HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 7, 2000 MINUTESCITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large
VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At -Large
LINWOOD O. BRANCH, 111, Beach - District 6
MARGARET L. SURE, Centerville -District 1
WILLIAM W. HARRISON, JR., Lynnhaven - District 5
BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7
LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4
REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3
ROBERT C. MANDIGO, JR., Kempsville - District 2
NANCY K. PARKER, At -Large
ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large
JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager
LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney
RUTH HODGES-SMITH, MMC, City Clerk
ir5�Zinia B
NITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL BUILDING 1
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005
PHONE: (757) 4274304
FAX: (757) 426-5669
EMAIL: Ctycncl@city.virginia-beach.va.us
November 7, 2000
I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 10:30 AM
A. RED WING GOLF COURSE COMMISSION (15 min)
Sara A. Hensley, Director, Parks and Recreation
B. OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW (30 min)
Barry Frankenfield, Design and Development Administrator, Parks and Recreation
C. STATE FINANCES/REVENUES (15 min.)
Robert M. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager
D. LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE (15 min)
Robert M. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager
E. INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264 (30 min.)
E. Dean Block, Director, Public Works
II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
IV. INFORMAL SESSION
- Conference Room -
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
V. FORMAL SESSION
- Council Chamber -
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. INVOCATION: Reverend T. E. Thieman, D.D.
Pastor Emeritus
12:30 PM II
2:00 PM
C.
Ic
E.
F
G.
H
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
MINUTES
1. INFORMAL & FORMAL SESSIONS
AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
October 24, 2000
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.
ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS
1. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the proceeds from a Lease/
Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER $184,058 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund
(TGIF) to the FY2000-2001 operating budgets of the Departments of Public Works and
General Services re equipment and fourteen (14) positions for additional infrastructure
associated with the Hurricane Protection Project; and, increase estimated revenues
accordingly.
2. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $90,000 from fund balance in the Forfeited Asset Sharing
Special Revenue fund to the FY 2000-2001 operating budget of the Police Department re
purchase of a mobile surveillance vehicle.
3. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $69,368 Grant from the Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services; TRANSFER $7,708 from the General Fund
Reserve for Contingencies for grant matches to the FY2000-2001 operating budget of the
Virginia Beach Court Service Unit re funding a juvenile education program; and,
increase estimated revenues accordingly.
4. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973,866 from the General Fund Balance and $65,120 from
the Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings re the Gainsharing program and the Special
Productivity Incentive fund.
5. Petition to authorize a temporary encroachment into aportion of the City's one -hundred
foot (100') drainage easement at 2001 Falling Sun Lane by James O. and Vivian A.
Rogers re a wooden bulkhead for bank stabilization and erosion control (PRINCESS ANNE
- DISTRICT 7).
I. APPOINTMENTS
RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC)
SUPER HORNET COMMISSION
J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
K. NEW BUSINESS
L. ADJOURNMENT
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)
11/02/00
AGENDA\ 11/07/00
www.virginia-beach.va.us
U
5
6 Op 0 U %p"(1
M I N U T E S
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
November 7, 2000
Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING re RED WING GOLF
COMMISSION in the Council Conference Room, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at
10:30 A.M..
Council Members Present:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, Barbara M. Henley, Louis
R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf and
Nancy K. Parker
Council Members Absent:
Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. [ENTERED: 10: 40 A.M.]
William W. Harrison, Jr
Reba S. McClanan
Rosemary Wilson
[ENTERED: 10: 40 A.M.]
[OUT OF CITY]
[VACATION TO CELEBRATE
25'" ANNIVERSARY]
-2 -
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
RED WING GOLF COURSE COMMISSION
10:30 A.M.
ITEM # 47324
Sara Hensley, Director of Parks and Recreation, advised, in response to the Resolution ADOPTED in
August, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted an evaluation of the proposal prepared by Arthur
Hills and Associates for the renovation and expansion of Red Wing Lake Municipal Golf Course.
Lillie R. Gilbert, Chair - Parks and Recreation Commission, introduced the members of the Commission
in attendance:
Nicholas F. Anoia
Herbert A. Culpepper
Vice Chair
Ray Marion
The Outdoor Initiatives Committee, a subcommittee composed of Commission members, met on August 28,
2000, and recommended three renovation/expansion options that would be presented to the Commission.
The Commission discussed and adopted these recommendations on September 13, 2000. A Public Meeting
was planned for October 4, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing the recommendations.
Option 1
27 golf complex
Privatize golf course development and management, with
reduced fees for residents
Club House, parking and maintenance complex renovations
Space for relocation of Owls Creek Municipal Tennis Center
Option 2
Improve exiting 18 holes
Provide additional 9 holes
City to operate and manage
Rebuild existing greens
Renovate club house
Option 3
Upgrade existing 18 -hole golf course, including rebuilding
greens and renovating club house
City to operate and manage
On October 4, 2000, the Commission held a public meeting and gathered feedback from approximately
eighty (80) citizens. At that time, the three renovation options were explored and attendees were able to
provide comments on the plans. City Staff and Commission members responded to questions and provided
a forum for individual option review and discussion regarding the three proposals. The public almost
unanimously advised they did not favor prioritization, but did favor a municipal course.
The citizens favored expanding the course to 27 -holes at a cost of approximately $9 -MILLION. The
citizens are willing to have the current 18 -holes renovated completely with 9 -holes at a later date. The
citizens believed the course should be focused on community recreation golf, instead of an upscale course.
Citizens recommended the course be city -operated. On October 23, 2000, the Parks and Recreation
Commission held a special meeting to develop their recommendations for City Council on Red Wing Lake
Municipal Golf Course's potential expansion renovation. The Commission, by a 7-3 vote, favored those
ideas ofthe citizenry. The Commission voted to support theArthurHills and Associates design, rebuild the
18 holes, using the existing corridors; thereby leaving Open Space for natural habitats. In addition, the
Commission supported the expansion of an additional nine holes, the course be of high quality and that
City Staff operate and manage the golf course. The Commission requests City Council issue an extension
of sixty (60) days for City staff to contact Arthur Hills and Associates to obtain current cost estimates,
investigate construction of a new club house, rather than renovate the existing structure; revise Sensitivity
Analyses information; and, research alternative funding sources. The Commission would like to return to
City Council in January 2001 with complete recommendations.
November 7, 2000
-3 -
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
RED WING GOLF COURSE COMMISSION
ITEM # 47324 (Continued)
There are 490 acres ofland, of which almost 40% could be considered natural lands -wooded uplands and
wetlands. The Commission suggested keeping existing corridors and preserve the natural area protecting
some of the native habitats and design an Outdoor Environmental Educational Program into the new plan
for the golf course. This course could be registered with the Audubon Society and receive certification for
the golf course. During the process, the native birds and animals habituating the golf course could also be
preserved.
Mrs. Gilbert advised a raise in the golf rates is a major issue, particularly with the Seniors.
Dick Nutter, Golf Pro, advised a good quality golf course is complimented by a good quality club house.
A fee structure is being considered which will favor the residents.
November 7, 2000
-4 -
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW
10:42 A.M.
ITEM # 47325
Barry Frankenfield, Design and Development Administrator -Parks andRecreation, presented information
relative the FINAL DRAFT of the Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan 2000.
SUMMARY OF PUBLICAND STAFF COMMENT
RECEIVED FROM PRELIMINARYDRAFT
Various soccer organizations indicated a need for more athletic field
improvement to land recommended for acquisition - particularly fields
designated for individual sports, such as soccer.
Clarify recommended improvements to trail improvements in the North
End
Clarify recommended trail improvements leading to Sandbridge - Ferrell
(future Nimmo) Parkway and/or Sandbridge Road.
Take out all projected costs which will be accounted for in existing CIP
projects.
Stress how the Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan will promote pedestrian and
recreational connectivity throughout the City.
Coordinate trail recommendations with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Master Transportation Plan.
Significant Changes made to Preliminary Draft
Address all public and staff comments.
Include greater detail of implementation and funding strategies.
Prioritize all recommended acquisitions ("top, " "high, " and moderate')
based on evaluation criteria.
Specified trails throughout the City on all maps categorize by existing
trails, sidewalks (which require improvements to trail specifications), trails
proposed with road CIP Projects and proposed "new "trails which are not
currently funded for design or construction.
Recommend additional land for acquisition including land associated with
the Stumpy Lake to Back Bay Greenway; property on Indian River road for
athletic facilities and additional right-of-way needed for Southern Section
trails.
VIRGINIA BEACH OUTDOORS PLAN 2000
ESTIMATED COSTS
Acquisition Phase: The estimated cost to acquire
and maintain the land recommended for Virginia
Beach Outdoors Plan/Open Space Program is:
Land (4,100 acres)
$ 99, 300, 000
Maintenance (5 years)
$ 2, 900, 000
Potential Tax Loss (5 years)
$ 1.070.000
Total Acquisition:
$103,270,000
(Approximately $100,000,000)
November 7, 2000
-5 -
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW
ITEM # 47325 (Continued)
VIRGINIA BEACH OUTDOORS PLAN 2000
ESTIMATED COSTS
Improvements Phase - The estimated costs to
$100 -MILLION Land Costs
implement the improvements recommended
$ 50, 000, 000
Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan/Open Space
Less Grants & Partnerships
(10%)
Program is:
($ 10, 000, 000)
Parks and athleticfacilities:
$ 17,000,000
New trails (75 miles)
$ 16,920,000
Greenways access (37 miles)
$ 12, 700, 000
Scenic Waterway access (13 sites)
$ 1,575,000
Total Improvements:
$ 48,195,000
(approximately $50, 000, 000)
HYPOTHETICAL FUNDING PLAN
Ten Year Program Estimated
Funding Ranges
$50 -MILLION Land Costs
$100 -MILLION Land Costs
Total Estimated Costs
$ 50, 000, 000
$ 100, 000, 000
Less Grants & Partnerships
(10%)
($ 5,000,000)
($ 10, 000, 000)
Less Stumpy Lake
Appropriated Funding
($ 9,500,000)
($ 9,500,000)
Total Acquisition Phase
$ 25,500,000
$ 70,050,000
Cost per year for 10 years
$ 2,550,000
$ 7,050,000
The public was very supportive of pay -as you go funding, but not bonding. The public did not support
financinz for acauisition of open space.
HYPOTHETICAL IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD
Tax Increase Needed @ $.01 real
$ 0.012
$ 0.032
estate tax = $2,200,000
Annual total tax increase impact for a
$ 12.00
$ 32.00
home assessed at $100,000
Annual total tax increase impact for a
$ 24.00
$64.. 0
home assessed at $200,000
VIRGINIA BEACH OUTDOORS PLAN 2000 UPDATE
WHAT'S NEXT
Briefing Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission,
Board of Zoning Appeals in November 2000
Holding a final public meeting on November 15, 2000, in City Council
Chamber to distribute plan and survey for comments that can be mailed
Make minor modifications to the Plan based on public and staff
comments and as directed by City Council
Bring a final adopted version of the VBOP 2000 UPDATE to the Parks
and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council for
adoption in January 2001
November 7, 2000
M
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
OPEN SPACE PLAN - OVERVIEW
ITEM # 47325 (Continued)
The Parks and Recreation Department was commended on the preparation of their Plan.
Mr. Frankenfield advised there was discussion in general terms. The value ofpreservation for open space
can be a cost neutral situation based upon the expenses for roads, water, sewer, etc. There should be a
commitment that preservation of open space over a long term increases property values, quality of life and
does not cost as much as residential development. Mr. Frankenfield will provide estimates relative this
concept. Some of this information is referenced on page 14 of the Report. Mr. Frankenfield will make sure
this information is addressed in the Public Meeting next week.
Mr. Frankenfield will prepare an acquisition plan example relative the $50 -Million and $100 -Million Land
Costs, pay-as-you-go, and indebtedness.
Sara Hensley, Director of Parks and Recreation, advised in addition to being aware of the land identified
throughout the City, there are also other tools which can be implemented and utilized as an Outdoors Plan
is developed. This is not just about acquiring the land, but making decisions in the future to preserve land.
After the Public Meeting,, information relative extensive examination of specific properties and costs will
be presented during a Closed Session.
It was suggested this Plan be presented to the major real estate and commercial developers.
The formation of an Oversight Committee was recommended. The framework and membership for an Open
Space Program Oversight Committee (or Commission), composed of City Council, staff and citizens should
be identified.
November 7, 2000
- 7 -
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
STATE FINANCESIRE VENUES
11:25 A.M.
ITEM # 4 732 6
Robert M. Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager, through the utilization of power point, displayed the
State Budgetary issues. The State revenues for the first quarter of fiscal year 2001 grew at an annualized
rate of 1.7percent, compared to the 5.5 percent growth required to fund the state budget. Each percentage
is worth about $110 -MILLION dollars, so if revenue growth does not improve during the remainder of the
year, the revenue shortfall could approach $400 -MILLION.
The lower than expected revenue growth could be due in part to a higher than normal level of tax refunds
issued during the same quarter. It is premature to draw conclusions based on one quarter of revenue data,
but the sluggish growth during the first three months of the fiscalyear is cause for concern. If the revenue
estimate for fiscal year 2001 needs to be revised downward, then the revenue estimate for fiscal year 2002
will need to be adjusted downward. Currently, the state budget for Fiscal Year 2002 assumes revenue
growth of 6.9 percent.
Depending upon the Governor's revised official forecast in December, the State couldfind itself confronted
with a sizeable revenue shortfall that would have to be made up through budget cuts or transfers from the
revenue stabilization, or "rainy day "fund.
