their scopes are smaller in terms of the overall project prices. Their price per project is generally smaller than many of the Public Works projects. Their facilities are all buried. The only thing showing would be a pump station. On the other hand, Public Works'projects are all visible: Roadways, storm drainage, ditches, buildings, etc. Mr. Herzl~ advised the City Architect is either on the negotiation team for building projects or reviews the results of their work September 12, 1995 -5- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CORPORATE LANDING TASK FORCE REPORT 11:34 A.M ITEM # 39731 Donald Maxwell, Director - Economic Development, expressed appreciation to the Corporate Landing Task Force comprised of: Robert K. Dean Council Member William W. Harrison, Jr. Council Member Glen Tainter Sandbridge/Courthouse Civic Leagues Ken Palmer Development Authority Robin Ray Development Authority Robert Scott Director - Planning Department John Gibson Representative of the Business Community Dick Foster Representative of the Business Community Mark Wawner Economic Development Authority Burrell Saunders CMS Architect The Task Force suggests the following recommendations be implemented in order to demonstrate the Virginia Beach Development Authority's (VBDA) and the City's commitment to making Corporate Landing a successful and viable business location: , Build out Corporate Landing Parkway on an accelerated development schedule. By completing Corporate Landing Parkway, a connection would be made between General Booth Boulevard and Dam Neck Road which would encourage through traffic. This increase of traffic would create a higher level of visibility for Corporate Landing's available property and improve access to the Park. 2. Build out the entrance landscaping at the intersection of Corporate Landing Parkway and General Booth Boulevard and landscape the General Booth Boulevard frontage of the Park. In addition, an annual maintenance fund should be set aside to maintain the landscaping in this entrance and the existing entrance on Dam Neck Road. September 12, 1995 -6- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CORPORATE LANDING TASK FORCE REPORT ITEM # 219731 (Continued). Evaluate the relocation of Lake ~6 to create an additional storm water management system, which would accommodate R & D property and enhance property values and sales. Modify zoning to provide for flexibility in location of use groups in the Office Park (i.e., R & D and MDO). The VBDA should be given the management responsibility for maintaining the master plan and governing the locations of these various issues within the overall Park. Change zoning to allow the VBDA to modify and interpret the design criteria in accordance with the terms stated in the Covenants and Restrictions which is deeded with the land. Evaluate the potential of constructing a City Library in Corporate Landing. It is recommended that a City Library be located adjacent to or as part of retail facilities along General Booth Boulevard Utilize retail development land along General Booth Boulevard to create a demonstration project, which would set a standard for the quality of architecture, site planning, signature and landscape design for retail projects throughout the General Booth Corridor and the entire City. Evaluate the potential for the creation for a second entrance off Dam Neck Road, west of the existing entrance and located at the end of the existing Perimeter Parkway. Modify zoning and appropriate regulations to expand retail uses including large grocery stores and entertainment~recre- ational uses. There are currently three projects which will be under construction within the next thirty days. Al-Anon is under construction (approximately 32,000 square feet - expanding to 50,000 square feet), Oceana Sensors Technology (12,000 square feet - expanding hopefully to 50,000 square feeO and Membership Marketing (11,000 square feet - expanding to 15,000 square feeO. This will create approximately 400 new jobs. The Eighth recommendation is based on the establishment of the Southeastern Expressway. If the Expressway is not initiated then this recommendation should be implemented. September 12, 1995 -7- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING RECOMMENDATIONS RE SCHOOL DEFICIT 12:28 P.M. ITEM # 39732 The City Manager advised recommendations for City Council's consideration addressing the School Board's FY 1994-95 Deficit were faxed to Council Members yesterday, Monday, September 11, 1995. Essentially four options were outlined for dealing with the FY 1994-95 Operating Deficit: OPTION 1: Develop a Deficit Reconciliation Agreement. ,4 deficit reconciliation plan should be developed by the City Manager and the Interim Superintendent which will include: (1) the time-frame within which the deficit would be eliminated (2) examination of the potential for sale or transfer of assets no longer required for educational purposes, as well as (3) potential pursuit of legislative remedy for prior years under- reporting of student membership. OPTION 2: Obtain the Shortfall from 1995-96. This option would require adjustments to the FY 1995-96 budget which is already considered very difficult. For example, this option could require a reduction in salaries or pay raises already granted, or further reduce expenditures on supplies important to the education of our City's children. This option is simply not viable given the reality of the current budget. OPTION 3: Appropriate the Full Amount. Appropriate $7.4-MILLION immediately to cover the deficit retroactive to June 30, 1995. This option, however, may place a burden on the City's taxpayers. OPTION 4: TAX INCREASE If there is a permanent structural problem with the Schools budget, then a tax increase will be required. (A $7.4- MILLION problem wouM translate to a onetime increase in the real estate tax rate of over 4 cents.) The City Manager cited the following recommendations: City Council adopt a resolution directing the City Manager to work with the Schools and requesting the School Board to direct the Interim Superintendent to work with the City, to develop a deficit reconciliation agreement (Option I) that will be sensitive to the education of our City's children, as well as City taxpayers. It should also adopt the other recommendation contained in the policy report concerning financial and budgetary improvements: Provide, by October 15, 1995, a verifiable projection of revenues and expenditures for the FY 1995-1996 budget year, and provide detailed assurances that actions will be taken to ensure that all School funds will be in balance for the FY 1995-1996 budget year. September 12, 1995 -8- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING RECOMMENDATIONS RE SCHOOL DEFICIT ITEM # 39732 (Continued) . Develop a Memorandum of Understanding that will consolidate the School Division's accounting, payroll and purchasing functions into the City Finance Department, all of which should result in substantial savings, as well as improved coordination and financial reporting. Agree to modify the School Division's financial management reporting and control system, and to modify the procedures of the School Board so as to ensure that all fiscal actions of the Division are fully disclosed, that impacts are identified and that the Board has available complete information on the status of all School funds and takes such actions as are appropriate to ensure the financial integrity of the School Division. Develop budget instructions, including formats and timetable, to ensure that the preparation and development of the FY 1995-1996 budget will provide the information needed by the City Manager and the City Council for decision matdng. SCHEDULE City Council ADOPT Resolution School Board response regarding willingness to work on deficit reduction plan. City Manager and Interim Superintendent and staffs develop deficit reduction plan. Schools provide City Council with the status of the 1995- 96 Operating Budget. September 12, 1995 September 19, 1995 September 20 - October 31, 1995 October 17, 1995 Independent Audit Report November 1, 1995 Final Agreement approved by City Council and funds appropriated. November 7, 1995 September 12, 1995 -9- AGENDA REVIEW 1:04 P.M. ITEM tt 39733 SESION Councilman Dean inquired relative the projected annual sales: L1 Resolution re issuance by the Virginia Beach Development Authority of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds not to exceed $1,500,000 to Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc., re financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 10,000 square foot manufacturing facility (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). The City Manager will advise. ITEM It 39734 Councilman Dean referenced concerns: L2. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Section 16-35 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach re unsafe structures. ITEM It 39735 Councilman Dean advised Captain Deans will address concerns during the Formal Session: L3. Ordinance to ~.34END and REORDAIN Chapter 16 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach by ADDING Article IE, Sections 16-36 and 16-37 re buildings and other structures harboring illegal drug activity. ITEM It 39736 The Ordinance re procurement of Professional Architectural and Engineering Services will be further discussed during the Formal Session: L5. Ordinance to RESCIND Resolution No. R-83-822 re procurement of Professional Architectural and Engineering Services by the City of Virginia Beach adopted January 3, 1983; and, authorize the City Manager to adopt and implement the Administrative Directive for the procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services. ITEM It 39737 Council Lady Parker expressed concern relative the approval of another off-site sign. L9. Ordinance to authorize a temporary encroachment into a portion of the right-of-way of Winwood Drive and Laskin Road to CHANTICLEER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP re constructing and maintaining two identification signs (L YNNHA VEN BOROUGH). September 12, 1995 - 10 - AGENDA REVIEW SESION ITEM # 39738 BY CONSENSUS of City Council, the following items shall compose the CONSENT AGENDA: RESOLUTION~ORDINANCES L1. Resolution re issuance by the Virginia Beach Development Authority of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds not to exceed $1,500,000 to Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc., re financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 10,000 square foot manufacturing facility (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). L4. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Ordinance 95-2344B re the Virginia Beach Advertising Agency Selection Committee. (Sponsored by Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.) L6. Ordinance to authorize WALLACE ODUM, JR., SETH MIZELLE, JOSEPH A. MONACO, and WILLIAM H. RUSSELL, Trustees of the CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER to take and hold title to more than fifteen (15) acres of land within the City as provided by Section 57-12 of the Code of Virginia (1950), subject to certain limitations (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). L7. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $4t~290 from the Virginia Division of Tourism Cooperative Advertising Fund to the FY 1995-1996 Operating Budget of the Virginia Marine Science Museum re increased marketing of the Museum's expansion; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of Virginia be increased accordingly. L8. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $3,750 Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts to the Virginia Beach Arts and Hutnanities Commission re supplement funding to Arts Organizations; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of Virginia be increased accordingly. 1.9. Ordinance to authorize a temporary encroachment into a portion of the right-of-way of Winwood Drive and Laskin Road to CHANTICLEER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP re constructing and maintaining two identification signs (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). September 12, 1995 - 11 - AGENDA REVIEW ITEM tt 39739 SESION BY CONSENSUS of City Council, the following items shall compose the PLANNING BY CONSENT AGENDA: J.3. Application of LITTLE NECK ASSOCIATES for a Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all lots created to meet all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance on property on the East side of Watersedge Drive, 780.65 feet North of K line Drive (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). Application of MILLER ENTERPRISES for a Conditional Usc Permff for motor vehicle rental~ at the Northwest corner of Shore Drive and Cherry Place (3304 Shore Drive), containing 19,079 square feet (LYNNHA VEN BOROUGH). J. 6. Application of GARRETT and DOREEN WANZOR for a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation (da_v care.) on the West side of General Hill Drive, 13Z66 feet North of Lovell Drive (917 General Hill Drive), containing 30,300 square feet (L YNNHA VEN BOROUGH). Application of THOMAS R. GIROUX (British-European Antique Imports, Ltd.) for a Change of ~oning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial DistriCt to Conditional B-2 Communi~_ Business District on the South side of Dean Drive, East of Lynnhaven Parkway (2645 Dean Drive), containing 2.450 acres (LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH). Item IV-J. 4 will be WITHDRAWN BY CONSENT. Item IV-J. 9 will be DEFERRED to September 26, 1995 BY CONSENT. ITEM It 39740 Councilman Branch requested an explanation during the Formal Session concerning how the State can sell land Virginia Beach owns: M. NEW BUSINESS Council-Sponsored Items 1.b. Resolution to request the GOVERNOR'S OFFICE refrain from declaring as SURPLUS, and offering for sale, fifteen (15) acres of Tidewattr Community College campus properties (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf) ITEM It 39741 Mayor Oberndorf advised she will be requesting INDEFINITE DEFERRAL: M. NEW BUSINESS Council-Sponsored Items 1. c. Resolution to support the application of GTE SOUTH in seela'ng approval of the State Corporation Commission re revising its local exchange, access and intraLATA long distance rates. (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf) September 12, 1995 - 12 - ITEM # 39742 Mayor Oberndorf called to order the INFORMAL SESSION of the [rlRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chamber, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 1:04 P.M. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf,, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 - 13 - ITEM # 39743 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf entertained a motion to permit City Council to conduct its EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to Section 2.1-344, Code of Virginia, as amended, for the following purpose: pERSONNEL MATTERS; Discussion or consideration of or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees pursuant to Section 2~-344 (A) (~). To Wit: Appointments - Boards and Commissions: Advertising Agency Selection Committee Community Services Board To Wit: Appointments - City Attorney's Office PUBLICLY-HELD PROPERTY: Discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition, or use of real property for public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly-held property pursuant to Section 2.1- 344(A)(3). Corporate Landing LEGAL MATTERS: Consultation with legal counsel or briefings by staff members, consultants, or attorneys pertaining to actual or probable litigation, or other specific legal matters requesting the provision of legal advice by counsel pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(7). Virginia Power Franchise Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessotns, seconded by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council voted to proceed into EXECUTIVE SESSION. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R~ Jones September 12, 1995 - 14 - FORMAL SESION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL September 12, 1995 2:20 P.M. Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the FORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chamber, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 2:20 P.M. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert IC Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf,, Nancy IC Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Absent: Louis 1~ Jones [OUT OF CITY - FAMILY VACATION] INVOCATION: Sister Barbara Gerwve Hispanic Apostolate of Tidewater PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA September 12, 1995 - 15 - Item 1V-E. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIF~ SESSION ITEM # 39744 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Ixtdy Strayhorn, 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 in Executive Session to which this certification resolution applies; AND, Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert lC. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy lC. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 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 # 39743 Page No. 13 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 thc best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from 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. Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE City Clerk September 12, 1995 - 16 - Item IV-E1. MINUTES ITEM # 39745 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council APPROVED the Minutes of the INFO~ ~.ND FO~ SESSION of September 5, 1995. City Council CORRECTED the Minutes of August 22, 1995: ITEM # 39639, Page 9 John S. Waller was incorrectly listed as President of the Red Mill Farm Civic League. He is not President. John Jones is President of the Red Mill Civic League. The paragraph should correctly read: "Councilman Dean advised of the Applications of 0 & R, INC. for Conditional Changes of Zoning District Classification. Councilman Dean advised of a compromise concerning the time. Councilman Dean requested John Jones, President - Red Mill Civic League, be allocated five minutes and John S. Waller, affected home owner, be allocated approximately 15 minutes to speak on behalf of all the residents rather than the approximately thirty residents who were in OPPOSITION speala'ng individually for 3 minutes." Voting: 10-0 Council Members l~'oting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William gE. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy I~ Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 -17- Item 1V-G. ADOPT AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION ITEM # 39746 BY CONSENSUS, City Council ADOPTED: AGENDA FOR THE FORMAL SESSION September 12, 1995 - 18 - Item 1V-L CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 39747 RESOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council APPROVED in one motion Items, 1, 4, t~ 7, ~ and 9 of the CONSENT AGENDA. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert IC Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr.**, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy IC Parker***, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. * and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones *Vice Mayor Sessorns ABSTAINED on Item 1 as his bank does business with Oceana Sensor Technologies **Councilman Harrison ABSTAINED on Item 1 as his law firm has been retained to represent Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc. ***Council Lady Parker voted a VERBAL NAY on Item 9. September 12, 1995 - 19 - Item IV-ICI. CONSENT AGENDA RESOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES ITEM # 39748 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council lxMy Strayhorn, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution re issuance by the Virginia Beach Development Authority of Industritd Development Revenue Bonds not to exceed $1,500,000 to Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc., re financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 10,000 square foot manufacturing facility (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH) Voting: 8-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy I~ Parker and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Abstaining: William gE. Harrison, Jr. and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones Vice Mayor Sessoms ABSTAINED on Item 1 as his bank does business with Oceana Sensor Technologies Councilman Harrison ABSTAINED on Item 1 as his law firm has been retained to represent Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc. September 12, 1995 RI~OLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH APPROVING THE ISSUANCg OF INDUS~L DEV'gLOPMENT Rg~ BONDS TO OCEANA SENSOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") has considered the application of Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the 'Company'), for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 (the "Bonds') to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 10,000 square foot manufacturing facility (all improvements and land being collectively referred to as the "Facility") to be located on approximately 3.5 acres of land located on the east side of Corporate Landing Parkway approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Corporate Landing Parkway and Dam Neck Road in Corporate Landing Industrial Park, and has held a public hearing thereon on September 1, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the 'City"), approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, Pursuant to § 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, and a reasonably detailed summary of the comments, if any, expressed at the public hearing have been filed with the Council of the City; BE IT KESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The Council of the City approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in a principal amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Facility for the benefit of the residents of the City, to the extent required by Section 147(0 of the Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Facility. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company; but, pursuant to Chapter 643, Virginia Acts of Assembly of 1964, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the City nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the City or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. In approving this Resolution, the City, including its elected representatives, officers, employees and agents, shall not be liable and hereby disclaims all liability for any damages to any person, direct or consequential, resulting from the Authority's failure to issue bonds for the Facility for any reason. 4. That this Resolution shall be take effect immediately upon its adoption. Adopted by a majority of a quorum of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on Septemb&'2m, 1995. APPROVFD Ag '~'-~ LEGAL SU??ib, '..:; ;._ ~ Doc No 103615 August 16, 1995 SUMMARY SHEET CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND PROJECT NAME: 2. LOCATION: Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc. Factltty East side of Corporate Landing Parkway 500 feet South of the intersection of Corporate Landing _ParkwaganQ Dam Neck Road in Virginia Beach 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 4. AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE: :10,000~ square foot factlfty for the manufacturing and assembly of dynamic measurement instrumentation that measures pressure,'force and vibration Not to exceed $1,500,000 5. PRINCIPALS: PCB Ptezotronics, Inc. 6. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: Prese. nt zoning classification of Property the b. Is rezoning proposed? C. If so, to what zoning classification? R&D Yes No x FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING DATE: TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA PROJECT NAME.' 0ceana Sensor Technologies, Inc. Facility TYPE OF FACILITY: Manufacturing · · · · · · · · Maximum amount of financing sought Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated merchants' capital (business license) tax per year using present tax rates Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis *58 expected within 5 years. Average annual salary per employee $ 1,500,000 $ 900,000 $ 10,700 $ 16,328 $ N/A $ 1-2 million 17 Initially* $ 27,000 The information contained in this Statement is based solely on facts and estimates provided by the Applicant, and the Authority has made no independent investigation with respect thereto. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Chairman - 20 - Item IV-IC Z RESOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES ITEM # 39749 Upon motion by Councilman Dean, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Section 16-35 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach re unsafe structures. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John ,4. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert ~ Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndoff, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTION 16-35 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, PERTAINING TO UNSAFE STRUCTURES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 16-35 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 16-35. Regulated. (a) This section is adopted pursuant to the powers vested in the City of Virginia Beach by ~t~~ ~..~.v~ ~ ~^~..~ ~.~~ ~..~ section ~ 15.1-11.2 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (b) Upon determination by the code administrator that any building~ wall or any other structure, or portion thereof, ~ f~ h .... d or ~ h~"~ ~,, o~ ~fe endanger the public health or safety of other residents of the city, such building, wall or structure shall be declared "- ~ occupancy unsafe. (c) (1) Except as set forth in volume II of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, ~Rotice that a building~ wall or structure has been declared unsafe "-~..~ ~ occupancy shall be sent by registered or certified mail~ return receipt requested, or by pcrscnal delivcry to thc ......... ~ ~- thc occupant of thc ~"~ .................... ~ or structurc; g~vcn ~= ....... ~ rcg~ ............ to the last-known address of the owner and pcstcd ~ ....... ~ ........ .....~.. ~..~ ~"~~..~~ .... ~ structure, published in a newspaper having general circulation in the city, once a week for two successive weeks; provided however, that the second publication shall not be sooner than one calendar week 38 after the first publication. In addition thereto, notice 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 shall be mailed to all holders of current mortgages or deeds of trust upon the property as shown by the records of the clerk of the circuit court. (2) Such notice shall state with reasonable particularity the defects or other conditions of the building, wall or structure which render it ..... t for occupancy unsafe, and shall specify the period of time within which repairs or corrections shall be made or the building, wall or structure, or a portion or portions thereof, demolished and removed. Such period of time shall not be less than is reasonably required by the exercise of due diligence for the required repairs or corrections to be made, or for the building, wall or structure, or portion or portions thereof, to be demolished and removed. not' provided for +~ prcmiscs S ~-~-~ of s~ch acard, ~ ...... ~ it shall be .~t ~f th~ for ~'~' ~,'"' (d)_ In the event the owner of a building, wall or structure who has been served with the notice provided for in subsection (c) hereof shall fail to comply with the terms of such notice within the time specified therein, the code administrator~ through his own agents or employees shall be authorized to close or 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 order the building, wall or structure, or portion thereof, to be demolished and the debris removed, at the cost of the owner· Such cost shall include an administrative fee in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). No building, wall or structure, or portion thereof, shall be demolished by order of the code administrator for at least thirty (30) days following the later of the return of the receipt or newspaper publication as provided for in subsection (c) hereof, unle~c such ~ .... ~ ~'~'~ ........... (o) hcrccf. In in tha manner ~ ....... fcr in · ..~ .I. q,-,. J. J ~,. v~ %.-A A~ %.~ .~. ~_ w~.. %.~ .~. ~.. w~ v %,~t ~ %,..,0 J. A & %.. any d~t ......... t .... of thc ccdc~,,,~,,~~ ~ .... t~ o,a,.,.,..,, have thc ~.,.-~.a,.. to .......~ ..... twenty-eric (21) days ~f ~" ~ (e) Any person who shall fail to comply with a notice provided for in subsection (c) hereof, or ~'hc shall ccntinua tc 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 ~ ~ ...... ~ ~" ~^ ~^ ~'-~~- shall be guilty of misdemeanor punishable in accordance with the provisions of section 16-11 thereof. Any violation of the provisions of this section may also be enjoined by the circuit court at the suit of the code administrator. ~ (f) All costs and expenses incurred by the city for demolishing a building, wall or structure pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be chargeable to and paid by the of property owner ~ .......... ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ...... at thc opt~ of the ~" and may be collected as real estate taxes and levies are collected~ in ..... ~ ....... ~ article II of chapter 35, section 35 2S ct seq. Any such charges which remain unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid local taxes and enforceable in the same manner as provided in sections 58.1-3940 et seq., and 58.1-3965 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. ~i+ (q) For purposes of this section, the term "code administrator" shall mean the ~ .... ~-~ code enforcement administrator of the department of housing and neighborhood preservation and his respective assistants and deputies. 131 132 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach on this 12 day of September 1995. 133 134 135 136 CA-6039 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/16-035.OR AUGUST 24, 1995 R2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Departm~i;~t of Hous,n~ and ~ Neighborhood Preservahon APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Department of Law - 21 - Item IV- IC 3. RESOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES ITEM # 39750 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Chapter 16 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach by ADDING Article IH, Sections 16-36 and 16- 37 re buildings and other structures harboring illegal drug activity. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baton, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert IC Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndoff, Nancy IC Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND ORDAIN CHAPTER 16 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, BY ADDING ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 16-36 AND 16-37 PERTAINING TO BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES HARBORING ILLEGAL DRUG ACTIVITY BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Chapter 16 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is hereby amended by adding Article IV, Sections 16-36 and 16-37, to read as follows: ARTICLE IV. BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES HARBORING ILLEGAL DRUG ACTIVITY Sect. 16-36. Definitions. The following words and terms used in this Article shall have the following meanings, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise: "Affidavit." The affidavit prepared by the chief of police or his designee in accordance with subdivision (b)l. of section 16-37 hereof. "Controlled substance." Illegally obtained controlled substances or marijuana, as defined in section 54.1-3401 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. "Corrective action." The taking of steps which are reasonably expected to be effective to abate drug blight on real property, such as removal, repair or securing of any building, wall or other structure. "Drug blight." A condition existing on real property which tends to endanger the public health or safety of residents of the city and is caused by the regular presence on the property of persons under the influence of controlled substances or the regular 32 33 34 35 use of the property for the purpose of illegally possessing, manufacturing or distributing controlled substances. "Owner." The record owner of real property. "Property." Real property. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Sect. 16-37. Buildings and other structures harboring illegal drug activity regulated. (a) This section is adopted pursuant to the powers vested in the city by section 15.1-11.2:1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (b) The city may undertake corrective action with respect to property which has been determined to be the situs of drug blight in accordance with the procedures described herein: 1. The chief of police or his designee shall execute and forward to the director of housing and neighborhood preservation an affidavit, citing this section and section 15.1- 11.2:1 of the Code of virginia, as amended, to the effect that (i) drug blight exists on the property and in the manner described therein; (ii) the city has used diligence without effect to abate the drug blight; and (iii) the drug blight constitutes a present threat to the public's health, safety or welfare. 2. The director of housing and neighborhood preservation or his designee shall then send a notice to the owner 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 of the property, to be sent by regular mail to the last address listed for the owner on the city's assessment records for the property, together with a copy of such affidavit, advising that (i) the owner has up to thirty (30) days from the date thereof to undertake corrective action to abate the drug blight described in such affidavit and (ii) the city will, if requested to do so, assist the owner in determining and coordinating the appropriate corrective action to abate the drug blight described in such affidavit. 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 3. If appropriate corrective action is not undertaken during such thirty (30) day period, the director of housing and neighborhood preservation or his designee shall send by regular mail an additional notice to the owner of the property, at the address stated in the preceding subdivision, stating the date on which the city may commence corrective action to abate the drug blight on the property, which date shall be no earlier than fifteen (15) days after the date of mailing of the notice. Such additional 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 notice shall require that the property, if occupied, be vacated and secured as a hazard to the public health and safety, and also reasonably describe any other corrective action contemplated to be taken by the city. Upon receipt of such notice, the owner shall have a right, upon reasonable notice to the city, to seek equitable relief, and the city shall initiate no corrective action while a proper petition for relief is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) If the owner of such property refuses or fails to take timely corrective action pursuant to this section, and the city undertakes corrective action with respect to the property after complying with the provisions of subsection (b), the costs and expenses thereof shall be chargeable to and paid by the owner of such property and may be collected by the city as taxes and levies are collected. (d) Every charge authorized by this section with which the owner of any such property has been assessed and which remains unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property with the same priority as liens for unpaid local taxes and enforceable in the same manner as provided in Articles 3 (§ 58.1-3940 et seq.) and 4 (§ 58.1-3965 et seq.) of Chapter 39 of Title 58.1, Code of Virginia, as amended. (e) If the owner of such property takes timely corrective action pursuant to this section, the city shall deem the drug blight abated, shall close the proceeding without any charge or cost to the owner, and the director of housing and neighborhood preservation or his designee shall promptly provide written notice to the owner that the proceeding has been terminated satisfactorily. The closing of a proceeding shall not bar the city from initiating a subsequent proceeding if the drug blight recurs. (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge or waive any rights or remedies of an owner of property at law or in equity. 104 105 106 107 108 109 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the 12 day of September , 1995. CA-5653 ORDIN\DATA\PROPOSED\16-36ETC.ORD JULY 14, 1995 R-6 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT De of Police a nb~da~N~T~b Ior°'hf o(od~~prl'~sgervat i on 118 119 120 121 122 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Department of Law ; Item IV-~ 4. CONSENT AGENDA RESOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES ITEM # 39751 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Ordinance 95-2344B re the l~trginia Beach Advertising Agency Selection Committee. (Sponsored by Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.) 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members ¥oting Aye: John A. Baton, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy I~ Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R~ Jones September 12, 1995 Sponsored by Councilmember William D. Sessoms, Jr. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ORDINANCE 95-2344B PERTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VIRGINIA BEACH ADVERTISING AGENCY SELECTION COMMITTEE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WHEREAS, The City's existing contracts for advertising and public relations services, and all renewals thereof, expire on December 31, 1995; WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that advertising and public relations services be procured from a single agency effective January 1, 1996; WHEREAS, in the next several months, City staff will be drafting a formal Request for Proposals ("RFP") to solicit proposals from qualified agencies interested in providing such services to the City; WHEREAS, on August 1, 1988, City Council established an Advertising Advisory Review Committee (RES-88-01682), and appointed representatives of the private sector to examine and evaluate proposals received in response to the City's RFP for advertising services; and WHEREAS, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development has recommended that City Council establish a new Advertising Agency Selection Committee, comprised of designated private sector representatives, for the purpose of evaluating the recommendation of City staff that advertising and public relations services be procured from a single agency, reviewing and approving the RFP prepared by staff, reviewing and evaluating the proposals received in response to the RFP, and selecting and recommending to City Council an agency or agencies to provide advertising and public relations services to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That City Council hereby establishes the Virginia Beach Advertising Agency Selection Committee; 2. That the Committee shall be comprised of the following members: 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 ae b. Motel Association; c. Association; de The Chairman of the Resort Leadership Council; The President of the Virginia Beach Hotel and The President of the Virginia Beach Restaurant The Chairman of the Virginia Beach Economic Development Advisory Commission; e. The Chairman of the Virginia Beach Division of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce; f. The President of the Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation, Inc.; g. The Director of the Department of Convention and Visitor Development; h. The Director of the Department of Economic Development; and i. The Director of the Department of Museums. In the event either of the aforementioned Presidents, or the aforementioned Chairmen is unable to serve on the Committee, 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 the Vice-President, or Vice-Chairman shall serve in his or her stead. In the event both the President and Vice-President, and/or the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, are unable to serve on the ~ommittee, the qoverninq body of the appropriate orqanization shall designate a representative to serve on the Committee. In the event the Director of a City Department is unable to serve, the City Manager shall appoint a representative to serve on the Committee in his or her stead. 