No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 14, 1998 MINUTESCity of Virginia Beach "WORLD'S LARGEST RESORT CITY" CITY COUNC~ MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At,Large VICE MA YOR WILLIAM D. SESSOM$. JR.. A t-Large LINWOOD O. BRANCH IlL District 6-Beach MARGARET L. EURE, District I-Centervdh' WILLIAM W. HARRISON. JR.. District 5.I.ynnhaven HAROLD HEISCHOBER. A t-Large BARBARA M. HENLEY. District 7-Prince$:~ Anne LOUIS R. JONES. District 4-Bayside REBA S. McCLANAN. District S-Rose ttall NANCY K. PARKER. At-Large A.M. (DON) WEEKS. District 2-Kernpsville JAMES K. SPORE. City Manager LESUE L. LILLEY. City Anorney RIJTH HODGEX SMITH, CMCIAAE. City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACII. VIRGINIA 234569005 PItONE: ~757) 427-4t03 FAX: t757) 426 5669 [:.MAIL: CTYCNCI.(~CITY,Vffi(JINIA-BEACH.VA.US JULY 14, 1998 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 11:00 AM CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY Pamela M. Lingle, Director, Public Information Nanci A. Glassman, President, Continental Research MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS/STAFFING POLICY/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Fagan Stackhouse, Director, Department of Human Resources Mark Marchbank, Fire Department II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. CITY COUNCIL CONCERNS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 12:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 2:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend David E. Schill Princess Anne Plaza United Methodist Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL & FORMAL SESSIONS July 7, 1998 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION 77~e Consent Agenda will be determined during the Agenda Review Session and considered in the ordinary course of business by City Council to be enacted by one motion. H. RESOLUTION Resolution to refer to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re communication technology via fiber-optics transmission facilities within the City. I. ORDINANCES Ordinance to AMEND Section 21-337 of the City Code re driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $42,989 grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Department of Planning for Chesapeake Bay preservation work; TRANSFER $34,511 as a grant match from the Fiscal Year 1998-1999 General Fund Reserve to the Department of Planning; continue a full time temporary Environmental Planner II position in the Planning Department; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth be increased accordingly. o Ordinance to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk and Portsmouth for undertaking a feasibility phase study of the Elizabeth River Basin; and, TRANSFER $11,166 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies as the City's required match for the first year of the study. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $65,686 from the Fund Balance of the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund; and, TRANSFER $106,000 from the E-911 Emergency Communication Fund's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget; $125,000 from the Police Department's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget; $90,000 from the Fire Department's FY 1998- 99 Operating Budget; and, $8,314 from the Department of Emergency Medical Services' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget to the Public Safety Emergency Communications System (CIP #3-009) re replacing the current emergency Computer Aided Dispatch System (CADS). o Ordinance to TRANSFER $100,000 within the Department of Public Works' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget re obtaining the United States Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the structural integrity of city facilities and conduct an analysis of the design capacity of City facilities that may be used as part of the Emergency Operations Plan and recommend modifications that could increase the survivability of these thcilities and their occupants during storms or hurricanes. Ordinances re authorize temporary encroachments: ao Into a portion within the City's variable width drainage easement over Back Neck Cove by JOHN T. and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY re constructing and maintaining a pier, boat lift and mooring piles at 1420 Blue Heron Road.(LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT) bo Into a portion of the City's 300' wide drainage easement known as Canal No. 2 by FRED T. and GLENDA H. KNOWLES and DAVID W. and VIVIAN RAMSAY re maintaining an existing 18" pipe, a 24" pipe and an air conditioner pad; and, constructing and maintaining a dry detention pond, a 15" pipe with related rip- rap, a 21" pipe with related rip-rap, an 18" pipe with related rip-rap, a 15" pipe and a 10" pipe in connection with the development of their adjacent property described as Lots 77 and 95 Oceana West Industrial Park (2655 International Parkway), subject to the dedication of an ingress/egress easement to the City for access to provide periodic maintenance (PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT) Co Into a portion of the City's variable width ingress/egress/drainage easement by DICK and KATHLEEN LAMB re constructing and. maintaining a floating pier at 1820 Eden Way (LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT). do Into a portion of the City's 10' drainage easement by KEITH A. and CARI D. ZELLO re constructing and maintaining a sunroom addition at 1872 John Brown Lane (CENTERVILLE DISTRICT). 7. License Refunds - $6,454.75. J. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING PLANNING BY CONSENT - To be determined during the Agenda Review Session. Application of ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH & ENLIGHTENMENT, INC., for an enlargement in a nonconforming use at the Northwest comer of Atlantic Avenue and 67th Street (LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT). Recommendation APPROVAL/DEFER TEMPORARILY Ordinance in the petition of POTTERS ROAD INVESTMENT GROUP for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Potters Road beginning at the Southeast intersection of Potters Road and Wesley Drive, running in an Easterly direction 270 feet, more or less, containing 6,577.56 square feet (ROSE HALL DISTRICT). Deferred for Compliance: Additional 180-Day Deferral: Additional 180-Day Deferral: Additional 180-Day Deferral: July 9, 1996 January 4, 1997 July 8, 1997 Januaryjll, 1998 Recommendation: ADDITIONAL 180-DAY DEFERRAL Ordinance in the petition of DeFORD LIMITED, a Virginia Corporation for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Wishart Point Court beginning on the Eastern boundary of Battle Royal Circle and running in an Easterly direction a distance of 538.18 feet, containing 14,711 square feet (BAYSIDE DISTRICT). Deferred for Compliance: January 27, 1998 Recommendation: ADDITIONAL 180-DAY DEFERRAL Application of B. M. STANTON, JR., for Conditional Use Permits on the East side of Lynnhaven Parkway, North of Holland Road (1108 Lynnhaven Parkway), containing 1.584 acres for (PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT): a. Automobile detailing center b. Automobile repair garage Recommendations: APPROVAL Application of CAPE HENRY COLLEGIATE SCHOOL for a Conditional Use Permit for a private school (addition) at the Southeast comer of Mill Dam Road and South Woodhouse Road (1320 Mill Dam Road), containing 30.625 acres (LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT). Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia Corporation for a Change of Zoning District Classification fi.om R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District at the Northeast comer of Lynnhaven Parkway and Salem Road, containing 5.17 acres (CENTERVILLE DISTRICT). Deferred June 09, 1998 Deferred: June 23, 1998 Recommendations: Staff Planning Commission CHANGES TO APPLICATION APPROVAL K. APPOINTMENTS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD VIRGINIA BEACH CRIME TASK FORCE L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS N. ADJOURNMENT ANNUAL COUNCILRECESS JULY 15 - JULY 31, 1998 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) 07/10/98BAP AGENDA\07-14-98.PLN www.virginia-beach.va.us MINUTES VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia Ju~ 14,1998 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS in the Council Conference Room, City Hall Building, on July 7, 1998, at 9:30 A.M. Council Members Present: Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Absent: Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. Linwood O. Branch, III Harold Heischober [ENTERED: 11:58 P.M.] [ENTERED: l l :27 A.M.] [ENTERED: 11:10 A.M.] -2- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CITIZEN SA TISFA CTION SURVEY 11:00 A.M. ITEM # 43808 Pamela M. Lingle, Director - Public Information, introduced Nanci I. Glassman - President, Continental Research. Mrs. Glassman advised the Citizen Satisfaction Survey was conducted by CA TI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). Each response was recorded verbatim. The interviews were conducted Monday through Thursday from 5.'30 P.M. to 9.'30 P. M. in the evening. There was also a 3.'00 P.M. to 9.'00 P.M. shift on Sunday, which was