The Northern Virginia economy is paying the way for the rest of the Commonwealth. The Northern Virginia
economy is very technology rich. Virginia Beach has approximately one-half of the population of Fairfax
County and generates about 5% of the State's income tax. Fairfax County, by itself, generates 25% of the
State income tax. The technology sector is very depressed at this time compared to a year ago.
Rainy Day Fund
The option of using the "rainy day" fund would occur, if the combined
revenue growth of individual and corporate income taxes and sales tax
were 2 percent or more below the official forecast.
The state now has approximately $575 -MILLION in the fund.
Car Tax Triggers
The car tax legislation that passed in 1998 says that the State will not
automatically move to the next phase of tax relief if any of the following
conditions occur:
Actual general fund revenues are less than the official revenue
forecast by 0.5 percent or more.
The December forecast for any fiscal year indicates that
revenues will be less than 5 percent greater than revenues for the
immediately preceding fiscal year
The December forecast indicates that general fund revenues for
either of the fiscal years covered by the Appropriations Act in
effect at the time, will be less than the amount budgeted.
Car Tax Costs
FY 2001 $572.4 -MILLION
FY 2002 $855.4 -MILLION
FY 2003 $ 1.2 -BILLION
November 7, 2000
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
STATE FINA NCESIRE VENUES
ITEM # 47326 (Continued)
Budget Shortfalls
$62 MILLION is needed for the next phase of the Food Tax Repeal,
April 1, 2001.
No teacher salary increases have been approved for the 2nd year of the
Biennium. Each percent increase represents $27 -MILLION, i.e. 4percent
increase would be $108 -MILLION.
There is a $42 -MILLION shortfall in the next fiscal year for the
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA).
The Social Service Agencies, for this fiscal year, have a reported $100 -
MILLION shortfall. It is assumed this amount will remain the samefor the
2nd year of the Biennium.
More than $47-MILLIONis currently needed for the Community Services
Board, specifically Mental Health and Mental Retardation
The Commonwealth's Revenue Growth has been driven by capital gains
from the stock market. Major indices are down 35010for this year. This will
have an unknown impact on State revenues.
The State did not meet sales tax revenue targets last year. Erosion was due
to a move to a services economy and possibly Internet sales.
CONCERNS ON TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Raised by the Senate Finance Committee
The draft Sixyear Improvement Plan released in September makes several
assumptions which appear questionable, including:
Interest debt service payments on the Federal Revenue
Anticipation Notes (FRANs) are not accounted for after the
current biennium.
Maintenance costs beyond the current biennium are assumed to
be flat.
The statutory change which increased mass transit's share of
highway revenue is assumed to lapse after FY 2002.
The transportation revenue forecast embedded in the Plan does
not match the current official forecast for transportation
revenues. The Plan number is $139.7 -MILLION higher than the
current official forecast total.
The first four assumptions together have allowed an estimated $424.3 -
MILLION to be allocated to individual construction projects - much of
which will likely not be available.
The cost increases since last year on construction projects that are
underway or complete total $169 MILLION.
The Plan does include implicit cost adjustments in the out years but the
total impact of cost increases are unknown at this time.
Cost overruns have led to the continued practice of allocating funds to
projects - $642.8-MILLIONfor those complete or underway—for extended
periods, after the projects are complete.
November 7, 2000
KIM
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
STATE FINANCES/REVENUES
ITEM # 47326 (Continued)
The State Health Department received a memorandum directing them to prepare contingency plans for
2, 4 and 6%. The Department has not been told to implement these cuts. This is the only department that has
received any direct correspondence relative this shortfall.
The Senate Finance Committee is having a 2 -day Retreat. They will then have the October figures. House
Appropriations Committee will be meeting. Unless the trend reverses itself, then the Commonwealth will
be short of funding.
Mr. Matthias advised the Planning District Commission, during the prioritization process, devised a cost
of $1 -BILLION to turn the Route 460 Corridor into an Interstate Highway from Suffolk to 295. This could
be supported by a stand alone toll of .$1.00. There is not enough funding for both the Third Crossing and
the Route 460 Corridor. Mayor Oberndorf advised the Mayors, Chairs and others in the Planning District
(HRPDC) voted for the Third Crossing as their Number One priority.
A coalition of communities are working on the issue of the Route 460 corridor in conjunction with the
Planning District in the western part of the State for the purpose of attempting to get the Route 460 corridor
option "off the ground".
Virginia is the Internet Capitol of the World. 90% of the value of all Internet stocks is possibly in Northern
Virginia. If that stock is worth less money and citizens are paying less taxes, this is not affecting citizens
outside of Virginia, as much as it is in Virginia.
Mayor Oberndorf advised the U.S. Conference of Mayors has tried to negotiate a position for a
representative of local Government to be appointed to be to the Committee for Control of Internet Taxes
nationally. The majority members of this committee is composed of members of the Internet industry.
Detailed studies relative these taxes affecting the United States have been formulated by the Mayors and
Chairs Committee.
November 7, 2000
-10 -
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE
12:00 NOON
ITEM # 4 732 7
Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager, referenced the PREFACE to the DRAFT Legislative
Package, which states several City concerns. Although the state economy continues to expand, the growth
is much less than projected. The Commonwealth also has a number of financial obligations that will be
coming due during Calender 2001, including the next phase of the Food Tax Repeal and the next phase of
the Personal Property Tax Relief Program. The Commonwealth has anticipated shortfalls in funding in
several areas, including the Comprehensive Service Act, Social Services program and Mental Health and
Retardation Programs. The 2000 General Assembly funded no teacher salary increases in the second year
of the Biennium. Several organizations, such as the Virginia Municipal League, Virginia Association of
Counties and the General Assembly's own State and Local Taxation Commission suggested returning
substantial sums of money to local governments. The City is quite concerned about the requests to return
additional sums to localities at a time which may have extreme financial difficulties for the General
Assembly. Virginia Beach, like all localities, would like to diversify its income steam by receiving a dedicated
portion of the state income tax, Virginia Beach is more concerned at this time with the General Assembly
not adequately funding the traditional and customary state funded programs The short fall in funding of the
Comprehensive Services Act, Social Services program and Mental Health and Retardation, must be made
up before any consideration of additional revenue sharing to localities and should be considered. Besides
the state funding of these traditional programs, the City believes top priority should be Virginia assuming
its constitutional share of educational funding. The City's number one request to the General Assembly,
after funding traditionally State operatedprograms above, is that the Standards of Quality be funded to the
full SS percent as required by the Code of Virginia to provide a quality education.
Several studies in the pastfive years have identified $2 -BILLION a year in unmet needs for transportation.
The General Assembly, through the Virginia Transportation Act of 2000 in the 2000 Session, tried to
address this deficit. However, there still exists a cash flow problem exceeding $600-MILLIONwithin VDOT
and many needs are unmet. The Third Crossing of Hampton Roads, the Southeastern Parkway,
improvements to Route 40, improvements to Route I-64 on the Peninsula and Southside, a new Midtown
Tunnel, improvements to Route I-264 in Virginia Beach and improvements to Dominion Boulevard in
Chesapeake are all high priorities and yet will likely not be constructed under existing revenue streams.
The City is also quite concerned the Highway Maintenance and Operation Fund established for
maintenance of existing roads and other transportation modalities no longer has sufficient revenue to meet
the need.
Mr. Matthias advised the items contained within the Legislative Package:
L Funding of Education
H Funding for Transportation
III. Funding for Marine Science Museum
IV Funding for Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)
V Funding for Community Services Board (CSB)
VI. Funding for Public Libraries
VII Infopowering the Commonwealth (Public Libraries)
VIII. Funding for State Health Department
IX Funding for Contemporary Art Center of Virginia
expanded Educational programs
X Support for inclusion of "Sexual Orientation" in any
proposed "Hate Crimes" Legislation
XI Solid Waste Facilities
XII Crowd Control
XIII Public Utility Fee Collection
XIV A & E Selection Process
XV Faxing and Electronic Submission of Prescriptions
XVI Block Grants for Urban Road Funds
XVII Campaign Finance Reform
ADDENDUM -PUBLIC SAFETYISSUES
November 7, 2000
� ' ' '�� _ � City of Vir�iriia Beach
ye �z
q9� OPV
Op OUR KATION -
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
(804) 427-4242
FAX (804)427-4135
TDD (804) 427-4305
November 3, 2000
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
Municipal Center, Building 1
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Dear Council Members:
MUNICIPAL CENTER
VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23456-9001
Attached is the draft Legislative Package for the 2001 General Assembly Session.
Bob Matthias will give you a presentation on the package on Tuesday. Adoption is
scheduled for your meeting on December 5, 2000. As you will recall, Council, the School
Board, and the General Assembly Delegation are having a reception on Thursday,
December 14, 2000, at which time we can discuss the package with the Delegation.
The Joint Rules Committee of the General Assembly has proposed some sweeping
changes in how the General Assembly considers legislation. Although they will not
formally adopt these proposals until the first day of the General Assembly next year, we
must comply with the schedule with the assumption that the General Assembly will ratify
these proposals. The proposal is as follows:
• GeneralAssembly members shall have unlimited pre -filing privileges forlegislation.
However, after the first day of the session, House of Delegates members shall only
be able to introduce six bills and resolutions and Senators will only be able to
introduce 10 pieces of legislation.
• Request for drafts of legislation to be pre -filed, shall be submitted by 5:00 p.m.,
December 18, 2000.
• Tuesday, January 9, 2000, will be the last day to request first day of introduction
bills.
• Wednesday, January 10, first day of session will include charter changes, tax
exemptions, local fiscal impacts and VRS changes.
• January 12, 2001, will be the last day to request drafting forlegislation not required
The Honorable Mayor and
Member of City Council
November 3, 2000
Page 2
to be filed earlier.
• Friday, January 19, 2001, will be the last day to introduce legislation for the 2001
Session.
• There are exemptions to the above deadlines in that they shall not apply to
commending memorial resolutions, House or Senate Resolutions, bills or
resolutions affecting the procedure or schedule of the General Assembly,
resolutions or bills confirming appointments, bills or resolutions introduced with
unanimous consent, or bills or resolutions introduced at the written request of the
Governor.
• Saturday, February 24, 2001 Adjournment
This promises to be a very interesting General Assembly session. The primary
concern will be the possible shortfall in revenue if the State's experience to date
continues. You will be receiving a briefing on the State's financial picture at your meeting
Tuesday. The General Assembly will also be considering redistricting during 2001 with
several special sessions to be held after the regular session.
Please let me know if you would like additional issues added to the package or any
other information you would like provided to you at your November 7t`' meeting.
With Pride in Our City,
James K. Spore
City Manager
JKS/RRMI c
attachment
c: Robert R. Matthias
PREFACE
The 2001 Session of the Virginia General Assembly promises to be one of the more vexing
sessions in recent years. Although the state economy continues to expand, the growth is,
at the time of this writing, much less than projected. The Commonwealth also has a
number of financial obligations that will be coming due during calendar 2001, including the
next phase of the Food Tax Repeal and the next phase of the Personal Property Tax Relief
Program. Furthermore, the Commonwealth has anticipated shortfalls in funding in several
areas, including the Comprehensive Services Act, Social Services Program, and for
Mental Health and Retardation Programs. Finally, the 2000 General Assembly funded no
teacher salary increase in the second year ofthe biennium. This will need to be addressed
by the 2001 Session.
The above is back -drop to several organizations such as the Virginia Municipal League and
the Virginia Association of Counties and the General Assembly's own, State and Local
Taxation Commission suggesting returning substantial sums of money to local
governments. The City is quite concerned about the requests to return additional sums to
localities, in a time of what may be extreme financial difficulties for the General Assembly.
Although, Virginia Beach, like all localities, would like to be able to diversify its income
stream by receiving a dedicated portion of the state income tax, Virginia Beach is more
concerned at this time with the General Assembly funding the traditional and customary
state -funded programs. The short -fall in funding of the Comprehensive Services Act,
Social Services Program and Mental Health and Retardation, must be made up before any
consideration of additional revenue sharing to localities should be considered. Besides the
state funding of these traditional programs, the City believes top priority should be Virginia
assuming its constitutional share of education funding. We applaud the General Assembly
for initiating the two-year study of the Standards of Quality in education funding. Virginia
Beach spends more than $93 million of local tax dollars above that required by the
Standards of Quality. This is in contrast to nationwide data that revealed the Virginia State
Government investment in the Operational Cost of the Commonwealth's Public Schools
constitute $17.66 per 1,000 of the state's personal income, a level of investment exceeded
by 43 states. Therefore, the City's number one request to the General Assembly after
funding the traditionally state operated programs above, is that the Standards of Quality
be funded to the full 55 percent as required by the Code of Virginia to provide a quality
education.
One final area that is of great concern to Virginia Beach and other localities is
transportation needs and funding for those needs. Several studies in the past five years
or more have identified $2 billion a year in unmet needs for transportation. We applaud the
General Assembly for its attempt, through the Virginia Transportation Act of 2000 in the
2000 General Assembly, to try to address this deficit. However, as will be laid out in detail
in the transportation section of this legislative package there still exists a cash flow problem
exceeding $600 million within VDOT and many needs are unmet. The Third Crossing of
Hampton Roads, the Southeastern Parkway, improvements to Route 460, improvements
to Route 1-64 on the Peninsula and Southside, a new Midtown Tunnel, improvements to
Route 1-264 in Virginia Beach, and improvements to Dominion Boulevard in Chesapeake
are all high priorities and yet will likely not be constructed underexisting revenue streams.
Also, the City is quite concerned that the Highway Maintenance and Operation Fund
established formaintenance of existing roads and other transportation modalities no longer
has sufficient revenue to meet needs. Funds are now being transferred from the
Commonwealth Transportation Fund that was established for construction to meet the
needs in the HMO fund.