3. That the purpose of the Committee shall be to evaluate the recommendation of City staff that the advertising and public relations services be procured from a single agency, to review and approve the RFP for advertising and public relations services prepared by City staff, to review and evaluate the proposals received in response to the RFP, and to select and recommend to City Council an agency or agencies to provide advertising and public relations services to the City; 4. That the Committee shall automatically dissolve upon the City's award of a contract or contracts for the provision of advertising and public relations services to the City; and 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 5. That Resolution RES-88-01682 (attached) adopted by City Council on August 1, 1988, is hereby rescinded. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 12 day of September 1995 CA-6078 ORDIN \NONCODE\ADSEL2. ORD R-1 PREPARED: 09/07/95 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ARC}~ITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACh{, VIRGINIA SECTION. 1. It shall be the policy of the City of Virginia Beach to announce projects, select consultants and negotiate agreements for architectural and engineering services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification for services required and a~ fair and reasonable fees. SECTION 2. Architectural or engineering service~ are those professional consulting services associated with research, development, design and construction, alteration, o~ repair of real property, as well as incidental services that members of these professions and those in their employ may logically or Justifiably perform including, but not limited to, studies, investigations, surveys, evaluations, consultations, planning, programming, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, cost estimates, inspections, and other related services. SECTION 3. Architects and Engineers are encouraged to submit statements of current qualifications and performance data for registra- tion and reference purposes. The Federal Government Standard Form 254 and Standard Form 255 may be included in this data. These statements will be kept by the City and used as a basis for preliminary selection. The City may announce projects which require architectural or engineering services to qualified firms on file with the City by publicizing descriptions periodically in newspapers, by posting announcements of projects on a bulletin board, or any other methods to publicize the need for co,nsulting services. SECTION 4. After expressions of interest are received, a review shall be made by the using agency of all firms responding to determine those firms best qualified for the services desired. A minimum of three firms shall be selected £o~' interview from among those responding or on file. The interview, for selection purposes, shall be performed by a Committee of five (5) individuals, a~-teas~-~we-~)-e~-whemr-~imet~4img ~Re-Ghai~mam}r-s~att-~e-a-tieemse4-Emginee~r The Committee shall ATTACHMENT # 1 consist of ~he-Gi~y-Engimee~r-~he-U~iti~ies-Emgi~ee~?-~hei~-~we-(P~} Ass is ~an~s-amd-a-~ep~esen~a ~ive-sf-~e-Ageneyr--Ei~he~-~he-Gi~y E~ginee~-8~-~he-U~iti~ies-E~ginee~-shatt-ae~-as-~ai~mam-~f-~he Cs~uni~eer two individuals from Public Utilities, two individuals from Public Worlcs, and a representative of thc. Agency for which the project is being provided. At least one member of Public Works and one of Public Utilities shall be a licensed Engineer. The Committee members shall be appointed by the Director of their respective Departs- merits. A licensed Engineer of Public Works or Public Utilities shall. act as Chairman of the Committee. A member of the Ci..t.y. Manager's Office shall also serve on the Co~unittee as an ex-officio member. Factors to be considered for selection purposes are: 1. The expressed desire of the firm to perform the services. 2. Professional qualifications of the staff or design team to be assigned to this project. 3. The extent of s~ecialized experience of the firm in the type of wor~c required. . 4. The capacity of the firm to accomplish the work in the required time. 5. The degree of familiarity of the firm and the particular project requirements. 6. Past pe_rformance of the firm on similar projects in general and City projects in particular. 7.Experience and qualification of any consultants to be used by the architect and engineer. 8. Volume of work_ previously awardej to the firm by the City. 9. Evidence of cost control effectiveness, 10. Proximity of the firm to the project, Tl~e selected firm shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works or Public Utilities, as appropriate, for his concurrence. Afterwh~ch,. a.recqmm.e, ndation will bm sent to the City Manager for . final approval. Section 5. Negotiations of tile Agreemeng shall bm initiated with the selected firm only, and shall be conducted by the representative of Public Works or Public Utilities, as appropriate. Should saris- ~/3/83 factory terms fail to be reached, negotiations with that firm shall be terminated and initiated with a ~e~ond, then third firm, until a satisfactory agreement is reached. Negotiations shall be based on a definitive Bcope of work and period of performance with attendant manpower, material, and service estimates. Established fee schedules or curves shall be used for comparative purposes only, and not as a basis of Justification of any proposed fee. Section 6. Architectural and engineering agreements shall be executed by the proper City official. Section 7. Upon completion of the project, an evaluation of the performance of the architectural and engineering firm may be placed on file to indicate excellence or deficiencies in the service rendered. This information shall be maintained on file for reference purposes in future project awards. Further, it shall be open for review by the subject firm who may tender any observations felt to be appropriate as a matter of record in such files. Section 8. The above procedures do not apply to: - 1. Contracts involving estimated fees of less than $1o, ooo. 2.Contracts administered by another agency to which the City is signatory. 3. Contracts of an emergency nature. This resolution shall become ~ffective upon date of adoption. ADOPT'~D by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the Third day of January 1983. - 23 - Item IV-K. 5. RESOLUTIONS~ORDINANCES ITEM # 39752 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council ADOPTED, AS AMENDED: Ordinance to RESCIND Resolution No. R-83-822 re procurement of Professional Architectural and Engineering Services by the City of Virginia Beach adopted January 3, 1983; and, authorize the City Manager to adopt and implement the Administrative Directive for the procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services. *Page 1 of the Administrative Directive under Section 3.0 procedure(s) to Accomplish Directives Section ,4 shah read as follows: A selection committee shall be established by the Director of Public Works (DPW) or the Director of Public Utilities (DPU), or their designee, depending on the department for which the work is intended to be performed. The Purchasing Agent, or designee, may attend al.__~l selection committee meetings as a non-voting member._ l,~, ~' ......... i~',,~',~,,,,,-' ..... ,,,' z#,,,u,,~c, ,,o ,Fy, ~,y,,u,~. The committee shall include two representatives from DPU, two from DPW, and a representative from the agency for which the project is to be provided. At least one representative from both DPW and DPU shall be a Hcensed engineer or licensed architect. A licensed engineer or architect from the agency for which the services originated shall chair the committee. Notwithstanding the above. T-the .a_ -'__--L_J ......... L membership of the committee may be altered ,~, ,,,,~,,,,,~ ,d hoc ,,,~,,,~,~, ~ as deemed necessary or appropriate by the appropr~t~ applicable department head or the City Manager. Section 0 on Page 3 shall be amended as follows: The contacting agency may develop a change order procedure and may approve change orders within the original scope of work as long as accumulated change orders to do not exceed 25% of the original contract amount. All such change orders shall comply with .financial requirements of advanced certification of funds. Change orders that exceed 25% of the original amount shall be forwarded to the Pm'ctmsgrg dgent City Manager for execution. All change orders shall be routed in the same manner as the original contract. September 12, 1995 - 24 - Item IV- lC. 5. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES ITEM # 39752 (Continued) Voting: 9-1 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert IC Dean, William W Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: Nancy I~ Parker Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones Councilman Dean stated, for the record, he was in opposition to a 25% threshold re change orders. September 12, 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. R-83- 822 PERTAINING TO THE PROCUREMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SUCH SERVICES WHEREAS, by resolution adopted January 3, 1983 (Resolution No. R-83-822), City Council established a policy for the procurement of professional architectural and engineering (A & E) services for the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, although this policy has served the City well over the years, City staff recognized an opportunity and need to improve the administrative process for the selection of A & E firms, and the award of A & E contracts; and WHEREAS, as a result of process improvement efforts underway since 1993, City staff have developed, and recommend adoption and implementation of, a new policy for the procurement of A & E services to replace the 1983 policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Resolution No. R-83-822, adopted by City Council on January 3, 1983, is hereby rescinded. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to adopt and implement the Administrative Directive for the Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated by reference. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 12 day of September , 1995. 31 32 33 34 CA-6055 ORDIN \NONCODE \A& E. ORD R-1 PREPARED: 08/16/95 ~ ~APP D AS ....,NT APPRO GAL Administrative Directive EXHIBIT A Title: Administrative Directive for the Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services Date of Adoption: I Date of Revision: I Index Number: AD 6.05 Page 1 of 5 1.0 .Purpose and Need 2.0 3.0 The City of Vlrg,nla Beach desires to prowde an efficient and effective procedure for the procurement of Architectural and Eng,neering {A/E) Serwces that complies with both City and State legal requirements while assuring accountab~hty and fiscal respons,blllty. The p,mary focus of operational decisions w~ll be w,th the Departments of Pubhc Works and Pubhc Ut~ht~es. Financial checks and balances w~ll be performed by the Finance Department w,th overview of the procurement processes, and contract execution, by the Purchasing Division. Further, this Administrative Directive will reduce the workload of the City Manager and Chief of Staff by utilizing the Purchasing Agent's authority to execute the contracts. This Administrative Directive w~ll define the procurement procedures beginning with drafting the Scope of the Work through execut,on of the contract. Th~s Administrative Directive shall supersede prior A/E pohc~es and procedures ~ncludlng, without hm,tatlons, the A/E Resolution adopted by City Council on January 3, 1983. Direcfiv~ It shall be the policy of the City of V~rg~n~a Beach to pubhcly announce requirements for architectural and engineering services whenever estimated fees are predicted to exceed $20,000, in order to ensure openness, encourage competition, maintain objectlwty of contractor selections in a fair and impartial manner, and provide for negotiation of contracts on the bas~s of demonstrated competence and quahficat~ons for the type of serwces required at fair and reasonable p,ces. Procedure(s) to Accomplish Directive A. A selection committee shall be established by the Director of Public Works (DPW) or the D~rector of Public Ut~ht~es (DPU), or their designee, depending on the department for which the work ~s intended to be performed. The Purchasing Agent, or designee, may attend all select,on committee meetangs as a non-voting member. The committee shall anclude two representatives from DPU, two from DPW, and a representative from the agency for which the project is to be provided. At least one representative from both DPW and DPU shall be a hcensed engineer or licensed architect. A hcensed engineer or architect from the agency for which the serwces o,g~nated shall chair the committee Notwithstanding the above, the membership of the committee may be altered as deemed necessary or approp,ate by the applicable department head or the C~ty Manager. a. The selection committee shall prepare a draft of a written request for proposal (RFP) mdlcat,ng in general terms the required serwces, the criteria to be used for proposal evaluation, and any special conditions, including any unique capabilities or qualifications required. The crite,a to be considered for evaluation and selection shall be as follows: 1. Professional quahficat~ons of the staff or design team to be assigned to the project. 2. The extent of spec~ahzed expe,ence of the firm ~n the type of work requared. 3. The capacity of the firm to accomplish the work ~n the required time. T~tle: Administrative D~rect~ve for the Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Serwces Date of Adoption: I Date of Revision: I Index Number: AD 6.05 Page 2 of 5 C! D. E. F. G. Ho J. e The degree of familiarity of the firm with the particular project's requirements, and the conceptual approach proposed by the firm to address these requirements. 5, The quality of the past performance of the firm on s~m~lar projects ~n general and C~ty projects ~n particular. e Experience and qualifications of any consultants to be used by the architect and eng,neer. , Evidence of cost control effectiveness. el Current work volume of the firm that could affect the ab~hty of the firm to complete the work in the required t~me frame. 9. Access~b~hty of the project team to the project s~te. The select,on committee shall meet to rewew the RFP document and assign evaluation criteria weights prior to receipt of proposals. The contracting agency (DPW or DPU, as apphcable) shall estabhsh an RFP file and maintain cop~es of all pertinent documentation. The contracting agency shall place an advertisement ~n a local newspaper of general c~rculat~on for publication a m~n~mum of ten days prior to the proposal closing date. Further, a copy of the RFP shall be forwarded to the Purchasing D~ws~on for posting on the C~ty's b~d board, and to the T~dewater Regional M~nor~ty Purchasing CouncIl The contracting agency shall sohc,t proposals from a hst of firms who have ~nd~cated ~nterest in types of serwces solicited and from all part,es expressing ,nterest as a result of advertisement and posting The contracting agency shall ma,nta~n a log of all firms who are prowded cop~es of the RFP The contracting agency may conduct a pre-proposal conference ~f ~t determines ~t w~ll add value to the select~on process. The contracting agency shall receive all proposals at the des,gnated location on or before the date and t~me stated ~n the RFP. Proposals shall be date and t,me stamped Late proposals shall be returned to the offeror unopened. The select~on comm,ttee shall review and evaluate the proposals based on the criteria set forth in the RFP, prepare a ranking matrix, and select at least two firms for interviews. The committee shall engage ~n ~nd~wdual d~scuss~ons wIth two or more offerors deemed fully quahfled and responsible to provide the required serwces. After d~scuss~ons, a hst of quahfled offerors shall be developed, ~n priority order, ranked by their quahflcat~ons to perform the desired serwces. The select,on of the top- ranked offeror shall be approved by the apphcable department head or designee The contracting agency negotiation team shall negotiate w~th the top-ranked offeror. If a contract satisfactory and advantageous to the C~ty can be negotiated at a fair and reasonable price, the award shall be made to that offeror. Otherwise, negotiations w~th that offeror shall be formally terminated and negotiations w~ll be conducted w~th the second ranked offeror, and so on until such a contract can be negotiated at a fair and reasonable price. Should the select~on committee determine ~n writing and ~n ~ts sole d~scret~on that only one offeror fully qualified or that one offeror ~s clearly more highly qualified and suitable than other offerors, contract may be negotiated and awarded to that offeror Title: Administrative Directive for the Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Serwce$ Date of Adoption: I Date of Rewslon: ! Index Number: AD 6.05 Page 3 of 5 . 5.0 Negotiations shall be based on a definitive scope of work and period of performance with lump sum costs, unit costs and attendant labor, sub-consultant and reimbursable estimates. Established fee schedules or curves shall be used for comparative purposes only, and not as a bas~s of justdlcat~on of any proposed fee. KJ The contracting agency shall prepare contract documentation ~ncorporatlng all general terms and conditions and all agreed upon terms and conditions. The contract is to be approved as to content by the contracting agency and executed by the selected firm. L. The contracting agency shall forward to the Purchasing Agent the ranking matrix, a negotiations report, and a contract executed by the selected firm. M. The contract shall be routed, by the Purchasing Agent, to the Department of Finance, Risk Management D~ws~on, and the C~ty Attorney's Office for all appropriate approvals. Upon successful routing, the contract will be executed by the Purchasing Agent. N, The Purchasing D~vlslon shall forward the fully-executed contract to the contracting agency. The contracting agency shall be responsible for the d~str~but~on of cop~es to the appropriate part~es, and for maintaining a file of all procurement documentation Oo The contracting agency may develop a change order procedure and may approve change orders within the original scope of work as long as accumulated change orders to do not exceed 25% of the original contract amount. All such change orders shall comply w~th financial requirements of advanced certification of funds Change orders that exceed 25% of the or~g~nal amount shall be forwarded to the C~ty Manager forexecut~on All change orders shall be routed ~n the same manner as theor~g~nal contract. Po The contracting agency shall prowde notification of award to the successful firm, d~str~bute appropriate documents, and administer the contract Go Upon completion of the project, an evaluation of the performance of the A/E firm may be placed on file. Th~s ~nformat~on w~ll be maintained on file for reference purposes ~n future project awards. Further, ~t shall be open for review by the subject firm who may tender any appropriate observations as a matter of record ~n such files. Responsibility and Authority Pursuant to Section 2-214.1 (a) of the Code of the C~ty of V~rg~n~a Beach, the PurchasIng D~ws~on shall be responsible for the procurement of all materials, supphes, equipment and serwces for all c~ty departments and agencies exclusive of the city school system. Section 2 214 2 (c) requires that all rules, regulations, and pohc~es shall be approved by the C~ty Manager and the C~ty Attorney. Further, Section 2.215.1 (a) specifically defines the respons~b~ht~es under the Purchasing Agent's control to ~nclude professional serwces which encompasses architectural and professional engineering serwces As a result, the Purchasing Agent, w~th the joint cooperation of the D~rectors of Pubhc Works and Public Utilities, have developed th~s Administrative D~rect~ve as a means to ~mprove adm~mstrat~ve efficiency, and to enhance accountability and fiscal responsibility. Definitions A. Professional Serwces means work performed by an ~ndependent contractor w~thm the scope of the practice of accounting, architecture, land surveying, landscape architecture, law, medicine, optometry or professional engineering Title: Administrative D~rect~ve for the Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Serwces Date of Adoption: I Date of Revision: ! Index Number: AD 6.05 Page 4 of 5 6.0 al A.r.chdlectural/En~llneerin~ (A/E) Services means work performed by an independent firm licensed for architecture, land surveying, landscape architecture or professional engineering as contained w~thin the deflmt~on of professional serwces. Co Compel;~t~v~. N.ego. t~atrons for. Prg. fes$~onal Serwcc~; means a method of contractor select~on which includes (1) the issuance of a written request for proposal, (2) public not,ce of at least ten days, (3) receipt of proposals, (4) evaluation, (5) discussions w~th two or more offerors, (6) ranking, and (7) negotiations with the top-ranked offeror to achieve a fair and reasonable contract. D. Request for Proposal {RFPJ means a competitive sohc~tat~on document that ~ndlcates in general terms that which is sought to be procured, specifying the factors which will be used in evaluating the proposals received, and containing or ~ncorporat~ng by reference apphcable contractual terms and conditions, including any umque capabd~t~es or quahflcat~ons which wdl be required. E. Contract A~enc¥ means e~ther the Department of Pubhc Works or the Department of Public Utd~t~es which w~ll be the recipient of the required A/E serwces Specific Requirements A. Th~s Administrative D~rect~ve shall pertain only to the procurement of AlE services for City agencies. B. The Administrative D~rect~ve shall not apply to' 1. A/E procurements w~th fee estimates of less than $20,000. 