the most productive. The interview was a random sample of SO0 adults (one-half male and female), which is larger than conducted in most communities. Although Virginia Beach has conducted a general Citizen's Survey five times, the 1994 study is used as the initial benchmark. Each survey entailed approximately 20 minutes. The sample was designed to be fully random, representing all areas of the City and accurate within +__4.4%. This is more favorable than the margin of error (plus or minus 5%) found in many community surveys. Relative the Demographic Profile of participants, the race composition is relatively similar between 1996 and 1998. In terms of age distribution, the 18-25year olds were lower than the normal proportion in the population and that is because they are not heads of households. To participate in this survey one must be a "head of the household" 67% of the participants were married and approximately 'half of the homes had no children under 18 living in the home. 77.2% of those interviewed were registered to vote in Virginia Beach. 6.2 % of the interviewees had resided in the City one year or less. 35.4% of the participants had resided in the City 21 or more years. 14.2% of participants resided in townhouses and 68% in single-family homes. 75.2% owned homes versus 25.8% rented. 60% worked in Virginia Beach. 25.5% were employed in Norfolk. Virginia Beach has much of which to be proud. Just over 95% of the residents surveyed consider Virginia Beach to be a good place to live. Residents' overall satisfaction with City services remains high. Nearly 95 % of those surveyed were satisfied with City services (overall) Virginia Beach is doing an excellent job of meeting residents' expectations. 90% of those surveyed were satisfied with many of the listed services. These services include: recreation center programs and classes, public libraries and the bookmobile, the parks, the City's public information services, museums, paramedic and rescue services, police department services, fire department services, lifeguard services horticulture and agriculture services, the number of opportunities for volunteerism, City buildings, road facilities, waste collection and recycling services. 96% of those interviewed said they can conveniently access City services. About 96% felt that City buildings and facilities are accessible on an equal basis without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age or disability. And, 93% believed that City services are available to everyone equally. Maintaining a safe community is an itnportant priority for Virginia Beach. Over 91% of the residents surveyed felt their own neighborhood was a safe place to live. 95%felt that the City of Virginia Beach is a safe place to live. Some municipalities use a minimum target of 80% satisfaction as a way offocusing energy and resources on those items that need to be improved. Many communities achieved 80%for only a few services. Using the 80% threshold, Virginia Beach is doing an excellent job of meeting the community's expectations. Of the 2 7services/characteristics rated, all but five were above 80%. Some residents expressed a need to improve certain City services. They include maintenance of existing City roads and bridges (72.5 %),planning for residential growth and development (71.4%), storm water drainage (70.1%), new construction of City roads (64.8%), and City-owned parking facilities at the Oceanfront and the Municipal Center (57.8%). Ju~ 14,1998 -3- CITY M/INAGER'S BRIEFING CITIZEN S/I TISFA CTION SURVEY ITEM # 43808 (Continued) Virginia Beach is dong an excellent job of meeting citizens' expectations. Some items had follow-up questions designed to identify any reasons for dissatisfaction. The "New Construction of City Roads" item did not have such a follow-up question, so the City has to rely on information from interviewer de-briefings. Numerous people indicated dissatisfaction with the "New Construction of City Roads" because they felt the road system in Virginia Beach had not kept pace with growth and increased traffic. The negative ratings appear to be more a reflection of "poor planning" than the mechanics of building the new roadways. PERCENT SA TISFIED WITH E/I CH CITY SER VICE/CH~IRA CTERIS TIC 1994 1995 1996 1998 Recreation Centers, Programs & Classes 96.1% 96. 7% 94.9% 96. 7% Parks 97.3% 97.6% 94.4% 94.6% City Golf Courses 88. 7% 93.7% 91.0% 86. 5% Public Beaches in the City 88.6% 87. 7% 88.4% 88. 7% Lifeguard Services at the Public Beaches 97. 8% 98.0% 96. 8% 93.0% Public Libraries & the Bookmobile 96.4% 98.8% 96.5% 96.0% Museums 98. 2 % 97. 6% 96.2% 95. 