The growing disparity in the state's transportation needs and resources must be
addressed. Delays in rectifying transportation concerns in Hampton Roads, northern
Virginia, and other areas of the state will diminish the Commonwealth's ability to compete
in the global market. It will also exact a very high human and fiscal cost on our citizens by
reducing their quality of life.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Funding of Education
II. Funding for Transportation
III. Funding for Marine Science Museum
IV. Funding for Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)
V. Funding for Community Services Board (CSB)
VI. Funding for Public Libraries
VII. Infopowering the Commonwealth (Public Libraries)
VIII. Funding for State Health Department
IX. Funding for Contemporary Art Center of Virginia Expanded Educational
Programs
X. Support for Inclusion of "Sexual Orientation" in any Proposed "Hate Crimes"
Legislation
XI. Solid Waste Facilities
XII. Crowd Control
XIII. Public Utility Fee Collection
XIV. A & E Selection Process
XV. Faxing and Electronic Submission of Prescriptions
XVI. Block Grants for Urban Road Funds
XVII. Campaign Finance Reform
Addendum - Public Safety Issues
2
O ?
OF OUR NIPSON
City of Virginia Beach
2001
General Assembly Session
Legislative Package
DRAFT NOVEMBER 3. 2000
■ ■
LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS
The legislative package from the City of Virginia Beach for the second year biennium of the
millennium is primarily funding oriented because of our increasing reliance on state funding for
programs and the growing dependence by localities on property taxes and the few local revenue
sources available. Virginia Beach feels the state must take a larger role in helping the City to
provide services to our citizens. Requests for funding are as follows:
L FUNDING FOR EDUCATION:
With more than 50% of the City's budget committed to educating the 77,000 plus
students in the Virginia Beach Public School system, it is vital that the state provide its
full share of both operation and infrastructure funding. The state should fund the full
cost necessary to meet the Standards of Quality (SOQ). With the Virginia Beach
School system having more than 1,000 teachers above the number needed to meet
the SOQ and having to spend $93,000,000 in local funds above the SOQ amount, it is
obvious that the level of education funding provided under the guidelines of the SOQ
is hopelessly inadequate. Furthermore, state funding for new construction,
renovation, maintenance, land acquisition and installation of educational technology is
needed. We look forward to the results of the ongoing JLARC study of education.
REQUEST.
While localities are grateful for the funds placed into education infrastructure and
technology from the state lottery, we believe that all of the approximate $310 million
per year from the lottery should be made available to localities instead of less than
half of that amount that is now available (the remainder of the lottery funds are being
utilized by the state to meet its share of the SOQs). The General Assembly has also
mandated that JLARC embark on a review of the Standards of Quality. This report is
due for consideration by the 2002 General Assembly and is likely to reveal that
localities across the Commonwealth are contributing much higher levels of effort for
education than the Constitution envisioned. Although some legislators called these
additional efforts local aspirations, Virginia Beach feels that the Standards of Quality,
which the State funds, are not adequate for students to pass the Standards of
Learning Testing. Virginia Beach, for instance, appropriates approximately $93 million
a year in local funds above that which the Standards of Quality require.
1l. FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION:
During the 2000 General Assembly the General Assembly passed the Virginia
Transportation Act of 2000 (VTA). This was an attempt by the General Assembly to
address the short fall in transportation funding statewide. The City and all localities
are very much indebted to the General Assembly for attempting to address
transportation. However, since the General -Assembly met the development of the Six
Year Plan by the Commonwealth Transportation Board has revealed that there are
still serious and growing problems in transportation. The Six Year Plan has identified
a continuing cash flow in which more than $640 million worth of money is still being
allocated to projects after they have been constructed. Also, the Six Year Plan as
adopted does not have inflation built in for any maintenance needs after the first two
years of the Six Year Plan. Furthermore, the Six Year Plan does not have any debt
service for the Federal Revenue Anticipation Notes after the first two years. Several
of the projects supported by the City that were to be funded with FRANS were not
included in the Six Year Plan including, improvements to Route 1-64 in the vicinity of
Yadkin Road in Chesapeake and the Interchange Improvement Program for 1-264 in
Virginia Beach. Finally, it seems obvious that the General Assembly will be reluctant
to appropriate additional General Fund Revenue to transportation considering the
shortfall in projected revenues to the Commonwealth.
REQUEST:
Transportation improvements are vital to timely movement people, goods and
services. In spite of the General Assembly's efforts in the VTA 2000 our
transportation system is approaching very unacceptable level of service in Hampton
Roads and in Northern Virginia. The General Assembly is requested to consider
additional revenue sources such as those proposed by the Commonwealth
Transportation Alliance, including an increase in the gasoline tax and other
transportation related revenues. In order for the Commonwealth to address the
estimated $2 billion a year shortfall it is imperative that substantive progresses in
increasing revenues for transportation be made immediately.
Ill. FUNDING FOR THE VIRGINIA MARINE SCIENCE MUSEUM, PHASE Ill:
The Virginia Marine Science Museum is owned and operated by the City of Virginia
Beach in cooperation with the Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation, Inc.
Phase I of the Virginia Marine Science Museum opened in 1986 as a 41,500 square
foot aquarium and museum facility. Phase 11 opened in 1996 and tripled the size of
VMSM through addition of a nature trail, several large aquariums and an IMAX 3D
theater. Since the opening of Phase ll, the museum became the highest attended
museum in the state,- and one of the top ten attended aquariums in the United States.
In the last three years it has been visited by more than 215, 00 school students and its
outreach programs have been presented to thousands more throughout the state.
The primary reason for its successful growth is that it has been appreciated as both
an educational facility valued by residents as well as one of Virginia's greatest tourist
attractions.
Phase 111 Expansion Overview
The architectural plans for Phase 111 are 30% complete and call for a building that will
surround a 1.6 million gallon aquarium containing a variety of marine species. The
architectural design firm has a strong reputation for building the largest and most
attended aquariums in the world. The facility design is unique for its expansive
underwater views and natural exhibits that immerse visitors in the environments of the
animals they see. It will set the new standard for the look of future large aquariums.
The exhibit themes will focus entirely on Virginia's marine environment and an
important conservation element of this will be to relocate the museum's stranding
center to the Phase 11I facility where it will become part of a major marine animal
rescue exhibit. Preliminary discussions with Old Dominion University has indicated an
interest on their part to consider building an adjacent research and marine studies
facility that would operate in conjunction with Phase Ill, provided that land could be
made available for this purpose. A recently completed economic impact study
indicates that with Phase 111 the Virginia Marine Science Museum will have an annual
IV.
V.
attendance of 1,000,000 visitors which will in turn generate annual tax revenues of
$2.9 million for the City of Virginia Beach, $1.2 million for the Hampton Roads region,
and $3.7 million for the Commonwealth.
Costs
Funding
Building $42,600,000
Federal
$ 2,000,000
Site 10,000,000
State
10,000,000 ($2 million provided to
date)
City
30,600,000
Private
10,000,000
Total $52,600,000
Total
$52,600,000
REQUEST:
The Virginia Marine Science Museum is seeking $8,000,000 to be used for
construction costs which will occur in FY200112002 and asking that $500.000 be
restored to its budget for operating costs.
FUNDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT (CSA):
CSA funding is inadequate to address the needs of the children in Virginia Beach and
across the Commonwealth.
REQUEST:
Given that Virginia Beach has consistently been unable to meet the needs of children
and adolescents eligible for services under the Comprehensive Services Act due to
inadequate state funding for both mandated and non -mandated children, the City
requests a state code change that would require sum sufficient state funding for this
program.
Also with the continued escalating cost associated with this program, the City requests
that the General Assembly direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
conduct a study of CSA and its impact upon local government. The members of the
study commission should include legislators, representatives from local government,
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judges, local human services representatives
including Social Services, Community Services Boards, Public Health, Court Services,
and the public education system.
FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB):
Any plans for the future of the publicly funded mental health, mental retardation
and substance abuse services system should provide sufficient state funding for
a comprehensive system of care and treatment at the state and local level.
Funding must be adequate to meet the needs of.
a. Persons eligible for medicaid supported services but are unable to receive
them due to lack of state match funding
b. Persons in need of services unfunded by medicaid
C. Persons who are indigent and cannot access medicaid services
2. State facility resources available to localities have been declining steadily over
the past ten years. During FY 2001, the state Department of Mental Health,
Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services will be developing a plan for
the future of Eastern State Hospital. Representatives from the local
governments and community services boards served by this state facility should
be involved in all discussions and planning for the future of Eastern State.
Specifically, code changes are requested in the following areas:
a. Prior to the submission of any plan regarding the restructuring of state
facilities, the Commissioner of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and
Substance Abuse Services must provide meaningful opportunities for local
government and CSBs served by state facilities to participate in state
planning and policy development efforts.
b. Sufficient community funding to meet the needs of persons who otherwise
would be served by a state facility must be identified prior to restructuring
or downsizing of state facilities.
C. Since inpatient care is a state funded/state facility responsibility, inpatient
care (whether provided in community inpatient facilities or in a state
facility) should be entirely paid for by state resources to meet the needs of
indigent persons who have been committed to state facilities.
3. Local Community Services Boards should be statutorily defined as the local
public manager and safety net provider of community based mental health,
mental retardation and substance abuse services. Public management includes
the following responsibilities:
a. The single point of entry into the publicly funded system for mental
retardation services.
b. The single point of entry into the publicly funded system for mental health
and substance abuse services for consumers who are at significant risk
for publicly funded inpatient care or are in need of multiple services.
C. The oversight of both public and private providers funded by the publicly
funded system.
d. The provision of leadership in the development and implementation of
public policy governing the community mental health system.
4. Given the number of persons with chemical addictions incarcerated in local jails,
we support increased state funding for the SABRE program to expand substance
abuse treatment in the community corrections programs. Substance abuse
services should be provided in both adult and juvenile correctional facilities and
should be coordinated with local community services boards.
VI. FUNDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES:
The Code of Virginia (Title 42. 1, Chapter 3) establishes Virginia's policy of granting
financial aid for the development of local public libraries and specifies a formula that
determines the dollar amount each public library system should receive in any budget
year. FY2001 was a landmark year as Virginia's public libraries achieved full funding
of the formula for the first time since 1985. This goal was reached following a three-
year process within the legislature. It is essential that full funding be maintained in
FY2002 in order to accomplish the long-range -goal to insure that every citizen has
equal access to a minimum level of quality public library service. Appropriations for
state aid have historically been made by amendment from members of the General
Assembly, both in the Senate and in the House of Delegates.
State aid is critical to the Virginia Beach Public Library and is essential in
supplementing operating budget funding. These funds are used solely to purchase
books, electronic resources, and other materials used directly by citizens. The Library
provides resources for school-age students particularly during afternoon, evening,
weekend and summer hours when school libraries are closed. The Library serves
adults, many of whom use its resources as their only source of free, up-to-date
information. The Library supports parents and families with the tools and materials
essential to have every child enter school ready -to -learn.
REQUEST:
Current State Aid
Appropriation FY 2001
$20,485,543
Virginia Beach
State Aid Received FY 2001
$377,862
Request for State Aid
Appropriation FY 2002
$21,194,997
Virginia Beach
State Aid Expected FY 2002
$378,780
Virginia Beach % of total appropriated state aid FY2001: 1.845
Virginia Beach % of total requested state aid FY2002: 1.787
Virginia Beach state aid/capita* FY2001: $0.90
Virginia Beach state aid/capita* FY2002: $0.91
* based on 1998 population estimate of 418,300
VII. INFOPOWERING THE COMMONWEALTH (PUBLIC LIBRARIES):
In response to the 1997 House Joint Resolution (No. 444) requesting a strategic
information technology plan for public libraries that addressed universal access, the
Library of Virginia developed an technology initiative, Infopowering the
Commonwealth — Virginia's Public Libraries: Electronic Resource Libraries for 21s'
Century Information. fwww.infopowering.lib. va. us] Infopowering is a statewide initiative
to connect all Virginia citizens to their web -enabled government and to Internet
information resources through their local public library. Second, it is a strategic
technology plan for Virginia public libraries that addresses bridging the "digital divide"
with universal access to information. Third, it is a cooperative effort to ensure that all
349 public library facilities in Virginia have access to a core group of reference and
research materials online.
At its 1999 session, the General Assembly took a small step toward implementing the
plan by providing $500,00 to begin start-up grants for all public libraries without
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
Internet access (188 library sites). This goal was achieved by the end of 1999. The
second step is to ensure adequate access — libraries using dial-up connections, often
at 14.4 or 28.8kbs, need to be upgraded to dedicated lines at 56kbs or better. Most
libraries also need additional PC's to meet high demand from their users. Web -
enabled government requires citizen access to the web. An Infopowering goal is one
Internet access point for every 3,125 citizens. At the beginning of 2000, the current
ratio in Virginia was one for every 11,200. Governor Gilmore included $1,000,000 in
the FY2001 budget and an additional $1,700,000 in the FY 2002 budget for a total of
$2.7 million dollars allocated to the Infopowering initiative.
REQUEST.