2. A/E contracts adm~mstered by agencies other than C~ty agencies to which the c~ty ~s s~gnatory. . A/E procurements that are deemed emergencies as defined ~n Section 2-215 2 of the C~t¥ Procurement Ordinance . A/E procurements that are approved as sole source as defined ~n Section 2-215.2 of the Procurement Ordinance. 5. Procurements for professional serwces other than A/E Services. 6. Procurements for non-professional services. C, This Adm~mstrat~ve D~rect~ve shall no1; prohibit contracting agencies from developing ~nternal procedures for control and adm~mstrat~on of th~s Directive. D, The Departments of Pubhc Works or Pubhc Utd~t~es may estabhsh ~nternal procedures for the procurement of A/E Serwces when the estimate for such serwces does not exceed $20,000. Such procedures shall comply w~th the spirit of the V~rgm~a Pubhc procurement Act (VPPA) and the C~ty of Virglma Beach Procurement Ordinance. This Adm~mstrat~ve D~rective has been drafted to ensure comphance w~th the C~ty of V~rg~n~a Beach Procurement Ordinance (D~vls~on 2.5, Section 2-214 through 2-224 of the City Code) and the V~rgmla Public Procurement Act (Chapter 7, Section 11-35 through 11-80 of the Code of V~rglma). Any future mandatory changes ~n e~ther law shall be deemed to be included in th~s D~rect~ve w~thout need for revision. F, Interpretation of th~s Administrative Directive shall be the respons~bd~ty of the Purchasing Agent, following consultation w~th the C~ty Attorney and the D~rectors of Pubhc Works and Public Utd~t~es. Title: Administrative Directive for the Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services Date of Adoption: IDate of Revision: Index Number: Page 5 of 5 AD 6.05 Approved as to Content: Patricia A. Phillips, Director Department of Finance Date Date Date Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: ~'~y Attorney Date Reviewed by: James K. Spore, C~ty Manager Date Policy Report Procurement of Architectural & Engineering Services BACKGROUND: On January 3, 1983, City Council, by resolution, established a policy for the procurement of professional architectural and engineering (A/E) services by the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. (Attachment #1). This policy has served the City well over the years by providing a systematic and equitable procedure for the procurement of professional services. The keystone of the policy is the selection of A/E firms on the basis of their qualifications to deliver the services sought, with a goal of a cost-effective design. Even with a well-established and functional policy such as this one, however, there is always room for improvement. Beginning in late 1993, staff from the Departments of Public Works, Public Utilities, and Finance, guided by the applicable department heads, have worked together as a process improvement team to develop an improved policy and related procedures. OPTIONS/CONSIDERATIONS: The need to revise the 1983 policy stemmed from the need to improve the administrative process for selecting A/E firms and awarding A/E contracts. The current process requires final approval of selection and contracts by the City Manager. There is also a need to reduce the processing time for A/E selections and the associated negotiations leading to a signed contract. A review of the individual steps in the procurement of A/E services, and examination of 12 sample projects occurring during the two-year period beginning in 1993, revealed that an average of 71 days elapsed between the date of posting of Requests for Proposals (RFP) and approval of the recommended selection. From that point, contract negotiations begin and an average of another 60 days elapses before contract execution. Basically, a four to five month period is involved from the time the RFP is issued until A/E contract execution. During the process team's development of the proposed A/E policy revisions, concerns were expressed by members of City Council regarding price considerations during A/E selections. The present procedure, which is in accordance with state requirements for procurement of professional services, provides for contract negotiations after A/E selection. Negotiations are undertaken with the selected firm and, if unsuccessful, the negotiations with that firm are terminated and are prohibited from being reopened. The process then commences with the second ranked firm. The solicitation of competitive bids for A/E services is not permitted by state code. However, there is provision within the state and local codes permitting the submittal of "non-binding" cost estimates by the competing firms. Localities that have exercised the option to request "non- binding" cost estimates have recognized that such preliminary estimates are generally of little value because the detailed scope of most significant design projects is not fully established until after the interview and selection of the most qualified A/E firm. More importantly, during that interview process, the finalists (i.e., the short-listed A/E firms) will generally present markedly differing approaches to the design solution for the project. As a result, non-binding cost estimates are speculative for A/E firms and are, therefore, inappropriate for comparison purposes. The final scope of services to be provided is subject to further refinement during the scope definition phase of the negotiations with the selected firm. For these reasons, the City does not request "non-binding" cost estimates from A/Es. The emphasis is on qualifications-based design services which provide for lowest life cycle costs, rather than lowest design cost. A telephone survey was conducted with area jurisdictions and governmental contracting agencies regarding the use of "non- binding" cost estimates in the procurement process for professional services. The question asked of the individuals involved in this process for these various agencies was "Do you utilize non-binding cost estimates in your Architectural/Engineering selection process"? The following table is a summary of the results of this survey: Use of "Non-Binding" Estimates Locality/Government Agency YES NO Norfolk X Chesapeake X Portsmouth X Suffolk X Navy Atlantic Division Engineering Command X U. S. Army Corps of Engineers X Discussions with the respondents indicating "No" to this question evoked strong opinions about this topic. Most of those negative responses indicated that not only was it not used, but they viewed it as contrary to good professional services procurement processes and also as bordering on questionable legal grounds. Federal agencies have specific guidelines prohibiting the use of "non-binding" cost estimates. A representative from one of the cities responding "yes" acknowledged that it required a comprehensive and detailed development of the project scope prior to requesting such items. However, this severely restricts the creativity of the short-listed firms in presenting their design approach to a project. One person from a locality outside of this area noted that although the use of "non-binding" cost estimates was included as part of their process, these items when received were generally not utilized in the decision process for selecting design services. Their's was a qualifications-based selection process, as is the case with most governmental contracting agencies. Another question by members of Council was "Are we paying too much for A/E services?" Comparisons with other agencies (i.e., Old Dominion University (ODU) and School Administration) appear, on the surface, to indicate lower design costs than those experienced by the City. Further research, however, revealed that the contract "fees" for the two ODU projects reflect "basic" design costs only (expressed as a percentage of estimated construction costs) of 5.57% for their TeleTchNet Center and 6.9% for their Child Study Center. The Public Works' design contracts for the past three years (1992 - 1995 to date) have an average "basic" design fee of approximately 7.30%. However, further examination of the two ODU projects revealed additional design services of 5.04% for their TeleTchNet Center for an overall design fee of 10.61% and likewise, additional costs for their Child Study Center, with an overall design fee of 7.73%. These fees are comparable to the fees for projects accomplished by the city. The fees for renovations of our three court buildings, work similar in nature to the ODU Child Study Center renovations, totaled between 6.10% and 7.50% of construction costs, comparing very favorably to the total fees of both of the ODU projects. Design fees (again as a percentage of construction costs) appear to be lower for school projects. However, there are factors which need to be examined. The programming efforts associated with the architectural services for school facilities are relatively consistent from one facility to the next. This is due to predetermined facility needs established by state and local school requirements. Accordingly, the design efforts for architectural facilities programming are repetitious. Schools have varying appearances on the outside, but classroom sizes, assembly facilities, physical education needs, etc., are consistent from one school to the next due to general facility guidelines. Accordingly, lower design fees are to be expected. Based on discussions with the School Facilities Administrator, "basic" design fees for Ocean Lakes High School are 4.34%, and when additional design services essential to complete the project are considered, the design fee is 5.23% of the construction costs. In addition, costs associated with employment of a "clerk of the works" are not included within their construction phase of the School's A/E design contracts, however, Public Works includes such service as part of the A/E's scope of services, and fees. Another example is the fees for additions/renovations to B.F. Williams and John B. Dey Elementary Schools. The "basic" design fee for those schools was 5.75% of the construction cost but, when the "additional design services" fees are included, the total fee is 7.21% of the construction cost, which is comparable to the fees of 6.10% to 7.50% for our court renovation projects and our overall average fees for the past two and one half years (7.30%). Overall, there are consistent costs for A/E services on similar work. Differences can be attributed to the methodology used in classification of the design items. Discussions between Public Works staff and the School Facilities Administrator indicate consistency in the A/E selection processes and negotiation methods used by both agencies. Some positive results of these discussions has been a commitment on the part of both agencies to strive towards greater consistencies in reporting mechanisms to facilitate future comparisons of data. Additionally, the City currently has extensive use of omnibus or annual services type design contracts. Public Works presently has annual services design contracts for traffic safety projects, traffic signal designs, minor architectural designs, environmental assessments, and several others for specific design purposes as needs arise. These annual service contracts are generally awarded for three-year periods with yearly and total maximums to provide work-order type design services for a myriad of regularly re- occurring engineering needs. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Professional architectural and engineering (A/E) services are procured through negotiated contracts for the following reasons: A) Among the other capabilities, the A/E's creativity is being purchased hence, a definition of scope of work on which to base a fee doesn't exist at the time of selection. B) The Virginia Public Procurement Act currently prohibits bidding as a means to obtain professional A/E services. c) Professional societies, including the American Public Works Association, endorse a qualifications-based selection process for A/E design services, which is the City's current and proposed procedure. D) The ultimate goal is to achieve functionally-effective, aesthetically-satisfying and economically-attractive (in terms of construction, maintenance and operation costs) facilities. From all indicators, qualifications-based procurement utilizing negotiated A/E contracting procedures is the most effective means to attain this goal. The proposed Administrative Directive for the procurement of A/E services (Attachment #2) has been developed by a team from the Departments of Public Works, Public Utilities, and Finance. This proposed Administrative Directive provides a streamlined procedure, which is consistent with the 1983 policy adopted by City Council, while enhancing the process, reducing processing time, and satisfying appropriate legal requirements. The main revision with this new Administrative Directive is that the review and final approval of these A/E selections and contract negotiations will be accomplished by the City Purchasing Agent in the form of a third party review, and will no longer involve the City Manager's office in the routing process. However, notification of all A/E selections and contract awards will still be provided to the City Manager and City Council. This revised process will be similar to the process used for award of construction contracts. This Administrative Directive, coupled with internal procedural improvements within Public Works and Public Utilities, is expected to achieve not only the highest caliber of professional services to appropriately match the applicable project, but also accomplish the process in reduced time. The goal will be to use a qualifications- based selection method for cost-effective design services. Attached is a summary of the steps involved in both the current procedure and the proposed procedure for procurement of Architectural and Engineering services (Attachment #3). It is proposed that the attached Administrative Directive for the Procurement of Professional Architectural and Engineering Services be adopted as a replacement to the 1983 policy adopted by resolution by City Council. Date: ~/~/~ Clarence )War.~taff/~ Directo~ of/Publi~ Utilities Patri-cia ~. Phillips-' Director of Finance Date· · CJ~s~K' SpOre ~ ~anager RFP Selection Process (Current) CURRENT A/E SELECTION PROCESS: Step 1: The project manager, prepares the RFP, which is reviewed and approved by the Public Works City Engineer/Public Utility Engineering Manager. Step 2: The Public Works City Engineer/Public Utility Engineering Manager appoints professional staff members to a Selection Committee for the project. Step 3: The RFP is distributed to area A/E firms (a standing list is maintained), advertised in local newspapers, posted through "Dodge Report" services, and is posted in Public Works/Public Utilities offices, as well as the Purchasing Agent's Office (usually for 30 day period). Step 4: Responses are received from interested A/E firms by the Office of the City Engineer/Utility Engineer by the close of the advertisement period and each submittal is logged with date and time data for receipt. Step 5: At the close of the advertisement period, the Committee Chairperson schedules the first committee meeting and the Chairperson distributes copies of the responses to the committee members. Step 6: The committee meeting is held and the members review and discuss the responses and establish weights for the evaluation criteria. A selection is made for a "short list" of A/E firms for interviews (minimum of two firms). Step 7: The "short listed" A/E firms are notified via telephone and scheduled for their interviews with the selection committee. Letters are sent to ALL A/E firms who submitted on the project as to the outcome of the "short list" process. Step 8: The committee interviews each firm and ranks firms using the established criteria. Firms are ranked first, second, third, etc. The Chairperson prepares a matrix based on the selection made by the committee, indicating ranking order. Step 9: A selection recommendation, including the C.I.P. project description, RFP, along with the ranking matrix and selected firm background information is forwarded to the City Manager from the Director of Public Works or Public Utilities. 