4% Paramedic & Rescue Services During Emergencies 98.8% N/A 98.5% 97.8% Police Department Services 87. 8% 91.1% 91.9% 91.6% Fire Department Services 99. 7%. 99. 3 % 99. 2 % 98. 6% City-Owned Parking Facilities at the Oceanfront and the Municipal Center 64.0% 68.8% 55.1% 57. 8% City Buildings & Facilities (not including the schools) N/A 97. 5% 95.1% 92.5% The Number of City Activities & Programs Where Residents can be Volunteers 98. 2 % 99. 2 % 97. 6% 96. 6% Horticultural & Agricultural Services 96. 6% 97. 5% 92.2% 95. 0% Court Services 86. 8% 90. 7% 91.5% 87. 6% New Construction of City Roads N/A 76.1% 81.8% 64. 8% City Waste Collection & Recycling Services 85.8% 85. 7% 77.9% 91.6% The City's Public Information Services 94.9% 91.1% 95.8% 96.1% Attracting More Tourism & Businesses & Helping Businesses Expand 85.1% 77.5% 83.0% 89. 7% Planning for Residential Growth & Development 53.2% 58.6% 65. 5% 71.4% Enforcement of Building Codes 76. 8% 84.0% 85. 0% 84. 7% Enforcement of Housing & Zoning Codes 75. 8% 83.1% 81.3 % 81.4% Maintenance of Existing City Roads & Bridges N/A 67.5% 73.7% 72.6% Water & Sanitary Sewer Services 76. 7% 74.9% 79.8% 88.4% Storm Water Drainage 62. 7% 67.3% 63.6% 70.1% Child Protective Services for abused or neglected children or those involved in family violence 67.8% 80. 7% 83.5% 88.1% Services for Needy Families 78.0% 77.2% 83.9% 84. 6% Overall Satisfaction with City Services 93.0% 94. 8% 94. 6% 94.8% July 14, 1998 CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CITIZEN SA TISFA CTION SURVEY ITEM # 43808 (Continued) % WHO SAID YES 62.0% 76.6% 21.8% 78.0% 54.0% 86.0% 60.4% 59.8% 48.6% 57.2% 65.4% 81.4% 47.2% Been to a Virginia Beach Recreation Center or attended any recreation programs or classes. Visited a Citypark? Played golf at a City golf course (e.g. Redwing, Kempsville Greens, and Bow Creek) ? Visited a public beach in Virginia Beach? Used City beach that had a lifeguard on duty? Visited a public library or the bookmobile? Visited a museum in Virginia Beach? (Virginia Marine Science Museum, Francis Land House, Old Coast Guard Station)? Observed an emergency response ora Virginia Beach Rescue Squad? Had any contact with the Police Department? Observed Fire Department services or programs being performed? Parked in a City-owned garage or lot at the oceanfront or the municipal Center? Been inside any City building or facility, not including a school? Used any of the City's drop-off recycling centers? % WHO AGREE 75.1% 7Z1% 95.2% 96.0% 75.3% I know how to inform the City about the way l feel on important issues Before the City makes important decisions, citizens who want to be heard have their opinions considered. Virginia Beach is a good place to live For the most part, I can conveniently access City services. In contacts with City representatives, in person or by phone, I feel valued. Mrs. Glassman referenced Tables 11 through 24 which present an array of reasons~suggestions that were offered and the number of citizens who mentioned each. No responses were suggested by the interviewers, each person described the reason for his or her dissatisfaction. During analysis, similar responses were grouped for presentation in these tables. The 1998 survey included two questions relating to a proposed Library Referendum: During November's elections, the ballot may include several referendums. One would enhance library services by modernization or upgrading 4 libraries, replacing 2 libraries with larger facilities, building 2 libraries, adding more electronic resources and staff, and opening all libraries on Sunday. The cost to the average taxpayer would be an increase in property tax of $2.83 a month on a home valued at $100,000. Would you be in favor of or opposed to the Referendum that will authorize these library improvements? Number Percentage In favor of the Referendum 354 70.8% Opposed to the Referendum 146 29.2% If fewer improvements were made, the cost to the average taxpayer would be an increase in property tax $2.08 a month on a home valued at $100,000. Would you be in favor of or opposed to that Referendum? Number Percentage In favor of the Referendum 15 3.0% Opposed to the Referendum 131 26.2% CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CITIZEN SA TISFA CTION SURVEY ITEM # 43808 (Continued) WHO FA VOltS THIS REFERENDUM? 