The Virginia Beach Public Library supports the Virginia Library Association's legislative
position to maintain the current level of funding ($2.7 million) in FY 2002. in 2001, the
Virginia Beach Public Library is eligible for a partnership grant within the Infopowering
funding that will allow additional PC's to be purchased to support the information
needs of citizens and to narrow the gap of the "digital divide':
Vlll. FUNDING FOR STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
The City appreciates the increase in funding made by the General Assembly in its
2000 Session for the Virginia Beach Health Department. However, that funding will
expire unless reappropriated at the end of the current biennium. The General
Assembly has directed that a study of Health Department Funding be done and we
also appreciate that effort. Public Health Departments are often over looked in their
service to everyday citizens. The Virginia Beach Health Department, for instance, has
been active over the last summer trying to identify birds that might bring the West Nile
Virus into the area and other mosquito born illnesses because of the very wet
conditions. This is in addition to the services the Health Department has historically
been providing which the average citizen has often overlooked.
REQUEST:
The General Assembly is requested to reexamine the formula for public health
departments and to establish a new formula based on need and population. The
existing formula is completely outdated and does not take into account the needs of
growing localities.
IX. FUNDING FOR CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER OF VIRGINIA:
The Contemporary Art Center of Virginia is a non-profit, non -collecting institution
founded in 1952 to foster awareness, exploration and understanding of the significant
art of our time. The Center fulfills its mission by providing regularly changing
exhibitions by internationally, nationally and regionally renowned contemporary artists
and by presenting educational programs that encourage critical thinking, dialogue and
artistic expression. The Center is the only institution in the Commonwealth of Virginia
dedicated solely to contemporary art and education and, as such, is an important
element in the Commonwealth's cultural tourism initiatives.
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
Art often reflects the political and social milieu in which it is created and invites the
viewer to explore, not only the aesthetic and philosophical aspects for the work, but its
relevance to their own expression and participation in society. The Center is a unique
forum for ideas and discourse essential to an informed and involved citizenry.
The Center's mission renders it an equally valuable educational resource. The
Center's educational programs are designed to provide children and young adults a
foundation for their lifelong appreciation and exploration of the world in which they live
and work. The Center's commitment to excellence in education was recently
recognized by the prestigious Rufus Beamer Excellence Award, a state-wide initiative
sponsored by the Virginia Department of Education and the Virginia Council of
Vocational Education. Students from three local high schools collaborated with the
Center's education department to create a unique project that incorporated art,
history, science, technology, culture, industry and the environment in a public
exhibition at the Center for nearly three months.
Essential to this goal is the training of professional educators. For several years, the
Center has offered a Teacher Institute underwritten in part by Title Vl. During the
Teacher Institute, educators receive instruction on (1) object -based learning, (2) the
integration of art with other disciplines and (3) writing innovative, flexible curricula and
lesson plans. Educators can choose to apply the Institute toward re -certification or
graduate course work. Educators who attend the Institute are asked to train their
colleagues at their schools in the techniques they learn. The Institute no longer
qualifies for Title VI funding because it is not a new project. The Center is not able to
sustain the institute without external funding.
The Center's education staff, in collaboration with other professional educators, has
developed programs that meet current requirements for Virginia's Standards of
Learning (SOL) in several subjects. Specifically, It's Greek to Me, developed for 3'
graders, integrates social studies, mathematics and architecture. Ancient China:
Digging into the Past Today, developed for 2„d graders, integrates history, social
studies and archeology. Move It: Magnets, Electricity & Kinetics, developed for 4rn
graders, explores physical science. Building with Light, developed for 5" graders,
explores the functional and aesthetic properties of light and meets science SOL's.
During the 1998-99 academic year, approximately 6,000 students under the age of 18
benefitted from education outreach programs offered by the Center. The success of
these programs is evidenced by the increasing number of requests from schools
throughout Hampton Roads.
REQUEST.
The Contemporary Art Center of Virginia requests $375,000 for the second year of
biennium from the legislature for the purpose of developing an expanded educational
program that employs state-of-the-art telecommunications to reach students and
educators state-wide. We propose to electronically export these educational
programs to schools outside the region offering educators a cost-effective means to
meet the requirements of the SOL's. Many schools in the state lack adequate
resources to develop and implement such a program. In addition to state support, the
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
Center is actively seeking corporate partners for this technology initiative that will
assist with the needs of the schools. By taking the programs state-wide, the Center is
able to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the cost per student. The
Center's education staff will coordinate with other institutions to present `traveling
exhibitions" designed to provide students opportunities for direct observation of
paintings, drawings, sculptures, artifacts or other objects. We also propose to
electronically export the Teacher Institute state-wide thus offering educators in remote
counties and underfunded school districts the opportunity to benefit. Funding from the
legislature will allow the Center to promote and coordinate the expanded program,
make the necessary investment in technology and training and augment the
education staff.
X. SUPPORT FOR INCLUSION OF "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" IN ANY PROPOSED
"HATE CRIMES" LEGISLATION:
Under the current State Code, there are enhanced penalties for certain crimes if the
person who commits the crime selects his or her victim because of the victim's race,
religious conviction, color, or national origin. These crimes are generally referred to
collectively as "hate crimes." During its 9998 and 9999 Sessions, the General
Assembly considered, but did not adopt, several bills which, if adopted, would have
expanded existing "hate crimes" legislation to include any victim selected because of
his or her sexual orientation.
REQUEST.
The Virginia Beach City Council believes that any criminal who selects his or her
victim simply because of the victim's sexual orientation should also be subject to
enhanced penalties. Therefore, the Council supports the inclusion of "sexual
orientation" in any "hate crimes" legislation considered by the General Assembly
during its 2001 Session
Xl. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES:
During the last General Assembly code changes were made dealing with sanitary land
fills. The proposed regulations that are under review and comment at this time by the
Department of Environmental Quality will disallow the utilization of much of Landfill #2
for the last ten years of its planned life. This would cost the City approximately $42
million in additional cost. Although the regulations are still under review, the City is
quite concerned that the intent of the General Assembly is not being carried out by the
regulatory agencies.
REQUEST:
Request that the General Assembly review the regulations proposed by the
Department of Environmental Quality dealing with landfills so that non-polluting
landfills, like Landfill #2, do not have their useful life unnecessarily shortened.
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
Xll. CROWD CONTROL:
Section 15.2-1130 of the Code of Virginia provides that any city having a population
between 100,000 and 110, 000, or between 150,000 and 160, 000, may, by ordinance,
provide that any person who negligently fails to provide adequate security or crowd
control at an activity that draws large crowds of people may be liable to the city, in an
amount not to exceed $1,000, for the cost of providing emergency response to such
activity. The Police Department believes that this authority should also be extended to
Virginia Beach which, due to its size, is often the site of large-scale activities that
present security and crowd control concerns. Furthermore, the Police Department
believes that the penalty should be increased to $5000, for the cost of providing
emergency response to such activity.
REQUEST.
It is recommended that § 15.2-1130 be amended to read as follows:
§ 15.2-1130. Liability for failure to provide adequate security or crowd
control.
Any city having a population between 100,000 and 110, 000,, er between
150,000 and 160,000 or greater than 390,000 may provide by ordinance
that any person who has negligently failed to provide adequate security or
crowd control at a sporting event, restaurant, night club or other business or
commercial activity that draws large crowds of people may be liable in a
separate civil action for the cost associated with any emergency response
by the law-enforcement agency or emergency medical services personnel
of such city caused by the sponsor, owner or tenant of any sporting event,
restaurant, night club or other business or commercial establishment who
negligently failed to provide adequate security or crowd control. Such
person shall be liable to the city in an amount not to exceed $5, 000.
XIU. PUBLIC UTILITY FEE COLLECTION:
The Department of Public Utilities uses the services of outside legal counsel to assist
in the collection of unpaid water and sewer connection fees, and would like to be able
to recover attorney's fees as part of its collection efforts. Unfortunately, there is no
statutory authority for a locality to recover attorney's fees under these circumstances.
REQUEST.
It is recommend that the next to last paragraph of Virginia Code § 15.2-2119 be
amended to read as follows:
§ 15.2-2119. Fees and charges for sewer services.
Such fees and charges, along with delinquent water and sewer connection
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
fees, and the a_y penalty and interest thereon shall constitute a lien against
the property, ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid taxes. Such amounts,
plus reasonable attorney's or collection agency's fees which shall not
exceed twenty percent of the delinquent tax b fee or charge, may be
recovered by the locality by action at law or suit in equity.
XIV. A & E SELECTION PROCESS:
Pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act, all public bodies are authorized,
without limitation, to provide, in an Invitation to Bid, that awards may be made to more
than one bidder, and to provide, in a Request for Proposal ("RFP') for
"nonprofessional services," that awards may be made to more than one offeror.
However, only State agencies are authorized to provide, in an RFP for "professional
services," that awards may be made to more than one offeror, and this authority
contains numerous limitations.
The Department of Public Works has identified circumstances under which the
authority of the City to make multiple awards on a single RFP for architectural and
professional engineering services would be beneficial. Additionally, the contract term
and dollar amount limitations currently imposed on the authority of State agencies
make multiple awards on a single RFP for architectural and engineering services
appear to be unnecessary in light of the fact that no such limitations are currently
imposed on the authority of public bodies to make multiple awards on an Invitation to
Bid on an RFP for nonprofessional services.
REQUEST:
Therefore, it is recommended that § 11-37 of the Act be amended to read as follows:
§ 11-37. Definitions. The words defined in this section shall have the
meanings set forth below throughout this chapter.
3. a. Procurement of professional services.
A contract for architectural or professional engineering services relating to
construction projects may be negotiated by a state agency,, as defined in §
11 6 public body for multiple projects provided (i) the projects require
similar experience and expertise, and (ii) the nature of the projects is clearly
identified in the Request for Proposa , and (Ag the contract tettn i� Hmited to
Under
a_y such contract, fij the fair and reasonable prices, as negotiated, shall be
used in determining the cost of each project performed, (hg the sum ofe
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
Lot ALUML.J"MWELWLL.AffW1&WJ&WA"Wn
i�ncnimc�ff—aILI W.c►Miic:���i�a�ts�ii�cii��
Competitive negotiations for such contracts may result in awards to more
than one offeror provided (i) the Request for Proposal so states and (ii) the
state agency public body has established procedures for distributing
multiple projects among the selected contractors during the contract term.
XV. FAXING AND ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PRESCRIPTIONS:
A number of our citizens have requested that the code be changed to allow individual
to fax a prescription to a pharmacy, then at a later time to pick up the medicine and
present the original prescription. This would prevent a number of individuals who now
must present the prescription in person and wait for the pharmacist to fill the medicine
or return at a later time.
REQUEST:
To amend the Code of Virginia to allow pharmacists to receive through electronic
means, such as fax or email, prescriptions for drugs. The pharmacist would be
allowed to fill the order for the drug, but the original prescription signed by the doctor
would have to be presented at the time the drugs were delivered or picked up.
XVI. BLOCK GRANTS FOR URBAN ROAD FUNDS:
As stated earlier, the transportation issue is proving to be very vexing for all Virginians.
Under the current code, Virginia Beach can, on a project by project basis, receive
funds for urban construction projects and design and build the projects of our choice.
The City has the ability to pick and choose which projects the City will take
responsibility for and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) must be
responsible for other projects. In order to expedite the construction of transportation
projects under the urban system, the City believes that localities should be able to
request that their urban allocation is given to them in block grants to construct projects
as approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Localities would be
responsible for all phases of the project including design, right of way accusation,
construction and construction management. The roads would obviously need to be
constructed to all VDOT standards including any accounting standards and
requirements.
REQUEST:
The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code of Virginia to allow cities to,
by resolution of the governing body, request that future urban allocation be given as a
block grant to that locality. The payments could be made on a quarterly basis. The
cities would be responsible for building the road and to account for the money under
all accounting standards imposed by VDOT. Jurisdictions could only revert back to
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
the customary practice of VDOT managing urban funds through another resolution of
the governing body.
XVII. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM:
Campaign Finance Reform is an issue that is receiving much discussion at the local,
state, and federal level. Although the General Assembly has embarked on a Study of
Campaign Finance Reform the recommendations of that group are not known at the
time the Legislative Package is being prepared. Virginia Beach City Council desires
Campaign Finance Reform at the local level. Currently, there is no audit being done
on local races and it seems to be obvious that the amount of money spent on
advertising and other campaign activities sometimes does match that reported by the
candidates.
REQUEST:
The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code of Virginia to require that
auditing be done of all local local governing body elections when a total of more than
$5000 per candidate is expended. Results shall be furnished the State Board of
Elections so that any irregularities can be pursued.
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
ADDENDUM
1. PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES:
Presently, state code only specificallx authorizes officers, who did not observe
the actual violation, to stop and ticket offenders for speeding violations upon
receipt of a radio transmission from the officer observing the violation (§46.2-
882). Present traffic volume, especially in heavily populated jurisdictions, and
the way highway's are now being constructed, make it extremely difficult for
single officers to position themselves and their vehicles at a place where they
can both observe infractions and then be able to exit the location in order to
stop the violator. While the "team" policing concept has been recognized in
other states, only certain judges in Virginia Beach will allow this action. We
would request that the legislature specifically expand the authority granted
under §46.2-882 to include all traffic charges punishable as misdemeanors and
traffic infractions. This would allow officers more flexibility in citing violators,
other than speeders, by allowing an officer to transmit the violation to another
officer who could make the actual stop and ticket the offender for the officer
who observed the actual offense.
We would suggest that §46.2-102 and §19.2-81 be amended as follows:
REQUEST.