1 (Attachment #3 ) Step 10: Upon approval of the selection recommendation by the City Manager, the project manager notifies the "short listed" A/E firms in writing of the results and directs the selected firm to proceed with fee and detailed scope negotiations. Step 11: The fee and scope is negotiated in accordance with procedures and policies of the Public Works and Public Utilities Departments. Step 12: If fee negotiations are not satisfactorily accomplished with the selected firm, those efforts are concluded and the negotiation process is initiated with the second ranked A/E firm until successfully completed; or similarly conclude those negotiations and start with the third firm, etc. Step 13: Upon successful negotiations, the project manager will have the A/E firm prepare and execute the design contract using standard forms supplied by the City. This includes one original and three signed copies; all of which contain appropriate insurance certificates. Step 14: The project manager will "approve as to content" the contracts and forward them to the City Manager for execution. Step 15: The Purchasing Agent reviews the data for final approval and routes the contracts to Finance (Comptroller) and then to the City Attorney's Office, and upon approval the contracts are sent to the City Manager for execution. Step 16: Upon execution by the City Manager, the contract documents are sent to the City Clerk then returned to the City Engineer/Public Utility Engineering Manager. Step 17: The project manager issues the Notice to Proceed (NTP) and forwards copies of the executed documents to the A/E firm and the Finance Department. CURRENT AVERAGE TIME FRAMES FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS: RFP Posting (advertisement) to Due Date = Due Date to "Short List" Meeting = Short List Meeting to Notification = Notification to Interview = Interview/Selection to Manager for Approval = Manager Approval to Notification = Fee Negotiation & Approval Process to NTP 21 days 23 days 3 days* 11 days 9 days 4 days = 60-90 days Total Average Time =131-161 days Telephone calls are made to the selected firms, either the day of the short list meeting or the next day. The letters are mailed within a week after the short list meeting. Only the firms selected for interviews are contacted by telephone. PROPOSED A/E SELECTION PROCESS: Step 1: The project manager prepares the RFP, which is reviewed and approved by the Public Works City Engineer/Utility Engineering Manager. Step 2: The Public Works City Engineer/Utility Engineering Manager appoints professional staff members to a Selection Committee for a proposed project. Step 3: The RFP is distributed to area A/E firms (a standing list is maintained), advertised in local newspapers, posted through "Dodge Report" services, and is posted in Public Works/Public Utilities Offices, as well as the Purchasing Agent's Office (usually for 30 day period). Step 4: The first committee meeting is held to establish weights for evaluation criteria. This first meeting is held one to two weeks before the closing date of receipt of proposals and ALL further meeting dates are scheduled at this time for the selection process. Step 5: Responses are received from interested A/E firms by the Office of the Public Works City Engineer/Utility Engineering Manager by the close of the advertisement period and each submittal is logged in with date and time data of receipt. Copies of each response is provided to committee members for their review. Step 6: A second committee meeting is held approximately a week or less after receipt of the RFPs. At that second meeting, a selection is made of a "short list" of A/E firms for interviews (minimum of two firms). The committee Chairperson documents the process for selection of the firms selected for the "short list". Step 7: The "short listed" A/E firms are notified of their selection and informed of the interview date and time. All other firms are notified in writing of the outcome of the "short list" process. Step 8: The committee meets a third time and holds interviews and ranks firms using the established criteria. Firms are ranked first, second, third, etc. The Chairperson prepares a matrix based on the selection made by the committee, indicating ranking order. Step 9: A selection report, which includes a selection recommendation, ranking matrix, and background information of the selected firm is forwarded to the Director of Public Works or Public Utilities for approval. Step 10: Upon approval of the selection recommendation the project manager notifies the A/E firms, in writing, of the results and directs the selected firm to initiate fee and scope negotiations. An informational copy of the selection results is provided to the City Manager and Purchasing Agent. Step 11: The fee and scope is negotiated in accordance with approved procedures and policies of the Public Works and Public Utilities Departments. Step 12: If fee negotiations are not satisfactorily accomplished with the selected firm, those efforts are concluded, written notification thereof is given to the firm and the negotiation is precluded from being reopened. The Committee then initiates negotiations with the next ranked firm and repeates the process with the successively ranked firms until a negotiation is succcessfully concluded. Step 13: Upon successful negotiations, the project manager will have the A/E firm prepare and execute the design contract using standard forms supplied by the City. This includes one original and three signed copies; all of which contain appropriate insurance certificates. Step 14: The project manager will "approve as to content" the contract and forward it, along with the A/E Selection Report and the Fee Negotiation Report to the Purchasing Agent via the applicable Director of Public Works or Public Utilities for final review and approval. Step 15: The Purchasing Agent will review the documents for final approval and route the contract to Finance (Comptroller) and then the City Attorney's Office, and upon approval, the contract is returned to the Public Works City Engineer/Utility Engineering Manager. Step 16: The Public Works City Engineer/Utility Engineering Manager issues the Notice to Proceed (NTP) and forwards copies of the executed documents to the A/E firm, the project manager, and the Finance Department. A periodic report of A/E selection results will be provided to City Council and the City Manager by the Purchasing Agent. PROPOSED TIME FRAMES: RFP Posting (advertisement) to Due Date = 21 days Due Date to "Short List" Meeting = 7 days Short List Meeting to Notification = 3 days* Notification to Interview = 10 days Interview/Selection to Director for Approval = 3 days Fee Negotiation & Approval Process to NTP = 40-70 days Total Average Time =84-114 days Telephone calls are made to the selected firms, either the day of the short list meeting or the next day. The letters are mailed within a week after the short list meeting. Only firms selected for interviews are contacted by telephone. Item IV-K. 6. CONSENT AGENDA RESOL UTIONS/ORDIN,4NCES ITEM # 39753 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize WALLACE ODUM, JR., SETH MIZELLE, JOSEPH A. MONACO, and WILLIAM H. RUSSELL, Trustees of the CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER to take and bom title to more than fifteen (15) acres of land within the City as provided by Section 57-12 of the Code of Virginia (1950), subject to certain limitations (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert I~ Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndoff, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis 1~ Jones September 12, 1995 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRUSTEES OF THE CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER, OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, TO TAKE AND HOLD TITLE TO MORE THAN FIFTEEN (15) ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 57-12 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950), SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, WALLACE ODUM, JR., SETH MIZELLE, JOSEPH A. MONACO, and WILLIAM H. RUSSELL, as the Trustees of the Church of The Redeemer, have contracted to purchase and hold title to approximately 31.084 acres of land located on Seaboard Road, Princess Anne Borough, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the said Trustees desire to be in compliance with Virginia Code Section 57-12 of the Code of Virginia and hold title to said Church land, in the name of the Trustees; and WHEREAS, Section 57-12 of the Code of Virginia (1950) requires the said Church Trustees to obtain authorization from this Council in order to hold title to more than fifteen (15) acres of land at any one time within the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, the said Trustees have made proper application to hold title to the said 31.084 acres of land, more or less; and WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has heretofore enacted an ordinance to issue a conditional use permit to the Church of the Redeemer, Application #8409, granted April 25, 1995, RO 4951953; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: Section 1 - That the Trustees of the Church of The Redeemer are hereby authorized to hold title to that certain parcel of land comprising of 31.084 acres and described as follows: All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 31.084 Acres, more or less, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and known, numbered, and designated as "Johnnie R. & Page B. Hartley, GPIN #2404-60-7407", as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 1 PROPERTY OF JOHNNIE 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 R. HARTLEY & PAGE B. HARTLEY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST LOCATED ON SEABOARD ROAD, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SCALE 1" = 200' DATE: 7/11/95" which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; It being the same property conveyed to JOHNNIE R. HARTLEY and PAGE B. HARTLEY TRUSTEES UNDER THE JOHNNIE R. HARTLEY AND PAGE B. HARTLEY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, by deed from JOHNNIE R. HARTLEY and PAGE B. HARTLEY, husband and wife, dated May 2, 1990, and filed for record May 2, 1990, in Deed Book 2908, page 56. Section 2 - That the land hereinbefore described shall be held and utilized by the aforesaid Trustees only for the purposes set forth in Virginia Code Section 57-7 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 12 day of Septmber 1995. CLR/dsh 8/3/95 CA-6012 (ordin \noncode \ CA6012. ORD) PROVED AS TO CONTENTS DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAl SUFFICIEN.CY AND FORM CITY ATT(~RNEY --I T - 26 - Item IV-K~ Z CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 39754 I~SOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $46,290 from the Virginia Division of Tourism Cooperative Advertising Fund to the FY 1995-1996 Operating Budget of the Virginia Marine Science Museum re increased marketing of the Museum's expansion; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of Virginia be increased accordingly. Voting: 10-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baurn, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy I~ Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $46,290 FROM THE VIRGINIA DIVISION OF TOURISM COOPERATIVE ADVERTISING FUND TO THE FY 1995-96 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE VIRGINIA MARINE SCIENCE MUSEUM WHEREAS, the V~rg~ma D~wmon of Tourism Cooperative Advert~mng Fund has been estabhshed for the purpose of encouraging, st~mulahng and supporting the tourism segment of the economy of the Commonwealth, and 8 9 10 11 WHEREAS, the Cooperative Adverbmng Fund ~s a matching fund program to match State funds w~th pubhc-pnvate funds to promote, market and adverbse the travel attracbons and semces of the Commonwealth and ~ts travel ~ndustry partners, which includes the V~rg~ma Manne Science Museum, and 12 13 14 WHEREAS, funding ~n the V~rglma Manne Science Museum's FY 1995-96 Operating Budget is part of a marketing plan to mamm~ze the potenbal wmtor attraction of the expanded Museum facdlbes, and ~s the C~ty's match for the Cooperabve Adverbmng Fund grant, 15 16 17 18 19 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, that a grant ~n the amount of $46,290 from the V~rg~ma D~wmon of Tounsm Cooperative Advert~mng Fund be accepted and appropnated to the FY 1995-96 Operabng Budget of the V~rg~n~a Manne Science Museum to prowde ~ncreased markebng of the Museum's expanmon 20 21 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that th~s appropnatlon be offset by an increase of $46,290 ~n esbmated revenue from the Commonwealth of V~rg~ma 22 23 24 Th~s ordinance shall be effecbve on the date of ~ts adopbon Adopted by the Councd of the C~ty of V~rg~ma Beach, V~rg~ma, on the Twelfth of September , 1995 25 26 27 28 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Walter C Kraemer, Jr Department of Management and Budget I I I I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY / ~ i I i! I VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE TOUR~.~VI ADVERTISING FUND APPLICATION CRITERIA FY 1995-96 PROGRAM The legislation creatin~ the Cooperative Tourism Advertisin~ Fund directed the Department of Economic Development to establt~ criteria for the purposes of considering applications for the fund program. The Governor's Task Force on Tourism ~ the Department in the development of the criteria which provided public-private input. The following criteria will be utilized by the Division of Touristn of the Virginia Department of Economic Development in the assessment of applications for potential funds related to the FY 1995-96 programs, the funds becoming available on July 1, 1995. L APPLICATION PROCEDURI~: Ao All travel industry applicants must apply by Autmst 31. 1994 and must be post-marked no later than this date to the Division of Tourism, Virginia Department of Economic Development, 1021 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 having complied with the requirements of the application form and this criteria. After review by the Division, the proposals will be subject to review by the Governor for submission in his annual Budget Bill and final approval in the Appropriafiom Act by the General Assembly. No auullcatiom will be accented via FAX. Applicatiom must be submitted by the organization or firm requesting the funding partnership. Applicatiom will not be received from contractors, agencies or agents of the applicant. All appllcatiom must be signed by the Chief Ez_n~__~tive Officer of the organization Ce All applicants must send a representative to one of the "Co-op Fund Applicant Workshops" on either Aunust 15. 199~ in Roanoke or ~Atmust 16. 1994 in Richmond to be eligible for possible funds in FY 1995-96. IL HOW ~ FUNDS MAY BE UTILIZED: A, Maximum funding will be based on a 50-50 match. This formula may be changed by the General Assembly at the time they establish the appropriation language. Funded projects must be directed at out-of-state marketinn targets that are either new marketing programs or incremental to existing marketing programs (i.e., applicants must demonstrate tn thetr apphcation how they anttcipate that the project wdl er. tend the reach of the existing marketing program.) The Co-op funds are not to be used for administrative or overhead costs. Ce Programs should involve at least one Destination Marketing Organization and may involve additional partner. Preference will be given to projects showing a commitment to multiple partners besides the Division of Tourism. De Applications that mirror existing campaigm or that duplicate efforts of other applicatiom in targeting the same or similar markets - promoting the area, activity, or event or using the same media - will be asked to consolidate their efforts for further consideration. - over - Successful coop progrunu will be considered for Fe-funding based on ~ed Fei)om which detail their specific effectiveness (see item iII-H). DEV~OPING ~ MARKET~G ~.' Ae All applications will Include a comprehensive marketing plan which includes both the role of the Division of Tourism and the designated destination marketing organization (s). Bo All plans must begin with research, including st situation analysis. All applicants are encore'aBed to capitall2 on the Division of Tour~n's existing research. Co All plum must encompass the State's travel marketing objective of Wpromoting travel to Virginia" as one of the plans objectives. All creative treatments must Cai'Fy the *.~i~il~ F.~ !o8o. D® Creative treatment, production of materials and media purchases will be handled by the Division of Tourism's advertising agency, unless during partner negotiations, it is decided that the program will benefit from other agencies involvement either as the primary agency or as a joint partner with the Division's advertising agency. E® Where necessary, contracts for other services, i.e., printing, e*_¢~_, will be subject to Virginia State Government Proazrement Regulations. F* Where fulfillment procedures are required in the rnark~ plan, the State's portion of the funds will include t portion for the cost and handling of the State's fulfillment matefiah. In most cases, this will be related to the overruns and posting of the ~r~i_'nia Travel Guide. Applicants must be able to produce fuif'dlment material comparable in composition and quantity. G. The plan must include a complet~ budset inclusive of the requested state portion. He The plan will include a program meas .uownent section that includes the revenue, visitor counts and creation of jobs. Upon approval by the General Assembly of the funding, each new co-op partner will enter into a written agreement establishing the terms and conditions of the partnership including: · Agreement amount per the specifics of the Appropriation Act. · How the funds will be dLq_~eminated (payment schedules). · Time frame of the project. · Reporting requirements. · Names of the ¢oordina~or~ for each partner in the project. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Economic Development VIRGINIA COO~TIVE TOURISM ADV!ZR~ TiBING FUND August 8, 1994 Pursuant to the authorization by the General Assembly of the Virginia Tourism Cooperative Advertising Fund, Sec. § 2.1-548.8:01 of the Code of Virginia, the Division of Tourism of the Department of Economic Development will administer and manage the cooperative fund program. FACTS ABOUT TIlE PROGRAM: The program is a partnership between the Virginia Division of Tourism and entities of the Virginia travel industry and/or national travel industry partners for the purpose of encouraging, stimulating and supporting the tourism segment of the economy of the Commonwealth and the direct and indirect benefits that flow from the success of such industry. The Virginia travel industry, recogni~ in this program is made up of state-wide travel organizations, regional promotion agencies, local and county tourism promotion agencies, convention and visitor bureaus, non-profit and for-profit travel attractions [museums, theme parks, entertainment centers, historic sites and plantations, festivals, special events, etc.], accommodations, food service, transportation firms, tour operators/travel agents, and travel-related retail shopping facilities. The Co-op Fund is a matching fund program to match state funds with public-private funds to promote, market and advertise both the co-op partners product or services and the Commonwealth's many travel attractions and services. It is not a grants program. Projects will be developed where the Division and the partner will cooperate in a joint marketing project to stimulate travel to Virginia from out-of-state. The partner will initiate the development of the program by completing an application to the Division of Tourism that meets the criteria and regulations set forth by the Division. [See attached Tourism Co-op Fund Criteria.] If the project meets the criteria, the Division will set forth it's portion of the co-op program and will submit it to the Governor. On concurrence with the funding requests, the Governor will reflect the required appropriation in the Governor's Budget Bill filed pursuant to § 2.1-399 or the Code of Virginia. - over - 1021 East Cary Street. P 0 Bo~ 798 Rt(hmond Vt, ~tnta 23206.0798 (804~ 371.,~100 The General Assembly, in their deliberations of the Governor's Budget Bill, will approve, amend or choose not to appropriate funds as they see fit for co-op funding on an annual or biennium basis. If they deem it necessary, they will establish formulas to the extent practicable, to afford each qualified request for which there is a valid public purpose an equitable share. Co-op projects may be marketing campaigns (multiple marketing elements), advertising (TV, magazine, newspaper, radio, data-links, direct mail, etc.), spec~ promotions (sports marketing acavities, festivals, etc. - that are directed at out-of-state participation or audiences), and sales missions. They all must target out-of-state visitors and will only represent Virginia attractions, destinations or services. The Division will include in the State's funding formula the cost of fulfilling inquiries related to the State's portion of the project. Unless it is an international project the State will utilize the Virginia Travel Guide or equivalent state-wide fulfillment material. The project may be either domestic (U.S. audience) and/or international in scope. SCHEBULE OF EVENTS (Fun~ng for FY 1995-963: Applications due to the Division of Tourism. Aug. 31, 1994 Division of Tourism reviews applications. Sep. 1-15, 1994 Division of Tourism forwards approved applications along with the Division's complementary plan to the Governor. Oct. 1, 1994 Governor's Budget Bill delivered to General Assembly. Fixst week of Jan. 1995 General Assembly passes the Appropriation Act. Last week of Feb. 1995 Governor signs the Appropriation Act. Mid April, 1995 Funds for approved co-op projects, as enacted in the Appropriation Act, become available. July 1, 1995 VIRGINIA DMSION OF TOURISM - CO-OP FUNDING ADMINISTRATOR JOHN D. WATT, m Director of Tourism Community Development Virginia Division of Tourism 1021 East Cary Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 804-786-2051 * FAX: 804-786-1919 AnuHcant ~I? Api~kant