75.5% of those with children 75% of Caucasians 87.1% of the new residents 76.3% of those who are married 72.4% of those with no children 69.1% of other races 68.4% of very long term residents 72.5% of those who are not married Marcy Sims, Director of Public Libraries, recognized Chair Betty Lu Bridges and Vice Chair R. Patrick Deans - Public Library Board. Mrs. Sims referenced the enhanced library services possible with the following tax increases: $2.83 a month for a home valued at $100,000 Modernizing: Windsor Woods and Great' Neck with an addition Upgrading: Central Library & Kempsville Replacing with larger facilities: Oceanfront and Bayside Building TWO new libraries Green Run & General Booth Corridor Adding more electronic resources and staff Opening all libraries on Sunday $2.08 a month for a home valued at $100,000 Modernizing: Windsor Woods and Great Neck with an addition Upgrading: Central Library & Kempsville Replacing with larger facilities Oceanfront and Bayside Building ONE new library General Booth (only) Adding more electronic resources and staff NOT opening all libraries on Sunday Senator Ed Schrock, President - Friends of the Library, advised Library Referendums nationally have been incredibly successful between 1987 and 1997. 80% of Library Referenda were approved. In 1994 alone, Voters approved 93 % of Library Referenda seeking operating funds. In that same year 18 out 19 Referenda specifically seeking a tax increase with an unlimited life were approved. In cases where at least one other item was on the Ballot, the success rate was 100%. On the local level, the library conducted eight (8)public dialogues with Virginia Beach citizens in the Spring of 1997. One of the services most frequently requested by participants and for which they were willing to pay was increased hours of operation, especially Sunday hours at all locations. A survey of Virginia Beach registered voters indicates the citizens care less about the amount they pay in taxes and more about how their tax dollars are expended. Virginia Beach stands head and shoulders above other library systems in cities of comparable size. According to the 1998 International City Management Association Comparative Measurement Study, Virginia Beach is in the top five in annual circulation per capita and is the fiflh most efficient when average library costs are compared to circulation items. Virginia Beach is the seventh lowest when considering expenditures per registered borrower. There are over 217,000 registered library users, of those 164,000 are 18 years or older. By comparison, there are currently 213,000 registered voters in the City of Virginia Beach. July 14, 1998 -6- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CITIZEN SA TISFA CTION SURVEY ITEM # 43808 (Continued) Should City Council approve, the Friends are ready to immediately bring a web site on line and activate a Speakers Bureau. As just one example of community outreach, the Friends' plans include utilizing its upcoming August Book Sale at the Pavilion to "kick-off" a Referendum campaign. It is also clear that a successful Referendum will have to use carefully, targeted and crafted media to reach likely voters and they are prepared to fund and carry out those plans. The Friends of the Library recognize City funding can cover only informational and educational materials. The Friends believe to be successful, an advocacy group must be in place and funding available for that campaign. The legal limitations in terms of advocacy that affect a non-profit organization with a 5. 01c3 tax status, such as the Friends, has been researched. The Friends are in compliance with those laws. July 14, 1998 -7- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS/STAFFING POLICY/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 12:18 P.M. ITEM # 43809 March Marchbank, Co-ordinator- Emergency Management, advised the purpose of the City's Emergency Operations Plan is to provide an organizational framework and response capability from which the City can respond to natural, technological, or war caused emergencies that requires a comprehensive and integrated response by the City, meeting the emergency services legal mandates. Virginia Beach, as a coastal community, must be cognizant of its threat to a Hurricane and adjust its emergency management system to meet the threat ora Hurricane. Hurricanes become a unique type of disaster in that numerous threats exist during the Hurricane: Tidal Surge: Great dome of water which comes ashore and provides flooding along the coast and through great portions of the interior of the community. With the additional wave action along the coast with the wind driving the water to greater heights than the actual surge, these compounding factors destroy buildings and create debris impacting the community. Sustained winds: At the Category I level impacts signs and trees..As the winds approach the Category III level, they actually exceed the building codes; and, with the missiles, they create havoc across the