§46.2-102. Enforcement by law-enforcement officers; officers to be uniformed,
officers to be paid fixed salaries. --State police officials and law-enforcement
officers of every county, city, town or other political subdivision of the
Commonwealth shall enforce the provisions of this title punishable as felonies,
misdemeanors, or traffic infractions. Additionally, notwithstanding §52-22, state
police officers may enforce local ordinances, adopted under subsection G of
§46.2-752, requiring the obtaining and displaying of local motor vehicle
licenses. Fifty percent of the revenue collected from such enforcement shall be
remitted to the locality to the Department of State Police and disposed of by the
Department to cover its cost of operation. Every law-enforcement officer shall
be uniformed at the time of the enforcement or shall display his badge or other
sign of authority. The driver of any motor vehicle may be arrested without
a warrant under this section if the arresting officer is in uniform or
displays his badge of authority and if he observed the offense, or has
received a radio message from the officer who observed the offense. All
officers making arrests incident to the enforcement of this title shall be paid
fixed salaries for their services and shall have no interest in, nor be permitted
by law to accept any benefit of, any fine or fee resulting from the arrest or
conviction of an offender against any provision of this title.
Section §19.2-81 needs to be changed to coincide with the requested change
in §46.2-102:
§19.2-81. Arrest without warrant authorized in certain cases.-- The following
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
officers shall have the powers of arrest as provided in this section:
1. Members of the State Police force of the Commonwealth,
2. Sheriffs of the various counties and cities, and their deputies,
3. Members of any county police force or any duly constituted police force
of any city or town of the Commonwealth.
4. The Commissioner, members and employees of the Marine Resources
Commission granted the power of arrest pursuant to §28.2-900,
5. Regular game wardens appointed pursuant to §29.1-200,
6. United States Coast Guard and United States Coast Guard Reserve
commissioned, warrant, and petty officers authorized under §29.1-205 to
make arrests, and
7. The special policemen of the counties as provided by §15.2-1737,
provided such officers are in uniform, or displaying a badge of office.
Such officers may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits any
crime in the presence of the officer, or any person who commits a violation
of section §46.2 of the state code if an officer has received a radio
message from the officer who observed the violation, or any person whom
he has reasonable grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed
a felony not in his presence.
The present DUI Cost Recovery law (§15.2-1716) allows localities to bill up to
$1,000 for any accident or incident involving a person convicted of DUI under
state code or local ordinance. Some believe that this has required a minute -by -
minute accounting of the officer's time and equipment which is extremely staff
intensive. We would request this code be amended to specifically allow
localities to bill either with a flat fee or with minute -by -minute accounting. We
would request this be amended as follows:
REQUEST.
§15.2-1716. Reimbursement of expenses incurred in responding to DUI
incident.-- Any locality may provide by ordinance that any person who is
convicted of a violation of §§18.2-51.4, 18.2-266 Or 29.1-738, or a similar
ordinance, when his operation of a motor vehicle, engine, train or watercraft
while so impaired is the proximate cause of any accident or incident resulting in
an appropriate emergency response, shall be liable in a separate civil action to
the locality or to any volunteer rescue squad, or both, which may provide such
emergency response for the reasonable expense thereof, in an amount not to
exceed $1,000 in the aggregate for a particular accident or incident occurring in
such locality. "Reasonable expense" maybe billed as a flat fee of $100 or
with a minute -by -minute accounting of the actual costs incurred. As used
in this section, "appropriate emergency response" includes all costs of
providing law-enforcement, fire -fighting, rescue, and emergency medical
services, The provisions of this section shall not preempt or limit any remedy
available to the Commonwealth, to the locality or to any volunteer rescue
squad to recover reasonable expenses of an emergency response to an
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
accident or incident not involving impaired driving or operation of a vehicle as
set forth herein.
State Code §46.2-817 (eluding police) was changed as of July 1, 2000. These
changes provide that simple eluding (i.e., failure to stop) now becomes a Class
3 misdemeanor. If the operator of the vehicle drives in a willful and wanton
disregard of a signal to stop so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of
a law-enforcement vehicle or endanger any person, it become a Class 6 felony.
Unfortunately, the penalty section of this code only provides that if convicted of
the misdemeanor under this section, the driver's license of the offender may be
suspended for periods of 30 days to 1 year, however, if speeds were more
than 20 miles over the posted limit it becomes mandatory that the suspension
be issued.
REQUEST.
We would request that all eluding police convictions carry a mandatory
license suspension. This may be easily done by deleting the word "may" and
substituting "shall" as shown below:
State Code §46.2-817 Disregarding signal by law-enforcement officer to stop;
eluding police; penalties.
C. When any person convicted of a misdemeanor under this section, in addition to
the other penalties provided in this section, the driver's license of such person
may shall be suspended by the court for a period of not less than thirty days
nor more than one year. However, in any case where the speed of such
person is determined to have exceeded the maximum allowed by twenty miles
per hour, his driver's license shall be suspended by the court for a period of not
less than ninety days.
State codes §46.2-705 and §46.2-707 require motor vehicles to be insured or
to pay the required uninsured motor vehicle fee; state code §46.2-373 requires
officers to place the name of the insurance carrier or agent on accident reports.
Unfortunately, no code requires proof of insurance to be carried in the
vehicle. Thus, law enforcement officers must rely on the information
provided by the operators of the motor vehicle during accident
investigations; much of this information is incorrect or false. We would
request that state code §46.2-104, which mandates that the operator's license
and vehicle registration card be in possession of the vehicle operator, be
amended to include carrying proof of liability insurance. Further, while this
code requires the operator of am motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer operated
on the highways of the Commonwealth to have this information in their
possession, the punitive portion appears only to apply to persons licensed by
the Commonwealth. Thus, persons from out-of-state seem to face no punitive
actions from this statute. This could be corrected by amending the present
code as shown below:
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
REQUEST.
§46.2-104. Possession of registration cards; exhibiting registration card, proof
of liability insurance, and licenses; failure to carry license, proof of liability
insurance or registration card.
The operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer being operated on the
highways of the Commonwealth, shall have in his possession: (1) the
registration card issued by the Department or the registration card issued by
the state or county in which the motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is
registered, and (ii) his driver's license, learner's permit, or temporary driver's
permit, and (iii) proof of liability insurance.
The owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall stop on
the signal of any law-enforcement officer who is in uniform or shows his badge
or other sign of authority and shall, on the officer's request, exhibit his
registration card, proof of liability insurance, driver's license, learner's
permit, or temporary driver's permit and write his name in the presence of the
officers, if so required, for the purpose of establishing his identity.
Every person ficemsed
's pe who fails to carry his license or permit,
proof of liability insurance, and registration card for the vehicle which he
operates, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and upon conviction punished by a
fine of ten dollars. However, if any person summoned to appear before a court
for failure to display license, permit, proof of liability insurance, or
registration card presents to the officer issuing the summons or a magistrate of
the county or city in which the summons was issued, before the return date of
the summons, a license or permit issued to him prior to the time the summons
was issued, proof of liability insurance, or a registration card, as the case
may be, issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued, or
appears pursuant to the summons and produces before the court, a license or
permit issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued, proof of
liability insurance, or a registration card, as the case may be, issued to him
prior to the time the summons was issued, he shall have complied with the
provisions of this section.
Presently, state code only allows a person to be charged with Refusal to
submit to a chemical test after the refusal statute has been read to them by a
Magistrate. Only after this is done, and the subject again refuses, can a
warrant for Refusal to submit to a chemical test be obtained. Unfortunately,
many persons suspected of driving under the influence are transported to a
medical facility for treatment after accidents; on -duty magistrates are usually
unable to leave their office and come to a medical facility. Thus, many vehicle
operators, especially repeat offenders, are aware of this problem and refuse to
submit to a test while at a medical facility. Since the magistrate cannot come to
the medical facility to read the refusal statute, offenders are able to refuse
testing without risking refusal charges. Additionally, this makes convicting the
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
offender of driving under the influence very difficult.
REQUEST.
We would request that the state code be amended to allow officers to read the
offender the Refusal statute (using the same form as the Magistrate) while at
any medical facility. The officer would read the form to the driver, and have
them sign the form should they again refuse the test. The officer and a witness
would then sign the form and give a copy to the defendant. This change would
then allow the officer to prosecute the subject for Refusal. We would request
the code be changed as follows:
State Code §18.2-268.3. Refusal of tests; procedures.
A. If a person after having been arrested for a violation of §§18.2-51.2 or
§18.2-266.1 or of a similar ordinance and after having been advised by
the arresting officer that a person who operates a motor vehicle upon a
public highway in this Commonwealth is deemed thereby, as a condition
of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood and
breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content
of his blood, and that the unreasonable refusal to do so constitutes
grounds for revocation of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon
the highways of the Commonwealth, refuses to permit blood or breath or
both blood and breath samples to be taken for such tests, the arresting
officer shall take the person before a committing magistrate. If said
person is unable to be taken before a committing magistrate due to
treatment in a medical facility, the arresting officer, in front of a
witness, shall again advise the person of the law requiring a blood
or breath sample to be taken and the penalty for refusal with such
form as provided by the Supreme Court, If he again so refuses after
having been further advised by the magistrate, or arresting officer, of
the law requiring blood or breath samples to be taken and the penalty
for refusal, and so declares again his refusal in writing upon a form
provided by the Supreme Court, or refuses or fails to so declare in
writing and such fact is certified as prescribed below, then no blood or
breath samples shall be taken even though he may later request them.
B. The form shall contain a brief statement of the law requiring the taking of
blood or breath samples and the penalty for refusal, a declaration of
refusal, and lines for the signature of the person from whom the blood or
breath sample is sought, the date, and the signature of the witness to
the signing. If the person refuses or fails to execute the declaration, the
magistrate, or the arresting officer, shall certify such fact and that the
magistrate, or arresting officer, advised the person that a refusal to
permit a blood or breath sample to be taken, if found to be
unreasonable, constitutes grounds for revocation of the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of the
Commonwealth. The magistrate shall promptly issue a warrant or
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
summons charging the person with violation of §18.2-268.2. The warrant
or summons shall be executed in the same manner as criminal warrant
or summons. At the scene of any medical facility, the arresting
officer may issue a summons for violation of §18.2-268.2 in lieu of
securing a warrant.
C. Venue for the trial of the warrant or summons shall lie in the court of the
county or city in which the offense of driving under the influence of
intoxicants is to be tried. The executed declaration of refusal or the
certificate of the magistrate, or arresting officer, as the case may be,
shall be attached to the warrant, or summons from the arresting
officer, and shall be forwarded by the magistrate, or arresting officer,
to the aforementioned court.
D. No changes necessary.
E. The declaration of refusal or certificate of the magistrate, or arresting
officer, shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant refused to
allow a blood or breath sample to be taken to determine the alcohol or
drug content of his blood. However, this shall not prohibit the defendant
from introducing on his behalf evidence of the basis for his refusal. The
court shall determine the reasonableness of such refusal.
The present State Code requires an accident report be submitted if total
damage exceeds $1000. This dollar amount was set approximately 10 years
ago and is much too low based on the cost to repair today's vehicles. If this
amount could be raised to $2500, it would greatly reduce the amount of
paperwork necessary at minor accident scenes, reduce the burden on the
courts in their attempt to determine fault, and reduce the time officers spend
investigating minor accidents. We would suggest the state code be amended
as shown below:
State Code §46.2-373. Report by law-enforcement officer investigating
accident.
A. Every law-enforcement officer who in the course of duty investigates a
motor vehicle accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or
total property damage to an apparent extent of We $2500 or more,
either at the time of and at the scene of the accident or thereafter and
elsewhere, by interviewing participants or witnesses shall, within twenty-
four hours after completing the investigation, forward a written report of
the accident to the Department. The report shall include the name or
names of the insurance carrier or of the insurance agent of the
automobile liability policy on each vehicle involved in the accident.
Presently, state code requires a vessel must be abandoned for a period
exceeding twelve months before it is subject to the provisions of state code
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
29.1-733.1 (Acquiring title to an abandoned vessel).
REQUEST:
We would request that a new code section, 29.1-733.2 be enacted to allow a
city, county or town the authority to declare any vessel left unattended on a
public highway or street, on public property or a waterway within the jurisdiction
of the city, county or town abandoned and allow for disposal of the vessel in
the same manner as abandoned vehicles under state code 46.2-1213.
29.1-733.2
A. The governing body of any county, city, or town may by ordinance provide
for the removal for safekeeping of vessels and vessel trailers to a storage area
if.
1. It is left unattended on a public highway, street or other public property and
constitute a traffic hazard;
2. It is left unattended for more than ten days either on a public highway or
street or other public property;
3. It is left unattended on a waterway within the jurisdiction of the governing
body.
4. It is immobilized on a public highway or street or other public property by
weather conditions or other emergency situations.
B. Removal shall be carried out by or under the direction of a law-enforcement
officer. The ordinance, however, shall not authorize removal of vessels, and
parts thereof from private property without written request of the owner, lessee,
or occupant of the premises. The ordinance may also provide that the person
at whose request the vessel or part of a vessel is removed from private
property shall indemnify the county, city or town against any loss or expense
incurred by reason of removal, storage, or sale thereof. Any such ordinance
may also provide that it shall be presumed the such vessel or part thereof is
abandoned if it has been in a specific location for ten days without being
moved. As prompt as possible, each removal shall be reported to a local
governmental office to be designated in the ordinance and to the owner of the
vessel. Before obtaining possession of the vessel or parts thereof, the owner
shall pay to the parties entitles thereto all costs incidental to its removal,
storage and locating the owner. If the owner fails or refuses to pay the cost or
if his identity or whereabouts is unknown and unascertainable after a diligent
search has been made, and after notice to him at his last known address and to
the holder of any lien of record with the office of the Department against the
vessel or part thereof, the vessel shall be treated as an abandoned vessel
under the provisions of this code and disposed of in a manner consistent with
the applicable provisions established under 46.2-1213 for disposal of
abandoned vehicles.
November 3, 2000 (1:30PM)
-11 -
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264
12:35 P.M.