Otlnnbnl~m/Contn~ ~ Division or Tourbm Cooperudve Tourism Advertblnf Fund FY '9S - '96 July 1, 199S - June 30, 1996 Award Agreement dUL 2, 4 1995 '/IRGINIA DiVfSIOI~ DF T. OuRISM Ms. Lynn Clements Vil'~ma ~ ~ Musetlm 717 General Booth Boulcvnrd Description of Markttln8 ProJect~ A marketing plan to maximizc thc potentinl visitor at~ of thc Virginia Manne Science Museum's expa~on. Set to tm'get out.of-state audience com~ of familic~ with children under 18 years of age as well as tour operations. Amount Applicant will spend on project In FY '9S - '96:$154,300 Amoum VDT will spend via Tourism Advertlsln8 Fnnd~ $46,290 Planned Date to initiate Mar~ting Programs Completion Date for' Pr'ngram~ Appticnnt will provide VDT inquiry upchtea, Jcod generation repons nnd other mcasuflng detr..flnJna~ needed on a qunrterly basia during fiscal year 1995 - '~S. If the ptnnned marketing program ends before June 30, 1996, a summary report on thc pr~ect will be expected no later thnn four weeks from xts completion. All appticants arc required to J.qsue a final report on their rcspccttve mnrketing programs to VDT. Cop~s of invoices re. Lsted to the project should also be provldod to VDT on a timely basis. All information regarding mnrkcting progrnms slx)old b~ sent to thc nttcnfion of Bmcc 'l'wymn~ Directoc Advertising, Virs;Mh Division of Toumm, 901 E. Byrd St., 19th Floor, Ricixnond, Virginia 23219. This agreement is one of a c~nfidcntinl nature between thc two parties wflh possible cxcepUon to the state ["! ff you do not plan to use the Cooperative Tourism Advertising Funds available for fiscal year' 199S-96, please dmck the box to the left. Federal Id Number of Applicant Orsaflization Rece-xving Sram Funds: Signature of Applicnnt Pro~ect Cootxlinntor: S~gnaturc of VDT Advert~ing Date: "~ '~ fJ NOTE: ff any of the above information is incorre~ or inccnnplete, plear~ pt-o~d~ for our files. The Virginia Marine Science Museum Out-Of-State Marketing Plan for the 1996 Expansion F'L~2al Year 1995-1996 Background The Virginia Marine Science Museum (VMSM) is one of the most-visited museums in Virginia, welcoming more than 325,000 visitors each year. Since opening in 1986- the VMSM has set, achieved and maintained its primary goal of education by bringing the waters of Virginia alive for more the 80,000 students each year. It has played a leadership role in environmental conservation by increasing awareness of Virginia's marine environment and at the same time been a source of economic development by enhancing the area's cultural infrastructure. All this have been achieved through unique and informative presentations and quality programming aimed at customer satisfaction. The success has been nothing short of phenomenal. To build on that success, the VMSM is embarking on one of the area's most spectacular project - a $35 million expansion program. The museum will expand from 9 acres to 45 acres and, more importantly, from 100,000 gallons of aquaria to 500,000 gallons. Three new buildings will be added to the current facility. The first will be the Salt Marsh Building which will be located one third of a mile south of the current facility. Exhibits here will include an outdoor bird aviary and river otter habitat, The two buildings will be joined by nature trails through the wooded area parallel to Owl's Creek Salt Marsh. The next building to be added will house a six-story IMAX theater which will be one of the tallest IMAX theaters on the east coast, according to IMAX officials. There will also be a restaurant, larger gift shop and new administrative offices. The third building will be the Atlantic Ocean Pavilion. This exciting addition will house a 300,000 gallon aquarium depicting Virginia's most impressive off-shore feature, the Norfolk Canyon. This addition will also house a 70,000-gallon aquarium dedicated to sea turtles. The museum is already Virginia's largest aquarium and with the expansion, it will become one of the top 10 marine science museums in the nation. SRuation Analysis Construction of the Virginia Marine Science Museum expansion has already begun. Completion is scheduled for the summer of 1996. The question now is, "How do we make the most of this fantastic opportunity?' With the out-of-state marketing plan outlined below, combined with in-state marketing and heavy public relations, the VMSM feels it can maximize the potential of the expansion. The VMSM, unlike many museums, is able to generate approximately 75 % of its operating cots. Even with such an impressive future, the museum's marketing budget is tight and funds for a large scale marketing plan are almost non-existent. However, with the Virginia Cooperative Tourism Advertising Fund, the museum can expand into a market that has, in the past, been unreachable. The VMSM has, and will continue to work together on cooperative promotional campaigns with other area attractions, museums, associations and lodging facilities. Partners that the museum has worked with include ~ Breeze Festival Park, Virginia Air and Space Center, the Virginia Beach Hotel & Motel Association, Nauticus, Virginia Living Museum, the Francis Land House, the Tidewater Regional Transit Authority, (TRT) and the Colonial Inn. Since the VMSM is a Virginia Beach city department it works closely with the Virginia Beach Department of Convention and Visitor Development (CVD) on a variety of projects. The CVD has given its full support to the VMSM on this project. -continued- -continued- * Participation in CompuServe's Travel Forum The CompuServe Travel Forum is a Visitor Information Center on the information superhighway where a person can, without leaving his computer, call up information on a variety of destinations, attractions and accommodations around the world. In researching this option, the VMSM found that it is already part of the Travel Forum. Responding to a person's inquiry about Virginia Beach, one gentleman writes" I have lived in Virginia Beach for about 4 years and there are lots of things to see and do here, some of which are:' and the VMSM is second on a list of ten items. Another CompuServe member writes, "In Virginia Beach, there is a sea museum just south of Rudee Inlet that is very good.' The museum plans to develop a program to utilize this unique medium. Since the museum has the in-house resources to write the plan, the only cost for this particular project would be the cost of a designer to develop professional graphics and photographer for pictures that can be digitized and added to the program. Both the cost of the designer and the photographer are covered at the end of the "Advertisement" section of this plan. * CompuServe Electronic Mall The CompuServe Electronic Mall is like any mall with a variety of stores and services and a directory for easy access. A Travel/Leisure section in the Electronic Mall offers reservation and information services az any travel agent would. Travel agents across the country carry information about Virginia so why not advertise with a travel agent that reaches more than 1.8 million customers worldwide? Virginia's Division of Tourism could purchase the lowest participation level at a projected 1996 rate of $23,000 for the year. The package includes 100 product descriptions (which would ultimately become attraction descriptions), 23 graphics updated quarterly, 12 Mall Marquees (the equivalent of electronic billboards) and a $10,000 CompuServe Magazine advertising credit toward a $25,000 commitment. To help recoup some of the cost, the Division of Tourism could charge a nominal fee of $150 to 100 attractions in the Commonwealth as a requirement to participate in the program. A higher fee of $300 could be charged for one of the 12 Mall Marquess. By charging such a low fee for the large amount of coverage each attraction would be getting in return, the Division of Tourism could retrieve almost 85 % of the advertising costs. Television Adverti~in_~ The City of Virginia Beach CVD is developing a cooperative program with Tidewater attractions and CVDs to be submitted to the Virginia Cooperative Tourism Advertising fund. The goal of this program is to develop a 30-minute infomercial promoting the entire Tidewater region. To help cover the production cost of the infomercial Virginia Beach CVD is selling time slots to area attractions. This makes the possibility of such television air time affordable to smaller attractions whose budgets would not normally allow for such a luxury. It also promotes the entire Tidewater area in a unified manner. Some of the area attractions that will be included in this program are Children's Museum of Virginia, the Virginia Waterfront project, Nauticus, and the Virginia Air and Space Center. The VMSM plans to contribute $15,000 to the program for a return of two minutes of airtime in the infomercial and a listing in a brochure that will be produced to fulfill requests generated by the infomercial. Cost Two minutes of air time and listing in the supplemental brochure $15,000 -conUnued- Additional Advertisin~ Costs -- * Tracking The VMSM plans to purchase its own 800 phone number. The number 1-800-See-A-Sea has been reserved by MCI. This number will be used on all out-of-state advertising to track advertisement effectiveness and create a database of customer contacts. The museum will produce labels from calls that are generated by the advertisements listed in this plan. These labels, and a sufficient supply of the museum's fulfillment brochure, will be provided to the Virginia Division of Tourism for inclusion in the Commonwealth's fulfillment package for mailing. Virginia's fulfillment cost has been figured into this plan and is listed under the 'Fulfillment" section. The museum's projected costs for an 800 number is based on the current number of calls received on the local 425-FISH number and information from other facilities with an 800 number that are similar in size and scope to the VMSM. The projected number of calls a week is $00. Based on the average two-minute phone call, including a basic monthly rate and volume discounts, the cost of an 800 is estimated to total $18,200 annually. Cost Annual charges for an 800 phone number $18,200 * Advertisement Design - For advertising in the publications listed earlier in this plan, three new ads would need to be designed. The three ads would be: 1. Spring 1996 advertising the completion of both the Salt Marsh and the IMAX theater buildings and creating anticipation for the grand opening in the summer. 2. Summer 1996 advertising the total completion of the expansion. 3. Fall 1996 advertising the whale-watching tour packages and the completed expansion. These ads, as well as the graphics needed for the CompuServe Travel Forum project, could be done by a freelance designer. The VMSM hag used freelance designers in the past and has number of contacts. A freelance designer for the museum would cost $45 an hour and based on approximately 24 hours of work, including changes, scanning and final output, the cost for designing three ads and graphics would total $1,100. Cost Freelance designer to design ads and graphics $1,100 * Photographer A professional photographer would be hired for photographs to be used in the full-color ads and the CompuServe Travel Forum project. Based on estimates from three different photography studios (/ensen Enterprises, Adhouse and VPS, Inc., all of Virginia Beach) the estimated costs for photography, developing and printing would total $800. Cost Professional photography, developing and printing $ 800 -continued- Direct Mailing * Tour Operators Information Packets Through membership in the American Bus Association (ABA) the museum has a database of more the 750 names and addresses of tour operators, bus operators and travel agents iht he middle and eastern regions of the country. In the past, the museum has sent information packets only to those operators who have requested information. As a result, the museum is missing a large share of this potentially profitable market. To increase the opportunities in this market the VMSM is planning a more aggressive tactic. Beginning late in 1995, the museum will do a direct mailing to every member of the database to arouse interest in the soon-to-be completed expansion. Special packets will be put together geared specifically for these groups. Description of the packets- A glossy, black folder printed with the VMSM logo will contain a personalized letter, a museum brochure, the museum rental brochure (see description under 'Fulfillment' headline), group rate information, program information (includes whale watching and dolphin watching boat tips), the Virginia Beach brochure produced by CVD, and an invitation for representative to visit the museum for a guided tour. For those operators who request it and those who visit the museum, a current VMSM video will be provided. However, the current VMSM video is out dated and a new one will need to be produced directly after the expansion is complete in 1996 for the 1996 mailing. Production cost for each packet and it's contents, minus the video, museum brochure and museum rental brochure, is approximately $3.50 or $3,500 for a total of 1,000. The additional 250 packets will be made to allow for additions to the database and direct requests from other companies that may not be a member of the ABA. Based on three different bids for video production (from Studio Center, Tele-Video and VPS, Inc., all of Virginia Beach) the estimated cost for a 10-minute, professional quality video is $10,000. Costs Information Packets @ $3.50 each Mailing of 1,000 packets @ $2.90 each Video Production Video Duplication @ $150 per 100 $ 3,500 $ 2,900 $10,000 $ 500 (for 300) The VMSM will develop two fulfillment pieces. Both will carry the "Virginia is for Lovers" logo. The price quotes, given by Siddall, Matus & Coughter, Inc. will include design, production and printing costs. * Museum Brochure - A 12" x 17" piece folding into a 4" x 8.5", 12-panel, four-color rack brochure to be used to respond to inquiries, This will be a general information piece and be the museum's main promotional literature. Design and production of 300,000 is estimated to cost $30,000. Cost Museum brochure, 300,000 $30,000 -continued 7 * Rental Brochure - A standard 4' x 9', six-panel, two-color rack brochure to promote the museum as a rental facility for meetings and other special events. The Virginia Beach CVD will work with the VMSM to get these brochures distributed to the proper audience. Mainly, the brochures will be included in information the CVD sends to meeting and convention planners who request convention information on Virginia Beach. It would also include distribution at the Affordable Meeting Annual Convention and Exposition which draws almost 2,500 meeting planners. The museum would include these brochures in its mailing to tour operators. The cost for the design and production of 100,000 is estimated to total $15,000. Cost . Rental brochure, 100,000 $15,000 *Virginia's Fulfillment Costs As listed under the "Tracking" section of this plan, the VMSM will supply the Virginia Division of Tourism with mailing labels and a sufficient number of fulfillment brochures to be combined with Virginia's own fulfillment package. Virginia would handle the mailing of the completed packages. Based on information supplied by the Virginia Division of Tourism, the Commonwealth's projected costs for fulfillment total $19,000. Cost Production and mailing of Virginia's fulfillment package $19,000 Trade Shows * 1996 American Bus Association (ABA) Marketplace Trade Show The ABA annual trade show attracts approximately 2,000 tour and bus operators form the United States, Canada and Mexico. While the VMSM is a member of ABA, in the past there has been no budget to allow attendance at the annual Marketplace. The location for the 1996 Marketplace is going to be held in Portland, Oregon December 8 - 13, 1996. The ABA offers both partial and full week participation levels. Based on the current participation prices, adding in air fare, hotel accommodations and per diem, the estimated cost for one individual from the museum to attend a partial week for the 1996 Marketplace would total $2,200. Cost A partial week's attendance to the 1996 ABA Marketplace $2,200 Conclusion Whether or not the plan outlined above is implemented, the Virginia Marine Science Museum will be three times its current size by the summer of 1996. Based on studies by the ERA, as mentioned in the 'Situation Analysis' of this plan, the museum's expansion will bring new visitors, new jobs and new tax revenue to the Commonwealth of Virginia. By implementing this plan there is a chance to increase those projected numbers and maximize the economic potential of the expansion. The VMSM is dedicated to making this facility a destination in and of itself. With the help of the Cooperative Tourism Advertising Fund, all of Virginia will benefit from this expansion. The Virginia Marine Science Museum Out-Of-State Marketing Plan for the 1996 Expansion Budget Sheet Print Advertising * Southeast Tourism Society Vacation Guide Newspaper Insert, Ix * Southern Living magazine, 3x * Destinations magazine, Ix * Outdoor Traveler magazine, 2x * AAA Today magazine, Ix * AAA Mid-Eastern Tour Book, annual * AAA Mid-Eastern Camp Book, annual Television Advertising * Virginia Beach CVD 30-minute infomercial Additional Advertising Costs * Tracking, 800 phone number * Advertisement production * Profeaaional photography Direct Mailing (Tour Operator's Information Packet) * Information packets * Mailing 1,000 packets * Video production * Video duplication Fulfillment * Virginia Marine Science Museum brochure * Museum rental brochure * State's fulfillment costs Trade Shows * 1996 ABA Marketplace i To~l Costs Virginia Department of Tourism Funding City of Virginia Beach Funding through the Virginia Marine Science Museum $7,200 $9,600 $900 $1,800 $4,200 $10,100 $1,500 $15,000 $18,200 $1,900 $800 $3,500 $15,000 $10,000 $50O $30,000 $2,9OO $19,000 $2,200 i $154,500 $77,150 $77,150 i - 27 - Item IV-K.& CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 39755 RESOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $3,750 Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts to the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission re supplement funding to Arts Organizations; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of Virginia be increased accordingly. Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert I~ Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy IC Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R~ Jones September 12, 1995 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,750 FROM THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS TO THE VIRGINIA BEACH ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION TO SUPPLEMENT FUNDING TO ARTS ORGANIZATIONS WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission allocates funds to various arts organizations for the purpose of enhancing the City's cultural environment; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission a grant in the amount of $3,750 for the purpose of providing additional funding for Virginia Beach arts organizations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That a grant in the amount of $3,750 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts be accepted and appropriated to the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission's FY 95-96 Operating Budget to provide additional funding for Virginia Beach arts organizations. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That this appropriation be offset by an increase of $3,750 in estimated revenue from the Commonwealth of Virginia. This ordinance shall be effective on the date of its adoption. this Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach on 12 September day of 1995. CA-6076 DATA/ORDIN/NONCODE / ARTSGRANT. ORD SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 RI ~,-,. ~ ED A~ TO CONTENTS AI"?,~CVED AS 70 LEGAL CiTY ~rtOR:NEy 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WINWOOD DRIVE AND LASKIN ROAD TO CHANTICLEER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in Section 15.1-893, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Chanticleer Associates Limited Partnership, its heirs, assigns and successors in title is authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment into the right-of-way of Winwood Drive and Laskin Road. That the temporary encroachment herein authorized is for the purpose of constructing and maintaining two identification signs and that said encroachment shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the City of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications as to size, alignment and location, and further that such temporary encroachment is more particularly described as follows: An area of encroachment into a portion of the City's right-of-way known as Winwood Drive and Laskin Road, on the certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT PLAT FOR SIGN MAINTENANCE FOR CHANTICLEER APARTMENTS LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH - VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MAY 5, 1995 MILLER - STEPHENSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.," a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the temporary encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of Virginia Beach to any officer of Chanticleer Associates Limited Partnership, its heirs, assigns and successors in title and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, said encroachment shall be removed from the City's right-of-way of Winwood Drive and Laskin Road and that Chanticleer Associates Limited Partnership, its 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 heirs, assigns and successors in title shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. AND, PROVIDED FURTHER, that it is expressly understood and agreed that Chanticleer Associates Limited Partnership, its heirs, assigns and successors in title shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such encroachment. AND, PROVIDED FURTHER, that the party of the second part agrees to maintain said encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. AND, PROVIDED FURTHER, that this ordinance shall not be in effect until such time that Chanticleer Associates Limited Partnership execute an agreement with the City of Virginia Beach encompassing the aforementioned provisions. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 12 day of September 95 , 19 . 64 65 66 08/03/95 LDH/tga hayes\chant~cl.ord ' PPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY EXHIBIT "A" N GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 50 60 (IN FEET ) 1 INCH = 5O FT C~ TY OF VII?GINI 4 B£A CH ('DB g'5~, PG J3) ~ IB"PIiV£ ~IGHT-~-WAY~~ ~ . ~ ~ OA ~M~ T ~ ~ ~OA~T SHEET 1 OF 2 ,,~ DWN BY: JJV ENCROACHMENT o' , FOR FIGiV hlA IN.TFI M NC - FOR CHA N TICI £E~~ A PA t? Tt/£'N 7-3' LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH - VIRG,N,A BEACH, VIRGINIA MAY 5, 1995 MII,LgR - STgPI-IgNSOi'q & ASSOCIATES, RNGI1NgP. RING, SUI?VR¥IIN'G, I LANNING T TTr~ & ENV[RON]N{I?.N IAI, SC[ENCBS 5033 ROUSE DRIYE VIRGINIA 3EAC]-I, VIRGINIA (~o~)~9o-9~-~ ~A~. (~o~)~=so-o~s~ II ---- ! I I I Ill 23462 1"= 30' N097~ EXHIBIT "A" ':' ~,,.,.~,, I ~' ,'CZ,:,,;, ~ '~"' ~" "~"*" '"~ ~ "" '""~*""'"::~ "q' 'F ~,7~ ,~ ~ ~.~,c~'_%~~' ~ '~r.'~';;:~:'~ ,- ,-,~',, ,-c~r, jg j ,- ~ -- . .: ' . c.. ', ,', -' ~'4:;e~ F,r ~ ~9~B., .... / ~ ~ ' ~ ~/ fl~-r-~ ~ -. ~o~ ~ i '~ D.., . .' .., ~,,,: -~X~~, ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~L GILL ) STH ST I' Shop Cfr o - t~ -- CT 4 t ~ tr LINLIF & VST sT ue Iml , I g ~,. --- _ ~ . .. ~ MJ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . , SITE ~ o.,. ..... ~.~ o LOCATION MAP SHEET 2 OF 2 CHARACTERIIS~ICS OF S'IGNiS ~3:,,5'~.~iGH 12. ,O.',i~ ~ENGT,u' ,.~0.5' OFF, BACK O~ cU, RB.' M,E~C~L' SIGN' Wl~lCi Woo)D',~ETT:E!B~,!~ I ~' ENCROAC. f~MENT ':PLA,T ' FOR' CHA N llCL EER A PA R TMEN TS LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH - VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MAY 5, 1995 MILLER - STEPHENSON & ASSOCI&TES, P.C. ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 5033 ROUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23468 (80~')490-926~ ~AX: (80~)~-90-0634 DWN BY: JJV NO97A - 29 - Item IV-J.. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39757 PLANNING Mayor Oberndorf DECLARED a PUBLIC HEARING on: PLANNING 1. ROBERT AND JANET KOTTKE RECONSIDERATION 2. BOBBY DeFORD, III, DeFORD COMPANIES, INC. VARIANCE 3. LITTLE NECK ASSOCIATES VARIANCE 4. MILLER ENTERPRISES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6. GARRETT AND DOP~EN WANZOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7. O&R, INC. CONDITIONAL CHANGES OF ZONING 8. HANNAFORD BROS. CO. CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF ZONING 9. THOMAS R. GIROUX (British-European Antique Imports, Ltd.) CHANGE OF ZONING September 12, 1995 Item IV-J. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39758 PLANNING BY CONSENT Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council APPROVED in ONE MOTION Items 3, 4, 6 and 9 of the PLANNING BY CONSENT AGENDA. Item 4,4LLOWED WITHDRAWAL. Item 9 was DEFERRED to September 26, 1995. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert IC Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy IC Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R~ Jones September 12, 1995 - 31 - Item IV-J.1. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39759 PLANNING The following registered in SUPPORT of the application: Jan Kottke, 2469 Haversham Court, Phone: 495-4525, Director - Bellamy Manor Preschool. Lisa O'Donnell, 3036 Brian Bark Drive, Phone: 671-6097 David P. Miller, 1408 Ashlawnham Arch, Phone; 467-6191 The following registered in OPPOSITION: Charles Gillikin, 5032 Providence Road, Phone: 495-0241, Grant Tyson, 5012 Providence, Phone: 495-0294 Dorothy Gurganus, 1112 Rollingwood Arch, Phone: 495-0275 Merridee Schroeder, 5000 Providence Road, Phone: 474-0721, Upon motion by Council Lady Strayhorn, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms, MODIFIED CONDITION (NUMBER ONE) in the February 12, 1990, approved Application of ROBERT and JANET KOTTKE for a Conditional Use Permit for a private school at 5009 Providence Road (KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH): ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ROBERT KO~KE AND JANET KOTTKE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PR1VATE SCHOOL R02901282 Ordinance upon application of Robert and Janet Kottke for a Con&tional Use Permit for a private school on Lot 10,4, Bellamy Manor. Said parcel is located at 5009 Providence Road and contains 1.4 acres. KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH. Condition Number One was MODIFIED as follows: 1. Operation shall be Monday through Friday as follows: 175 students - 7:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon 140 students - 12:00 noon - 3:15 p.m. 70 students - 3:15 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Evening meetings, not to exceed 30 families or staff members, are permitted. September 12, 1995 - 32 - Item IV-J.I. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39759 (Continued) PLANNING Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis 1~ Jones September 12, 1995 Item IV-J.2. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39760 PLANNING Attorney Ed Bourdon, Pembroke One, Fifth Floor, represented the applicant Upon motion by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPROVED the application of BOBBY DeFORD, III, DeFORD COMPANIES, INC., for a Variance to Section 4.1(m) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires that street right-of-way widths shall be as specified in officially adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan relating to streets in the City Zoning Ordinance; 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all lots created to meet all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance; and 5.5(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance re curbs and gutters as required in the City Zoning Ordinance. Appeal from Decisions of Administrative officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Bobby DeFord, III, DeFord Companies, Inc. Property is located at 576 Ingram Road. L YNNHA VEN BOROUGH. The following conditions shall be required: 1. Compliance with conditions required by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board. 2. Compliance with all other provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, including but not limited to Section 4.5(a) which requires the dedication or reservation of open space. , The applicant will widen the pavement section from the proposed cul-de-sac to the Ingram Road/Bray Road Intersection to 16 feet. 4. The applicant will clear a visibility triangle on the Southeast side of the intersection with Ingram Road. The applicant is responsible for installing a "Yield" sign at Bray Road and a "Stop" sign at Petty Road. Traffic on Ingram Road will have the right-of-way. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndoff, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis P~ Jones September 12, 1995 - 34 - Item IV-J.$. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39761 PIalNNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council APPROVED the application of LITTLE NECK ASSOCIATES for a Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all lots created to meet all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. Appeal from Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, subdivision for Little Neck Associates. Property is located on the east side of Watesedge Drive, 780.65 feet north of Kline Drive. LYNNHAVEN DRIVE. The following condition shall be required: A note shall be included on the final plat indicating that no primary structure may be developed within the Resource Protection Area feature of this property. 10-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy IC Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis 1~ Jones September 12, 1995 Item IV-J.4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39762 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ,4LLOWED WITHDRAWAL of the Application of MILLER ENTERPRISES for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF MILLER ENTERPRISES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE RENTALS Ordinance upon application of Miller Enterprises for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle rentals at the northwest corner of Shore Drive and Cherry place. Said parcel is located at 3304 Shore Drive and contains 19,079 square feet. LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH. Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert IC Dean, William W Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy IC Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 Item IV-J.5. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ITEM # 39763 Attorney Ed Bourdon, Pembroke One, Fifth Floor, represented the applicant Loy Jeffords, Vice President - Real Estate, - EX4 Developmeng Inc., 961 East Main Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina, Phone: 594-5763, represented the applicant John 1~ Giattino, 4453 Bonney Road, Phone: 473-1700, spoke in OPPOSITION Upon motion by Council Lady Strayhorn, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF EXTENDED STA Y AMERICA, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MOTEL R09951982 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CIIY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Extended Stay America, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for a motel on the northeast side of Bonney Road beginning at a point 1214 feet more or less southeast of Independence BoulevanL Said parcel is located at 4548 Bonney Road and contains 3.385 acres. KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH The following conditions shall be required: The project shall be developed substantially in conformance, including colors and materials, with the plans and renderings submitted to the Planning Commission and on file in the Department of Planning. Landscape plans shall be in accordance with exhibit presented to Council September 12, 1995. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twelfth of September. Nineteen Hundred and Nine~_ -Five. Voting: 8-2 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: Robert IC Dean and Nancy IC Parker Council Members Absent: Louis 1~ Jones September 12, 1995 l - 37 - Item IV-J.6. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39764 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of GARRETT and DOREEN WANZOR for a Conditional Use Permit ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF GARRETT & DOREEN WANZOR FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION R09951983 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Garrett & Doreen Wanzor for a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation (day care) on the west side of General Hill Drive, 137.66 feet north of lx~vell Drive. Said parcel is located at 917 General Hill Drive and contains 30,300 square feet. L YNNHA VEN BOROUGH. The following conditions shall be required: 1. A maximum of twelve children may be cared for at this location. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3. The conditional use permit is granted for a period of two (2) years. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 69 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twelfth o_f September. Nineteen Hundred and Nin¢~_ -Fiv¢. 10-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert I~ Dean, William ~. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy I~ Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 - 38 - Item l~-J. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39765 PI~INNING ,4ttorney Robert Jones, represented the applicant, Gary Paschang. The follo~ng registered in OPPOSITION: Stephen MacMillan, 2379 Kerr Drive, Phone;721-SI74 Tony Matthews, 2337 Kerry Drive, Phone: 426-8303 John S. Waller, Jr., 2313 Painter's Lane, Phone: 721-5004 A motion was made by Councilman Dean, seconded by Council Lady Parker to ADOPT AS AMENDED, Ordinances upon application of 0 & R, INC. for Conditional Changes of Zoning with the plan offered of Parcel No. I having two lots {one as a Flag lot and Parcel 2 would be comprised of 7 lots for a total of nine lots). The Flag Lot on Parcel No. I would not require the entire paving of Mr. Waller's current driveway. As the applicant did not agree, this motion was WITHDRAWN. ,4 motion was made by Councilman Dean, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms to DENY Ordinances upon application of 0 & It, INC. for Conditional Changes of Zoning Upon SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Councilman Baum, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council ADOPTED, AS AMENDED, Ordinances upon application of 0 & R, INC. for Conditional Changes of Zoning, R-15 on both sides of Painter's Lane: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF 0 & R, INC. FOR ,4 CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM AG- 1 to R-15 (,,iS AMENDED) Z09951464 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of 0 & 1~ Inc., for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District on certain property located 600 feet north of Painters Lane beginning at a point 150 feet east of Kerr Drive. The proposed zoning classification change to R-15 is for single family residential land use on lots no less than 10,000 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for suburban medium density residential at densities that are compatible with single family use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contains 1.4329 acres. PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH. AND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLIC,4TION OF 0 & R, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION FR OMA G- 2 TO R- 15 (AS AMENDED) Z09951465 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of 0 & R, Inc., for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District on certain property located on the north and south sides of Painters Lane beginning at a point 520 feet more or less east of Townfield Lane. The proposed zoning classification change to R-15 is for single family residential land use on lots no less than I0,000 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for suburban medium density residential at densities that are compatible with single family use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcels contain 6. 4785 acres. PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH. September 12, 1995 Item IV-J.8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39766 PLANNING Attorney 1~ J. Nutter, 4425 Corporation Lane, Phone: 671-6000, represented the applicant Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of HANNAFORD BROS. CO., for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF HANNAFORD BROS., COMPANY FOR A CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-lO TO B-2 Z09951466 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Hannaford Bros. Co., for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to B-2 Community Business District on certain property located on the north and south sides of Bonney Parkway beginning at a point 980 feet more or less west of First Colonial Road. The proposed zoning classification change to B-2 is for commerical land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for single family residential at densities that are compatible with single family use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contain 3.65 acres. L YNNHA VEN BOROUGH. The following condition shall be required: o Agreement encompassing proffers shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and is hereby made a part of the proceedings. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 09 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twelfth of September, Nineteen Hundred and Nine~_ -Five. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert IC Dean, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Abstaining: William gE. Harrison, Jr., Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones Councilman Harrison ABSTAINED as his firm represents the applicant. September 12, 1995 RM NC). F).S. lB City o£ Virginia Beach INTER-OFF[CE CORRESPOIVDEIdCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-95-3921 DATE: August 28, 1995 TO: Leslie L. Lilley DEPT: City Attorney FROM: William M. Macali ~ DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application William K. Wright, Trustee, et _~is The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 12, 1995. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 31, 1995, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questioris or wish to discuss this matter further. , THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31st day of May, 1995 by and between WILLIAM K. WRIGHT, Trustee and N.C. WRIGHT, JR., TRUSTEE, hereinafter the owners of the Property referred to herein, and HANNAFORD BROS. CO., a Maine Corporation, the contract owner, hereinafter collectively referred to as Grantors), and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as Grantee). WITNESSETH: WZ-LERF_.AS, Grantors have initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the I City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification of the Grantor's Property from R-10 Residential to B-2 ; il (Conditional) on certain Property which contains a total of 3.487 acres, more or II I less, in the Lynnhaven Borough, of the Cit~ of Virginia Beach, Virginia, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A, hereinafter '~he Subject Property". WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to i3rovide only for the orderly development of land, for vadous purposes, including office purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the changes, and the need for various types o~ uses, including those listed above, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Subject Property for t' ~ protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned B-2 are needed to cope with the situation which the Grantors rezoning application gives rise to; and whose implementation will occur when the Subject Property is developed; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public headng before the Grantee, as part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing B-2 zoning district by the existing City Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development and operation of the Subject Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Subject Property described above, which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning and whose implementation will not be required until the Subject Property is developed; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Subject Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite ia subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public headng before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-431, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion of quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, Site Plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions as to the physical development and operation of the Subject Property and governing the use thereof and hereby tender the following covenants running with the said Subject Property, which shall be binding upon the Subject Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, its heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title and which will not be required by the Grantors until the Subject Property is developed, namely: 1. Grantor shall maintain a 30 foot area along the eastem boundary of the Subject Property adjacent to the property zoned R-7.5 and A-18. VV'rthin this 30 foot buffer area, Grantor shall install and maintain Category IV landscaping, and/or storm water retention features and shall prohibit any buildings, parking areas or drive aisles therein. 