ITEM # 47328
E. Dean Block, Director - Public Works, introduced John Herzke, City Engineer, who presented through,
the utilization of Power Point, the I-264 Corridor Interchange improvements. Mr. Herzke advised there is
a study required by FHWA that prior to any final or proposed designs are developed for these interchanges,
a Corridor Study shall be prepared.
I-6411-264 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AND HOV CONNECTORS
VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT - TWO PROJECTS
First Project: Connection of the 1-264 HO lanes through
the I-264 Interchange.
Study
RE
Construction
04101 - 10102
11102
Beyond 2006
VDOT Schedule:
Study
04101 -10102
RE
11102
Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0%
Construction
01105
VDOT Project Estimate:
P.E.
$ 3,000,000
$ 1,000,000 from other fund sources in the VTDP
R/W
$ 0
$43,835,000 shortfall for construction
Construction
$ 39,232,000
Total:
$ 42,232,000
Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City
Participation 0%
$30,829,000from otherfund sources in VTDP
$ 11,403,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP
Second Project: Construct dual lanes on the off -ramp from I-
64 west to I-264 east
VDOT Schedule:
Study
04101 - 10102
RE
11102
Construction
01105
VDOTProjectEstimate:
P.E.
$ 1,000,000
R/W
$ 1,000,000
Construction
$ 10,000,000
Total:
$12,000,000
Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation
0%
$10,000,000 from other fund sources in VTDP
$ 2,000,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP
I-2641WITCHDUCK ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT
Replace the existing partial clover leaf interchange with an
improved interchange.
VDOT Schedule.•
Study
RE
Construction
04101 - 10102
11102
Beyond 2006
VDOT Project Estimate:
P.E.
R/W
Construction
Total:
$ 5,000,000
$ 3,502,000
$ 60,890,000
$ 69,392,000
Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0%
$24,55 7, 000fundedfrom the VTA of 2000
$ 1,000,000 from other fund sources in the VTDP
$43,835,000 shortfall for construction
November 7, 2000
-12 -
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264
ITEM # 47328 (Continued)
I-2641ROSEMONT ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT
In VDOT VTDP, funds are only available for P.E. and R/W.
Replace the existing partial clover leaf interchange with an
improved interchange
Study
04/01 - 10/02
.Funding for construction not programmed in the VTDP
P.E
4/02
VDOT Schedule.
Study
04/01 - 10/02
VDOT Project Estimate:
P.E
11/02
Construction
Beyond 2006
VDOT Project Estimate:
P.E.
$ 5,000,000
R/W
$ 2,695,000
Funding Source: VDOT Urban Allocations 98%, City
Construction
$ 60,000,000*
Participation 2%
Total:
$ 67,695,000
$32,932,000 from programmed Urban Allocations
*Per VDOT but not reflected in the VTDP
Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0%
$ 2,444,000 from other fund sourced in VTDP
$ 7,045,000 to be funded by VTA of2000
$21,880,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP
$ 650, 000 from other fund sources in the VTDP
Second Phase: Complete Lynnhaven Parkway Interchange
$60,000,000 shortfall for construction
Improvement
I-264/LYNNHAVEN PARKWAYINTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTSIPROP. GREAT NECK ROAD
VDOT ADMINISTERED PROJECT
First Phase: New interchange at Great Neck Road and build
collector distributor roads on 1-264
VDOT Schedule:
Study
04/01 - 10/02
P.E
4/02
Construction
01/06
VDOT Project Estimate:
P.E.
$ 3,000,000
R/W
$13, 714, 000
Construction
$ 40,542,000
Total:
$ 57,256,000
Funding Source: VDOT Urban Allocations 98%, City
Participation 2%
$32,932,000 from programmed Urban Allocations
$ 2,444,000 from other fund sourced in VTDP
$21,880,000 shortfall for construction in the VTDP
Second Phase: Complete Lynnhaven Parkway Interchange
Improvement
VDOT Schedule:
Study
04/01 - 10/02
RE
11/02
Construction
01/06
VDOTProjectEstimate::
P.E.
$ 2,000,000
R/W
$ 8,353,000
Construction
$ 30.445.000
Total:
$ 40,798,000
Funding Source: Federal/State 100%, City Participation 0%
$38,398,000 to be funded form VTA of 2000
$ 2,400,000 from other fund sources in VTDP
November 7, 2000
-13 -
CITY MANAGER `S BRIEFING
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - I-264
ITEM # 47328 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF FUNDING
VTA of 2000
$ 70,000,000
VDOT Urban Allocations
$ 32,932,000
Other funding Sources
(STP, CMAQ, NH, etc.)
$ 47,323,000
TOTAL FUNDING PROGRAMMED
$150,255,000
REVIEW PROCESS
Corridor Study - 04/01 thru 10/02*
Preliminary Engineering/Design Concepts
Public Hearings
Citizen Review/Input
Draft Report
Additional Public Hearings
City Council Review
City Council Approval
Proceed with Design and Construction
November 7, 2000
-14-
A GENDA RE VIE W SESSION
12:58 P.M.
ITEM # 47329
H.1 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the
proceeds from a Lease/Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER
$184, 058 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to
theFY2000-2001 operating budgets ofthe Departments ofPublic
Works and General Services re equipment and fourteen (14)
positions for additional infrastructure associated with the
Hurricane Protection project; and, increase estimated revenues
accordingly.
The City Manager advised Council Lady Eure the lease purchase for the equipment would be for a maximum
offive (5) years. Dean Block advised the interest rate would be less than 5%.
ITEM # 4 733 0
H.4 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973, 866from the General Fund
Balance and $65,120 from the Water and Sewer Fund Retained
Earnings re the Gainsharing program and the Special
Productivity Incentive fund.
Council Lady Eure expressed concern relative the $65,120 comingfrom retained earnings in the Water and
Sewer Fund for the FY 2000 Gainsharing program. The City Manager advised the funds are based on a
proration ofwhere the employees work. Thus the involvement of these fundsfrom the Water and Sewer Fund.
For the past six (6) years, this program has been funded from a combination of these two sources.
ITEM # 47331
BY CONSENSUS, the following shall compose the CONSENT AGENDA:
H.1 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the
proceeds from a Lease/Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER
$184, 058 from the Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to
theFY2000-2001 operating budgets ofthe Departments ofPublic
Works and General Services re equipment and fourteen (14)
positions for additional infrastructure associated with the
Hurricane Protection project; and, increase estimated revenues
accordingly.
H.2 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $90, 000 from fund balance in the
Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue fund to the FY 2000-
2001 operating budget of the Police Department repurchase of
a mobile surveillance vehicle.
H.3 Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $69,368 Grant
from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services;
TRANSFER $7,708 from the General Fund Reserve for
Contingencies for grant matches to the FY2000-2001 operating
budget of the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit refunding a
juvenile education program; and, increase estimated revenues
accordingly.
H.4 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973, 866 from the General Fund
Balance and $65,120 from the Water and Sewer Fund Retained
Earnings re the Gainsharing program and the Special
Productivity Incentive fund.
H.5 Petition to authorize a temporary encroachment into a portion
of the City's one -hundred foot (100 ) drainage easement at 2001
Falling Sun Lane by James O. and Vivian A. Rogers re a
wooden bulkhead for bank stabilization and erosion control
(PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7).
November 7, 2000
-15 -
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
1:00 P.M.
ITEM # 47332
Vice Mayor Sessoms commented relative the School Formula Committee, and advised there is a comfort
level for the next couple of years with the Formula. The last meeting will be scheduled next week; however
these issues will pertain more to "lump sum funding", etc.
ITEM # 47333
Council Members Branch and Eure met with the School Modernization Committee. Some of their costs are
increasing; however, lottery proceeds are better than expected. These reversion funds have been utilized
to bridge the gap. The modernization is on schedule; however, one of the schools will be moved back a year
because only f ve projects can be efficiently conducted at one time. Due to changes in construction costs,
the Committee will conduct an Annual Review of modernization as opposed to a 2 -year review.
Because of additional costs, there will be more demolition and construction of new schools, as opposed to
renovation. The cost of the whole project has a differential of only $800, 000.
ITEM # 47334
Mayor Oberndorf spoke at the AIA Leadership Conference in Richmond. The Chairman of the Board of
Prince William County also spoke relative the Formula established for schools. Due to this Formula, there
are no disagreements between the School Board and the County Board of Supervisors. The School Board
is immediately aware of the funding available to operate and maintain the schools for the year.
ITEM # 4 733 5
Council Lady Henley was astonished to witness a house under construction on apiece of property which she
knew had previously been considered "not buildable ". The Health Department, instead ofrequiring the land
management septic tank system utilized in the past, approved one of the new experimental systems. Rather
than requiring a 3 -acre minimum with land management, this house is being built on a 1 -acre lot at 2.6
feet elevation. The City staff is investigating this matter.
ITEM # 4 733 6
Mayor Oberndorf referenced an article concerning Norfolk being interested in bringing the light rail from
downtown Norfolk to the Newtown Road juncture.
Vice Mayor Sessoms advised Virginia Beach's position on light rail reflects the City will not interfere with
the neighboring cities concerning light rail with the complete understanding no funding will come from
Virginia Beach. Chesapeake, Portsmouth and Norfolk have supported pursing light rail.
Council Lady Eure advised a conference is scheduled relative the high speed rail line on Friday, November
10, 2000.. Dale Castellow - Planning, will be attending. If Norfolk does build a light rail from Newtown
Road, at least the citizens could board there and access it to Richmond or Washington.
Vice Mayor Sessoms said HRT is very much in favor of high speed rail.
Councilman Jones advised 25% of the surface transportation funds are going to be allocated to the light
rail project and 25% of the ISTEA funds for the district are going to be allocated to the project. All f this
effects the amount of funds received by Virginia Beach.
Councilman Harrison inquired why the Route 460 Corridor was not considered for the high speed rail.
Route 460 crosses the Elizabeth and James Rivers at their two narrowest points.
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 1:15 P.M. TO VIEW THE
RENOVATIONS.
November 7, 2000
-16 -
ITEM # 4 733 7
Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the INFORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY
COUNCIL in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at
1:25 P.M.
Council Members Present:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
-17 -
ITEM # 47338
Mayor Oberndorf entertained a motion to permit City Council to conduct its CLOSED SESSION, pursuant
to Section 2.1-344(A), Code of Virginia, as amended, for the following purpose:
PERSONNEL MATTERS: Discussion, consideration or interviews of*
prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment,
promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation
of specific public officers, appointees, or employees pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (A) (1).
To Wit: Boards and Commissions:
Resort Advisory Commission
Super Hornet Commission
PUBLICLY -HELD PROPERTY.• Discussion or consideration of the
acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of
publicly -held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the
public body pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(3).
To -Wit Lynnhaven Parkway/264
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council voted to proceed
into CLOSED SESSION.
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
(Time of Closed Session: 1:25 P.M. to 1:55 P.M.)
November 7, 2000
-18 -
FORMAL SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
November 7, 2000
2:00 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, November 7, 2000, at 2:00 P.M.
This was the first meeting in the newly renovated Chamber. Mayor Oberndorf expressed appreciation to
James K. Spore - City Manager, David Grochmal - Director of General Services and their staffs who have
endeavored tediously to remove the asbestos and complete the renovation of the City Council Chamber as
scheduled. The improved audio system is flawless and has resulted from hours of dedication. COMIT has
provided the latest in technology i.e. voting system, recorder, plug ins for lap tops, electronic presentation
system and lighting. New drapes, upholstered seats and carpet have been provided to create not only a
beautiful but efficient Chamber. This renovation entailed a cost of approximately $350, 000.
Mayor Oberndorf expressed appreciation to the Virginia Beach City School Board and the School
Superintendent for allowing their utilization of the School Board Chamber for the City Council Meeting
during the three months of renovation.
Council Members Present:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan [OUT OF CITY)
Rosemary Wilson [VACATION TO CELEBRATE
25'h ANNIVERSARY]
INVOCATION: Reverend T. E. Thieman, D.D.
Pastor Emeritus
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vice Mayor Sessoms, being a Corporate Officer of Wachovia Bank, DISCLOSED there were no matters on
the agenda in which he has a 'personal interest'; as defined in the Act, either individually or in his capacity
as an officer of Wachovia Bank. The Vice Mayor regularly makes this Disclosure as he may not know of the
Bank's interest in any application that may come before City Council. Vice Mayor Sessoms' letter ofJanuary
4, 2000, is hereby made apart of the record.
November 7, 2000
WLZ
Item V -E.
CERTIFICATION OF
CLOSED SESSION ITEM # 47339
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council CERTIFIED
THE CLOSED SESSION TO BE INA CCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION TO RECESS.
Only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which
this certification resolution applies;
AND,
Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by
Virginia Beach City Council.
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
Itr.0aIix#inn
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 47338, Page 17, 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 Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby
certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to
which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were
identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by
Virginia Beach City Council.
Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
November 7, 2000
Lof OUR NAt10
Itr.0aIix#inn
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 47338, Page 17, 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 Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby
certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to
which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were
identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by
Virginia Beach City Council.
Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
November 7, 2000
Item V -F.1.
MINUTES
-20 -
ITEM # 47340
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council APPROVED the
Minutes of the INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS of October 24, 2000.
Voting: 8-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R.
Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K.
Parker and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Abstaining:
William W Harrison, Jr.
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
Councilman Harrison ABSTAINED as he was not in attendance during the City Council Session of October
24, 2000.
November 7, 2000
-21 -
Item V -G.
ADOPT AGENDA
FOR FORMAL SESSION ITEM # 47341
BY CONSENSUS, City Council ADOPTED:
AGENDA FOR THE FORMAL SESSION
November 7, 2000
-22 -
Item V -H. 1.
ORDINANCES ITEM # 47342
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council APPROVED INONE
MOTION, Ordinances 1, 2, 3, 4 and S of the CONSENT AGENDA.
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
-23 -
Item V -H. 1.
ORDINANCES ITEM # 47343
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED:
Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $446,538 to be funded by the proceeds
from a Lease/Purchase Agreement; TRANSFER $184,058 from the
Tourism Growth Investment Fund (TGIF) to the FY2000-2001 operating
budgets of the Departments of Public Works and General Services re
equipment and fourteen (14) positions for additional infrastructure
associated with the Hurricane Protection project; and, increase estimated
revenues accordingly.
Voting: 9-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
I AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $184,058 FROM THE
2 TOURISM GROWTH INVESTMENT FUND RESERVE FOR
3 CONTINGENCIES AND APPROPRIATE $446,538 FROM A
4 LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO THE FY 2000-01
5 OPERATING BUDGETS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF PUBLIC
6 WORKS AND GENERAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE
7 EQUIPMENT AND FOURTEEN POSITIONS NECESSARY FOR
8 MAINTENANCE OF HURRICANE PROTECTION PROJECT
9 INFRASTRUCTURE
10 WHEREAS, the additional infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection Project,
11 including the new seawall and widened boardwalk, benefits the community and provides important
12 protection from major storms;
13 WHEREAS, $630,596 is needed to provide a basic level of maintenance for the additional
14 infrastructure associated with the Hurricane Protection Project, with $239,026 (for nine full-time
15 positions and related equipment) required by the Department of General Services, and $391,570 (for
16 five full-time positions and related equipment) required by the Department of Public Works;
17 WHEREAS, to fund this additional personnel and related equipment, $184,058 is available
18 in the Tourism Growth Investment Fund ("TGIF") Reserve for Contingencies, and the remaining
19 $446,538 can be provided from the proceeds of a lease/purchase agreement; and
20 WHEREAS, sufficient capacity exists in the TGIF to pay the associated debt service
21 associated with a lease/purchase agreement.
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
24
25 1. That $66,570 is hereby transferred from the TGIF Reserve for Contingencies to the
26 FY 2000-01 Operating Budget of the Department of Public Works for personnel and one piece of
27 equipment necessary to provide maintenance for additional infrastructure associated with the
28 Hurricane Protection Project, and that five full-time positions in the Department of Public Works
29 are hereby established for this purpose.
30 2. That $117,488 is hereby transferred from the TGIF Reserve for Contingencies to the
31 FY 2000-01 Operating Budget of the Department of General Services to fund personnel and two
32 pieces of equipment necessary to provide maintenance for additional infrastructure associated with
33 the Hurricane Protection Project, and that nine full-time positions in the Department of General
34 Services are hereby established for this purpose.
-24 -
Item V -H.2.
ORDINANCES ITEM # 47344
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED:
Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $90, 000 from the balance in the Forfeited
Asset Sharing Special Revenue fund to the FY 2000-2001 operating
budget of the Police Department repurchase of a mobile surveillance
vehicle.
Voting: 9-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
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
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $90,000 FROM FUND BALANCE IN THE
FORFEITED ASSET SHARING SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
TO THE FY 2000-01 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MOBILE
SURVEILLANCE VEHICLE
WHEREAS, the Police Department's Special Investigative Unit is
responsible for investigations of narcotics, vice, street gangs,
and organized criminal activity in the community, and for property
seized and forfeited as a result of these investigations;
WHEREAS, forfeited assets allow for enhancement of the Police
Department through the purchase of necessary equipment that ensures
officer safety, improves documentation, saves time, and allows the
officers to perform their duties with greater efficiency; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds for the purchase of a mobile
surveillance vehicle are available to be appropriated from the fund
balance of the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA,
That funds in the amount of $90,000 are hereby appropriated
from the fund balance in the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special
Revenue Fund to the FY 2000-01 operating budget of the Police
Department for the purchase of a mobile surveillance vehicle to
enhance officer safety and document evidence obtained from special
investigations.
Adopted by the Council
Virginia, on the 7
of the City of Virginia Beach,
of November , 2000.
CA -7889
F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\mobile Surveillance.Ord.wpd
November 1, 2000
R3
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Man.+-ment ServiceTill
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
ity Atto ey's ice
City of Virginia Beach
Report Number: .
Agenda Date:
Date Submitte
Policy Report on
Mobile Surveillance Vehicle
Background
November 7, 2000
d: October 25, 2000
The Virginia Beach Police Department, Office of Special Investigations,
wishes to add one additional Mobile Surveillance Vehicle (vehicle). This
request is based on the level of use of the present vehicle and the desire
to expand the current level of investigative activity and officer safety
capability. The department is requesting that $90,000 in Shared Asset
Funds be approved for use to purchase the vehicle.
In 1993 Special Investigations began utilizing a surveillance vehicle to
provide protection to undercover officers, conduct surveillance to gather
and document information and evidence of crimes, and assist other units
when specialized investigative techniques were required. The vehicle has
been successfully deployed in many cases involving violent drug offenders,
homicide and robbery suspects, and various other investigations.
The vehicle has become the primary means
evidence that is used during trials and
surveillance that significantly enhances t
in undercover operations. This capacit
criminal offenders who, themselves, utj
counter surveillance techniques to counter
where the vehicle was utilized, almost
currency, and real property were seized.
Considerations
of obtaining audio and video
hearings. It has allowed for
ae safety for officers involved
y helps prevent detection by
lize advanced technology and
their arrest. In just one case
)ne million dollars in drugs,
According to the Mission Statement of Special Investigations, our
detectives will provide superior investigative services which in turn will
enhance the quality of life for all of the citizens and visitors in
Virginia Beach. We accomplish this by selecting and training quality
personnel from the Department. In addition, we provide our personnel with
the highest quality equipment that is designed with the most up-to-date
technology.
During our investigations, one of the primary duties of all personnel in
Special Investigations is officer safety. Our investigations routinely
involve undercover operations targeting violent criminals. To ensure the
Police Department
Policy Report on Purchase of Mobile Surveillance Vehicle
Page: 2
undercover officer's safety, as well as to document the necessary
evidence, we utilize the equipment to its fullest capabilities. The
current vehicle was purchased in 1993 and at the time of purchase was
equipped with state of the art technology in both video and audio
surveillance. The technology has advanced dramatically since 1993. In
particular, the advancements in digital technology involving both audio
and video capabilities, has dramatically improved.
There have been many successes generated by the vehicle during a variety
of investigations. The video and audio evidence presented during case
screenings and trials have had significant impact on guilty pleas and
verdicts received in court.
Alternative Courses of Action
The alternative to this purchase is to continue to operate at the current
level. fele could continue to operate utilizing traditional methods of
audio and video monitoring. This would require continuous replacement of
equipment and upgrades to the current technology. Although the initial
cost would be less expensive, over time the resulting cost would be more
with less overall impact to the organization. The option would require
the use of additional manpower for operations and would reduce the level
of productivity of our personnel.
Budgetary
In proposals submitted by several vendors, the total cost for a fully
equipped vehicle with state -of -the art technology is $90,000.
Though costly, when compared to the past two years of generated revenue in
the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund, which is funded by
forfeitures accomplished by Special Investigations, the expenditure is
only 3% of the total revenue. In fiscal years 98/99 and 99/2000, total
federal revenue was $2,514,610 and state revenue was $357,787.
Due to recent court decisions, the rules and probable cause requirements
pertaining to federal forfeitures have become more difficult to meet. In
recent federal legislative guideline changes, the burden of proof has
shifted to the law enforcement agency and not to the defendant. When this
occurred, evidence paramount to probable cause has been needed to
successfully seize property in the federal system. In order to counteract
these changes, the vehicle would be a valuable tool and provide evidence
that could support these seizures.
It should be noted, that this purchase is clearly within the guidelines of
utilization of Shared Asset Funds. In the Guide to Equitable Sharing of
Federally Forfeited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies,
on page 11 it states "Priority consideration should be given . . . to
completely equipping units that generate forfeitures in order to foster
future forfeiture investigations." With this in mind, the second vehicle
would certainly help us to generate additional forfeitures by enhancing
our ability to identify, document, and prosecute those individuals
Police Department 2
Policy Report on Purchase of Mobile Surveillance Vehicle
Page: 3
involved in narcotics trafficking.
Recommendations
In an effort to continue to meet the Mission and Goals of Special
Investigations and the Department, we respectfully request the approval to
purchase an additional vehicle. The vehicle would enhance our current
capabilities, allow us to protect our undercover officers more
effectively, document evidence for criminal trials, and assist in other
investigations as needed.
Based on this information, we are requesting approval to transfer $90,000
from the Shared Asset Account for the acquisition of the second vehicle as
soon as possible.
Prepared by:
D0
ChiefJacocks Jr Da(e
.
Reviewed by:
Catheryn W sell, Acting Director Managemen ervices Date
Oral Lambert, Chief of Operations Date
/` S-' // . / . av
James . Spore, City Manager Date
i
Police Department 3
SUM
Item V -H.3.
ORDINANCES ITEM # 47345
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED:
Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $69,368 Grant from the
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services; TRANSFER $7,708
from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies for grant matches to the
FY2000-2001 operating budget of the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit
re a juvenile education program; and, increase estimated revenues
accordingly.
Voting: 9-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND
2 APPROPRIATE A $69,368 GRANT FROM THE
3 STATE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
4 SERVICES AND TO TRANSFER $7,708 FROM
5 THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR
6 CONTINGENCIES FOR GRANT MATCHES TO
7 THE FY 2000-01 OPERATING BUDGET OF
8 THE VIRGINIA BEACH COURT SERVICE
9 UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING AN
10 EDUCATION PROGRAM
11 WHEREAS, under the Juvenile Accountability Incentive
12 Block Grant Program ("JAIBG"), the City of Virginia Beach has been
13 awarded a $69,368 grant in federal funds from the Virginia
14 Department of Criminal Justice Services, and must provide a grant
15 match of $7,708; and
16 WHEREAS, in cooperation with the Virginia Beach Public
17 Schools, the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit will use the grant
18 funds to continue an educational program developed under a previous
19 JAIBG grant that enables juveniles under the supervision of the
20 Juvenile Court to complete their high school education.
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
22 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
23 1. That a $69,368 grant is hereby accepted from the
24 Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriated
25 to the FY 2000-01 Operating Budget of the Virginia Beach Court
26 Service Unit to continue to fund an education program for juveniles
27
under the supervision of the
Juvenile
Court;
28
2. That $7,708 is
hereby
transferred from the General
29 Fund Reserve for Contingencies for Grant Matches to the FY 2000-01
30 Operating Budget of the Virginia Beach Court Service Unit as the
31 local match for the grant;
32 3. That City Council hereby states that funding for this
33 program is contingent upon the availability of grant funding, and
34 that if this funding is reduced or eliminated, the program may be
35 reduced or eliminated accordingly; and
36
37
38
39
4. That estimated revenue from the federal government
is hereby increased by $69,368.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the 7 day of November , 2000.
CA7892
F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\jaibgrant.ord.wpd
October 30, 2000
R3
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
.,�! - - Services
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney
2
,SNT,BY: CVB; 757 563 1A57; 6CT-3i-00 3:42PM; PAGE 2/2
i Dep irtment of Criminal Justice Services
305 East Brood 5trtet, 10th Floor, Richmond, VA :7219
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Statement of Award/Acceptance
Date: February 09, 2000 Crant Period:
Sutypratlt4i : City of Va Beach Grant 1`10: 00-E3080.TI99 January 1.2000 -December 31. 1-000
Project Director Project Administrator Finance Officer
,Mr. BcUce Bright Mr. lames K_ Spore Ms. Patricia A. Phillips
Project Director Ciry Manager Finance Director
City of Virginia Beach Court Serv. Unit City of Virginia Beach City of Virginia Beach
2305 Judicial Blvd. 2401 Courthouse Boulevard Municipal Center
Building 10-A City Hall 2nd Floor
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Virginia Beach, V4►ainia 23456 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
Phone No: (757)421-456L Phone No. (757) 426.4242 Phone No: (757) 427-46$1
Federal State GF Match LosAl Cash Match TOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT 569,368 $ 57,708 577,076
This grant is subject to all rules, regulations, and special conditions included in this award.
Jo h B. Benedetti, Directnr
Please complete this form by indicating below your planned expenditures for each Purpose Area. See attached instructions for
completing the award acceptance. Enter the amount of this grant, including matching funds, you plan to spend in each
category below. The total entered must equal the total awarded in this grant, including match. please round to the nearest
dollar.. Please review the Special Conditions accpmpa ing this award before comvlettnz this form.
The undersigned, having received the Statement of trent Award/Acceptance and the Conditions attached thereto, does
hereby accept this grant and agree to the conditions pertaining thereto, this J",9 day or
Signature of Project Administrator: 0"ritle: C 1 MSN Q+�.
Purpose Areas (see enclosed information for detailed explanations)
Amount
1.
Building, expanding, renovating or operating detention facilities; training of correctional
personnel
S
2.
Accountability -based sanctions
S
3.
Hiring juvenile judges, probation officers, court-appointed defenders; pre-trial services
S
4.
Hiring additional prosecutors
S
S.
Enable prosecutors to address gangs, drugs & youth violence more effectiveiy
5
6.
Technology, equipment & training to aggigt prosecutors
S
7.
Holding juvenile offenders accountable and reducing recidivism
S 77,076
8.