2. Exterior lighting located within 60 feet from any portion of the Subject Property contiguous to the property zoned A-18 or R7-5 shall be either: (a) located on the rear of any building(s) and shielded so as to direct light downward toward the rear of said buildings and drive aisles; or (b) located on poles and directed inward toward the Subject Property. 3. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable city codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable city code requirements. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto refer to the C-ity Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. The Grantors coven ~nt and agrees that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virgi~ ia shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia to administer and enforce the foregoing conttitions, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bdnging of legal action or suit to ensure coml:liance with such conditions, including mandatory or # prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate aotion, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of ti e City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantors shall petition to the governing body for the review thereof pdor to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Z(~ning Map show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Be~ch, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantors and Grantee. WITNESS the following signatures and seals WILLIAM K. WRIGHT N.C. WEIGH1 JR. T~u~ HANNAFORD [: P, OS., CO. By: Title: STATE OF [/I R c,-/~u ~ A CITY/COUNTY OF A/o~o 4. k , to-wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me this~l 5~day of_ /~) ~, ,/ , Tr,,o,...."-'-- '--,,,, William K. Wri.c ht~ ,1995, My Commission Expires: STATE OF .. ~/~ .~.,/~ / ~1 CITY/COUNTY OF ~o~'o u~ . , to-wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~! ~ day of . .. , Tr~:=tcc f~ N. C. Wright, Jr.~-/',~. ~ PubliC ~'~ My Commission Expires: STATE OF ~./'# ~ CITY/COUNTY OF ~/~~,~ , to-wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,~/=" day of ~.~-u ly ,/.~ f-r~' /~. ~/o f-/~/~' , (Title) iHannafo~rd Bros., Co. I t My Commission Expires: ,1995 by on behalf of tra ry Public YVONNE M. DRAUSCHKE Notary Public, Maine My Commission Expire~ February 12, 2002 - 41 - Item IV-J.9. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 39767 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of September 26, 1995, an Ordinance upon application of THOMAS R. GIROUX (British-European Antique Imports, Ltd.) for a Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF THOMAS R. GIROUX (BRITISH-EUROPEAN ANTIQUE IMPORTS LTD.) FOR ,4 CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION Ordinance upon application of Thomas 1~ Giroux (British-European Antique Imports Ltd.)for a Change of Zoning District Classificatton from 1-1 Light Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District on the south side of Dean Drive, east of Lynnhaven Parkway. The proposed zoning classification change to B-2 is for commercial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for industrial use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel is located at 2645 Dean Drive and contains 2.450 acres. Voting: 10-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert I~ Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: No~e Council Members Absent: Louis 1~ Jones September 12, 1995 ]tern IV-CZ APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 39769 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD John Parker Unexpired Term thru 12/31/97 Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William t~. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf,, Nancy IC Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 Item IV-K. 1. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 39768 BY CONSENSUS, City Council APPOINTED upon adoption of the AMENDED Ordinance: ADVERTISING ,4GENCY SEleCTION COMMITTEE Juanita Felton F~ce Chair - Economic Development Advisory Commission No Term September 12, 1995 Item IV-M. 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 39770 COUNCIL-SPONSORED ITEMS Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution to request UNITED STATES CONGRESS NOT close the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S (FCC) NORFOLK OFFICE located in Virginia Beach. (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf and Vice-Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.) Voting: 9-1 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: Robert K. Dean Council Members Absent: Louis I~ Jones September 12, 1995 Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf and Vice-Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. A RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONGRESS NOT TO CLOSE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S NORFOLK OFFICE, LOCATED IN VIRGINIA BEACH WHEREAS, the Chairman ofthe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recommended closure of the FOO's Norfolk Office; WHEREAS, staff members of the Norfolk Office have assisted Congress and the Commission since 1943; WHEREAS, the Norfolk Office currently offers the 13 million citizens in the "Norfoll¢° Radio District access to the FCC through the Commission's technical agents and public information specialists; and WHEREAS, during the past year, staff members of the Norfolk Office have performed 225 communications assignments in potentially life-threatening situations, have received and responded to 2,000 inquiries and requests for assistance, and have provided technical assistance to defense activities and numerous other activities to make the area safer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the full Federal Communications Commission is hereby requested not to approve the recommended closure of the Norfolk Radio District Office. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the U.S. Congress is hereby requested not to concur with this recommendation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute a copy of this Resolution to each member of the City's delegation to the U.S. Congress. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 12 day of Se]:)r_eml:)er , 1995. ]tern IV-M.2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 39771 COUNCIL-SPONSORED ITEMS Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution to request the GOVERNOR'S OFFICE refrain from declaring as SURPLUS, and offering for sale, fifteen (15) acres of Tidewater Community College campus properties (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). The City Manager advised a Briefing is SCHEDULED .for September 19, 1995, relative the progress of the Higher Education Center. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndoff, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO REFRAIN FROM DECLARING AS SURPLUS AND SELLING PROPERTY FROM THE TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE, VIRGINIA BEACH CAMPUS WHEREAS, the City and Tidewater Community College have had a long and mutually beneficial relationship; WHEREAS, the City donated the land on which the current Community College is located to the State Board of Community Colleges; WHEREAS, the City has been advised that the Office of the Governor is considering declaring fifteen acres of the campus as surplus and offering it for sale; WHEREAS, City Council is actively engaged with Tidewater Community College, Old Dominion University, Norfolk State University, and others in the development of the Virginia Beach Higher Education Center on the Tidewater Community College land, and also on an adjacent thirty-five acre parcel donated by the City; WHEREAS, the development of the Virginia Beach Higher Education Center is critical to the future development of the City of Virginia Beach, Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia; WHEREAS, all of this land was donated to the Commonwealth for educational use only; and WHEREAS, this Resolution is being adopted in support of the Community College and in furtherance of the educational needs of the City, the Region, and the Commonwealth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Governor's Office is hereby requested to refrain from declaring as surplus, and subsequently offering for sale, any of the Tidewater Community College, Virginia Beach campus properties. 34 35 36 37 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute a copy of this Resolution to Governor Allen and to each member of the City's local delegation to the General Assembly. 38 39 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 12 day of September , 1995. 40 41 42 43 44 CA-6074 ORDIN\NONCODE\TCCLAND.RES R-1 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Item IY-M. 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 39772 COUNCIL-SPONSORED ITEMS Upon motion by Councilman Baton, seconeed by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITEL Y: Resolution to support the application of GTE SOUTH in seeking approval of the State Corporation Commission re revising its local exchange, access and intraLATA long distance rates. (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf) Voting: 8-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Robert I~ Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndoff, Nancy K. Parker and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Linwood O. Branci~ III, Louis R. Jones and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. September 12, 1995 - 47 - Item IV-M. 4.a. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # $9775 ADD -ON Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council AGREED TO ADD-ON to the Agenda: Resolution addressing the FY 1995 deficit accumulated by the School Division, recording certain findings of the City Council, urging the School Division to cooperate in preparation of a Reconciliation Plan, setting forth recommendations to prevent recurrence, and requesting concurrence of the Board with the recommendations by September 19, 1995. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones September 12, 1995 ]tern IV-M. 4. b. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 39774 ADD-ON Upon motion by Councilman Heischober, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution addressing the FY 1995 deficit accumulated by the School Division, recording certain findings of the City Council, urging the School Division to cooperate in preparation of a Reconciliation Plan, setting forth recommendations to prevent recurrence, and requesting concurrence of the Board with the recommendations by September 19, 1995. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert I~ Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy I~ Parker and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Louis R. Jones and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. September 12, 1995 RESOLUTION ADDRESSING THE FY 95 DEFICIT ACCUMULATED BY THE SCHOOL DIVISION, RECORDING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, URGING THE SCHOOL DIVISION TO COOPERATE IN PREPARATION OF A RECONCILIATION PLAN, SETTING FORTH RECOMMENDATIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE, AND REQUESTING CONCURRENCE OF THE BOARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, responsibility for the management and accounting of funds appropriated for public education purposes rests with the School Board, and State law mandates that public education funds not be expended in excess of those made available by the City Council; WHEREAS, the School Division has accumulated a deficit in funds made available for public education purposes during the period of July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995 (FY 95) in the amount of $7.4 million; WHEREAS, the School Division has requested the City Council to appropriate the deficit from the City's year ending fund balance; WHEREAS, the City Council is granted the powers of taxation and appropriation by the State for the financial management of the City and its agencies and thus has the right and duty to require fiscally-dependent agencies to take appropriate steps to assure sound fiscal management and continued public confidence; WHEREAS, the City Council has directed that an audit of the funds of the School Division for the 1994-1995 budget year be performed by the City's independent auditor, and has also directed the auditor to identify the causes of the overexpenditures and to recommend accounting and fiscal management procedures to prevent a recurrence; WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the City Manager to present his recommendations for prevention of recurrence of this overexpenditure by the School Division and to present his recommendations for addressing the $7.4 million deficit; 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 WHEREAS, the City Manager has forwarded those recommendations to the Council, and has also noted his proposed options for reconciling the deficit confronting the School Division; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all available information, and determined that prompt and effective action is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FINDS THAT: 1. The School Division's unbudgeted and unauthorized spending jeopardizes the financial health of public education in the City, and poses a threat to the good financial standing of the City and its agencies; 2. The information received from the School Division as to the 1994-1995 budget deficit and the Division's financial standing for the 1995-1996 budget year has proven to be conflicting and unreliable, and thus the City Council has grave concerns regarding the condition and sustainability of the 1995-1996 School operating budget; 3. The management and budgetary planning and control within the School Division are inadequate, and substantial system improvements as well as further oversight by the appropriating body are essential to the protection of the public interest; and 4. Neither the children in the public education system nor the City's taxpayers should bear the burden for the lack of fiscal management by the School Division. 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The School Division is strongly urged to direct the Superintendent to cooperate and collaborate with the City Manager to implement the following steps, consistent with the recommendations of the City Manager, for prevention of recurrence of the overexpenditure of funds: 1. Prepare by October 31, 1995 a proposed reconciliation plan for the $7.4 million deficit subsequent to the receipt of the independent auditor's report which focuses upon a 2 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 means to fund the deficit without harming the quality of education available to the children of this City and without increasing the burden on the taxpayers of this City; 2. Provide, prior to October 17, 1995, a verifiable projection of revenues and expenditures for the 1995- 1996 budget year, and provide detailed assurances that actions will be taken to ensure that all School funds will be in balance for the 1995-1996 budget year; 3. Develop a memorandum of understanding prior to October 31, 1995 that will consolidate the School Division's accounting, payroll and purchasing functions into the City Finance Department, all of which should result in substantial savings; 4. Agree to modify the School Division's financial management reporting and control system, and to modify the procedures of the School Board prior to November 7, 1995 so as to ensure that all fiscal actions of the Division are fully disclosed, that impacts are identified, and that the Board has available complete information on the status of all School funds and takes such actions as are appropriate to ensure the financial integrity of the School Division; and 5. Develop budget instructions, including formats and timetables, prior to November 7, 1995, to ensure that the preparation and development of the 1996-1997 budget will provide the information needed by the City Manager and the City Council for decision-making. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: City Council hereby requests the School Board to reply to these specific requests no later than September 19, 1995. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 12 day of September 1995 , · 99 100 101 102 CA-6079 ORDIN\NONCODE\DEFICIT.SB6 R-6 SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - 49 - ]tern IV-N. 1. COUNCIL CONCERNS ITEM tt 39775 Councilman Dean inquired relative the CIP issue of Rural Road Projects and whether the Sandbridge Road upgrade had been deleted from these projects. The City Manager advised the City Staff had met with Council Members Baton and Henley to review the Rural Road Projects. Council Lady Henley advised during the CIP process, Council Members requested the City Staff review the entire Sandbridge Road this year. This might be the rational for not wishing to proceed with just one portion. Councilman Dean inquired if any of the funding originally designated for Sandbridge Road had shifted to place additional emphasis on any other rural roadways, which had not been included. Councilman Dean also inquired relative the issue of Indian Creek Road and its prioritization. Council Lady Henley advised the funding goes into a Rural Road Improvement Fund in general and not any specific projects. The City Manager will advise relative prioritization of the Rural Road Projects. ITEM It 39776 If there were no objections Councilman Baum, requested he be allowed to work with the Planning Staff relative the limitations on Rural Lots. Councilman Baum wished the issue be reexamined relative the 300-foot road frontage. Councilman Baum wouM like the City Council to examine the proposal of the City Staff and then, if desired, forward same to the Planning Commission. ITEM # 39777 Council Lady Henley referenced the two proposed letters related to the Southeastern Expressway. These letters were for the purpose of stating the City's position to both the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the City of Chesapeake. During the City Council Session of September 5, 1995, BY CONSENSUS, City Council DIRECTED the City Manager to forward the letter to the Department of Transportation, AS Ad4ENDED. Portions of the letter which stated a definite position of City Council were to be removed. Council Lady Henley advised the letter to the City of Chesapeake was forwarded unchanged. This was not her intent. September 12, 1995 Item IV-O. ADJOURNMENT ITEM # 39778 Mayor Oberndorf DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 7:00 P.M.. Beverly O. Hooks, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE City Clerk Meyera E. Oberndorf Mayor City of Virginia Beach Virginia September 12, 1995