Court -based programs targeting firearms offenders
S
9,
Drug court programs for juveniles
$
10. Interagency information sharing
5
11, Accountability -based programs
17. Drug testing for juveniles
S
$
Administratimi (may be no more than io% or total)
S
TOTAL
S
The undersigned, having received the Statement of trent Award/Acceptance and the Conditions attached thereto, does
hereby accept this grant and agree to the conditions pertaining thereto, this J",9 day or
Signature of Project Administrator: 0"ritle: C 1 MSN Q+�.
-26 -
Item
26 -
Item V -H.4.
ORDINANCES ITEM # 47346
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council ADOPTED:
Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $973, 866 from the General Fund Balance
and $65,120 from the Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings re the
Gainsharing program and the Special Productivity Incentive fund.
Voting: 9-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE
2 AMOUNT OF $973,866 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FUND
3 BALANCE AND $65,120 FROM THE WATER AND SEWER
4 FUND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE GAINSHARING
5 PROGRAM AND THE SPECIAL PRODUCTIVITY INCENTIVE
6 FUND
7 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to continue
8 the Gainsharing Program for the employees of Virginia Beach which
9 will allow employees to share in savings realized through
10 organizational improvements;
11
WHEREAS, the City Council also
desires
to provide funding
12
for the Special Productivity Incentive
Fund to
reward departments
13 for productivity improvement initiatives; and
14 WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in the
15 General Fund Fund Balance and the Water and Sewer Retained Earnings
16 to continue the Gainsharing Program and to fund the Special
17 Productivity Incentive Fund while maintaining the policy level of
18 funding in the Debt Service Reserve Fund.
19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
20 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
21 1. That funds in the amount of $973, 866 and $65, 120 are
22 hereby appropriated from the General Fund Fund Balance and the
23 Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings, respectively, for the
24 Gainsharing Program and the Special Productivity Incentive Fund.
25 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to issue
26 checks for Gainsharing savings to all eligible permanent and part -
27 time employees on November 30, 2000, in accordance with the City's
28 Gainsharing Program.
30 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of City
31 Council members.
32 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
33 Virginia, on the 7 day of November , 2000.
34 CA -7893
35 ODIN\NONCODE\GAINSHARINGREVISED.WPD
36 R-1 - PREPARED: October 31, 2000
37 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
38
11kfeiltl'"l-
39 f4anageLtjServic'es
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
partment of Law
E
HISTORIC INDIVIDUAL GAINSHARING AMOUNTS
FOR FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
1993 $319.00
1994 $258.00
1995 $218.00
1996 $304.00
1997 $224.00
1998 $258.00
1999 $220.00
-27 -
Item
27 -
Item V -H. S.
ORDINANCES ITEM # 47347
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council AUTHORIZED:
A temporary encroachment into a portion ofthe City's one-hundredfoot
(100) drainage easement at 2001 Falling Sun Lane by James O. and
Vivian A. Rogers re a wooden bulkhead for bank stabilization and erosion
control (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7)
The following conditions shall be required:
1. The temporary encroachment shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach in accordance with the
City's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and
location.
2. The temporary encroachment shall terminate upon notice by the
City to the applicant and, within thirty (30) days after such
notice is given, the temporary encroachment must be removed
from the encroachment area by the applicant and the applicant
will bear all costs and expenses ofsuch removal.
3. The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, 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 the temporary encroachment.
4. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the
permission and authority to permit the maintenance or
construction of any encroachment other than that specified
herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit
the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by
anyone other than the applicant.
S. The applicant agrees to maintain the temporary encroachment so
as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
6. The applicant must obtain approval of the Joint Permit
Application from Waterfront Operations of the Planning
Department.
7. The City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so
granted, may remove the temporary encroachment and charge
the cost thereof to the applicant and collect the cost in any
mannerprovided by lawfor the collection oflocal or state taxes;
may require the applicant to remove such temporary
encroachment; and, pending such removal and, if such removal
shall not be made within the time specified by the City, the City
shall impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars
($100.00) per day for each and every day that such temporary
encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and shall collect
such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law
for the collection of local or state taxes.
November 7, 2000
-28 -
Item V -H. S.
ORDINANCES ITEM # 47347 (Continued)
Voting: 9-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye.-
Linwood
ye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
1 Requested by Department of Public Works
2 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE
A
3 TEMPORARY
ENCROACHMENT INTO
A
4 PORTION OF
THE CITY'S ONE HUNDRED
5 FOOT (100')
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BY
6 JAMES O.
ROGERS AND VIVIAN
A.
7 ROGERS, THEIR
HEIRS, ASSIGNS
AND
8 SUCCESSORS
IN TITLE
9 WHEREAS, JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS desire to
10 construct and maintain a wooden bulkhead within the City's one
11 hundred foot (100') drainage easement behind their property located
12 in Red Mill Farm at 2001 Falling Sun Lane.
13 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-
14 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to
15 authorize temporary encroachments within the City's existing
16 easements subject to such terms and conditions as Council may
17 prescribe.
18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
19 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
20
That
pursuant to the authority and
to the extent
thereof
21
contained in §§
15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code
of Virginia,
1950, as
22
amended, JAMES
O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS,
their heirs,
assigns
23 and successors in title, are authorized to construct and maintain
24 a temporary encroachment for a wooden bulkhead in the City's 100'
25 drainage easement as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SITE
26 PLAN MR. ROGERS 2001 FALLING SUN LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA PURPOSE:
27
NEW BULKHEAD
IN: RED MILL AT: VIRGINIA BEACH,
VA APPLICANT: MR.
28
ROGERS SHT 2 OF 5 DATE: 4/3/00," prepared
by Spence Marine
29
Construction,
Inc., a copy of which is on file in the Department of
30
Public Works
to which reference is made for
a more particular
31
description;
and
32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment
33 is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria
34 contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and
35 JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS (the "Agreement"), which is
36 attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and
37 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his
38 authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement.
39 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be
40 in effect until such time as JAMES 0. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS
41 and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the
42 Agreement.
43 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
44 Virginia, on the 7 day of November , 2000.
45 CA#- 7F7-1-
46
F7.S46 TKENN\ENCROACH\ROGERS. ORD
47 R-1
48 PREPARED: 10/9/2000
2
APPVED AS TO CONTENTS
'7
SIGNATURE
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY A FORM
CITY AtTOWY
PREPARED BY PAIN ENG. DRAFT. 27 -SEP -2000
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER
SECTIONS 58.1-811 (a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4)
REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249
THIS AGREEMENT, made this \\ day of �s Q -P �-. ,
20 100 , by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal
corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the "City", Grantor,
and JAMES 0. ROGERS and VIVIAN A. ROGERS, husband and wife, THEIR
HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, the "Grantee" (even if
more than one).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot,
tract or parcel of land designated and described as: Lot 764,
Section 13, Subdivision of Red Mill Farm, said plat being duly
recorded in the City of Virginia Beach's Clerk's Office in D.B.
2554, at Page 2021, and being further designated and described as
2001 Falling Sun Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23454; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and
maintain a wooden bulkhead, a "Temporary Encroachment" in the City
of Virginia Beach; and
WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary
Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a
portion of an existing City 100' drainage easement, the
"Encroachment Area", and the Grantee has requested that the City
permit a Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area.
GPIN: 2414-54-2400
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises
and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee, and for
the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) in hand paid to
the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth
grant to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for
the purpose of constructing and maintaining a Temporary
Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary
Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia
Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and
approval, and is more particularly described as follows, to wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into the
Encroachment Area as shown on that certain
plat entitled: "SITE PLAN MR. ROGERS 2001
FALLING SUN LANE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA PURPOSE:
NEW BULKHEAD IN: RED MILL AT: VIRGINIA BEACH,
VA APPLICANT: MR. ROGERS SHT 2 OF 5 DATE:
4/3/0011, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" to which reference is made for
a more particular description.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Temporary Encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon!
notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30)
days after such notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must
be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee, and that the j
Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and
employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and
expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall
2
be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the!
location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that
nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge such
permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction
of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the
limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and
construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to
become unsightly or a hazard.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
Grantee must obtain approval of the Joint Permit Application from,
Waterfront Operations of the Planning Department.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the
City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted,i
may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof
to the Grantee and collect the cost in any manner provided by law
for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the
Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment and, if such removal
shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this
Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred
Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the
Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may
collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by
law for the collection of local or state taxes.
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A.
ROGERS, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed
by their signatures and seals duly affixed. Further, that the
City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in
its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be
hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
( SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
�O(SEAL)
.eso.Roge
S ( SEAL)
Vivian A. Roger
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of
, 2 0 , by
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager, on behalf of the CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH.
My Commission Expires:
4
Notary Public
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 20 , by
RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF .�o, t n I CA_
CITY/BOUNTY Of�rrV Q6Q-TCC" to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this l I day of, 2o DD by
JAMES O. ROGERS and VIVIAN A ROGERS, husband and wife.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: �1'�.�)I D -L
APPROVED WS TO CONTENT
Tk (-4ag-4:2—
SIGNATV E
KPARTMENT
APPRGVED !,k111T'
E T. )
LEGAL SUFFRCIEW..' �
i
5
i
Sc,4Ur
1"-2-01
p(toP 0w4ER U J
EXisrt,J6 CoNctte'E
IIFaOwsrL� CANAL 60'4-
AC2au
No(tM,AL (,JA-lER FLOW
s-rmcEJ ARi se -r NEW T/r,C3E/L
dhCK V" ftlor+ O QW.ic wEA0 �,��
3 of- N6w (Uw<"d A0 12. LF V
PJ '31 '!v'W
10 s
SAFETY
TIE NEW QVLKMEAD FEmCE
lN70 Fi1GN GROuWr•
PA7to Fbac.H tNt9
R A
`y u �lz S7oRy F2�+F
- #2001 -
a 0 v' '
J
Z � .
.0
10' wFlot -
wOhk PATH
CoNTRArc7oR
P S7AGlt✓G
AREA
SS ' FALLI FJV SutJ LANE
DATUM: NORMAL WATER
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
1. VVA,c !`e-
2. Po u
SITE PLAN
MR. ROGERS
2001 FALLING SUN LANE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
too' ORAIrlA6E
EASEmENT
eLFV *3-0
ATTACH -%
EX 1STW 6
PROP
O�✓NE2
Q
Iy
PT ff DIST
1 A 42'6"
2 B 44'
1 2 46'
2 3 46'
3 B 38'
3 4 24'
-,A�'T�I kAZ
STEVENZ
No.
17630
PURPOSE: NEW BULKHEA
IN- RED MILL
AT: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
APPLICANT: MR. ROGERS
SHT Z OF.S DATE- 4/3/00
_. I
I µ � ��
?�^' rr � ,.
� i i x;
,�^'
,�/
} �,, jj
,,
� � �� � �',
,.,
� � ..
, p �I
_, ,
, .p T
i
yi +
'i
s'
t +; pry ..
p
�� atm �'� �r �u 4..� � r �l i � _ ,. f t r
.,... � � f ,,,�� � � I� !�� .,
�4� � :. -- �`, i
�,_-. f. �. � �,,� � � �.. ,a� � �� � . �'....
,,P
.. .,__ it
,, }
. i N.,,' .._..,....
,�
( I
� � �
�+ �„�..
i a f
p k.
�, � � � ,.
.,
�, � 1� � �e
,,, -' ..
�� �
� �
�, � � �
i
4
r I' q � �' e' i.
r� �w... �� a � . t � � �... � i ��N, � ��
i
1
a i �` ,
�,
i i i �
*',
I �J� A
.. ... ..
. r . ,
J i
U' � ! '� (....., � .� d / fir_ ` �
,/ \..... f �/, / ,�
.i ;
� „.
� w i
M' � � /p
A� f � . �..
P �' � i. �I - „ ..,. ��.... k... ,.
-29 -
Item
29 -
Item V -I.1.
APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 47348
Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council:
APPOINTED:
Kenneth C. Taylor
R. Preston Midgett
REAPPOINTED:
Dana W. Almond
John F. Malbon
Joseph D. Taylor II
Three-year terms
01/01/01 -12/31/03
RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC)
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
W11A
Item V -I.2.
APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 47349
Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED:
Robert F. Atherton
Kempsville - District #2
F. Dudley Fulton
Lynnhaven - District #S
Kimberly L Johnson
Rose Hall- District #3
Richard A. Maddox
Beach - District #6
SUPER HORNET COMMISSION
(This Commission is to dissolve sixty (60) days after publication in the
Federal Register of the Record of Decision on the EIS)
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
-31 -
Item V -I.3.
APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 47350
Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council DESIGNATED:
F. Dudley Fulton
Chair
Rear Admiral Fred Metz
Vice Chair
SUPER HORNET COMMISSION
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr.
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor
Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Vice Mayor William D.
Sessoms, Jr.
Council Members Voting Nay. -
None
Council Members Absent:
Reba S. McClanan and Rosemary Wilson
November 7, 2000
-32 -
Item V -J.2.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 47351
Mayor Oberndorf advised the OCEANA OPERATIONS TASKFORCE met Monday, November 6, 2000.
Those present were: Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Rear Admiral Fred Metz. Captain John Shick.
Councilman Robert C. Mandigo, Council Lady Nancy K. Parker, J.B. Dadson and Robert Matthias.
The TaskForce will attempt to create apartnership between the citizens, City Council and the UnitedStates
Navy.
November 7, 2000
Item V -L. 1.
ADJOURNMENT
-33 -
ITEM # 47352
Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 2:12 P.M.
--------------
Beverly O. Hooks, CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
R Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
City of Virginia Beach
Virginia
Meyera E Oberndorf
Mayor
November 7, 2000