community in terms of the threat to life, property and the well being of the community. Torrential rains: With the recent northeaster, there were very high winds and along with the torrential rains minor flooding. At the height of this particular event, 42 streets were actually closed because of the flooding which came from this event. With the utilization of slides, Mr. Marchbank showed a depiction of the 1933 storm, which is the City's benchmark in terms of what a Hurricane might do to a community. While there are primary results of the storm, which is damage, there are also secondary impacts. A business damaged, impacts the tax base, commercial structure in terms of delivery of services and impacts the whole nature of the community. Sometimes factors are lost which are irreplaceable, i.e., a museum in Florida destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. While most people might ride out the storm in their homes, getting around the community afterwards might prove quite a challenge. During Hurricane Andrew, there were approximately 93,000 homes destroyed and 261,000 individuals were homeless with $29-BILLION worth of damage. At least from an Emergency Management Prospective, Andrew was amiss in terms of what it could have been. If it had traveled just forty-fifty miles to the north, the brunt of that storm would have doubled those figures in terms of consequence. The City's response to a major emergency would be to activate the Emergency Management organization to centralize and coordinate emergency operations. The City Manager, in such situations, assumes his role of Emergency Services Director and receives staff support and advice from the Fire/Emergency Services staff in the establishment and administrati~n ~f the Emergency Management ~rganizati~nal structure. The Fire Chief assumes the role of Emergency Services Coordinator. The Emergency Management organization includes the following major functions. These functions are normally activated in a major emergency and operational desks are staffed in the City's Emergency Operation's Center: Executive, Emergency Management, Fire, Police, Emergency Medical Services, Public Information, Public Works, Public Utilities, Public Sheltering, Damage Assessments and Public Health. Beverly Spencer, Human Resources, addressed the City of Virginia Beach Municipal Operations and Staffing Policy. The current policy, the Emergency and Inclement Weather Policy, does not align itself very well with the type of needs the City would have during a major emergency. The policyjust adopted does so. This policy provides guidelines for such instances, including emergencies, which require modification of the organization's operations and staffing as determined by the City Manager or designee. This policy works in conjunction with the Compensation Policy, the Overtime Policy, the Virginia Beach Quality Service System and the Municipal Facilities Closure Policy. -8- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS/STAFFING POLICY/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ITEM # 43809 (Continued) The City of Virginia Beach's government functions within three operational conditions that indicate the nature and the extent of services to be provided to the public: Normal Operational Condition:,4 normal operational condition is defined as the provision of regular services within standard and established operational hours. Modified Operational Condition: A modified operational condition is defined as periods where the delivery of normal services may not be required or warranted because of conditions (ex. Moderate snowfall, pre- hurricane preparation, etc.). To the extent possible, regular services will be provided. However, less than normal services may be provided based upon public and organizational needs. Services determined not to be essential to the public or the organization may be terminated during periods of modified operations. Due to lessened service requirements and possible concerns for employee safety and convenience, employees in non- essential roles will be provided an opportunity to take leave during these periods. Essential Operational Condition: An essential operational condition is defined as periods where the organization only delivers those services deemed essential to the public and the organization. Every effort to provide essential services is required regardless of conditions. Employees in non- essential roles may be assigned essential tasks for purposes of responding to emergency conditions. An essential operational condition may be invoked in extremely severe weather conditions such as hurricanes, heavy snows, blizzard conditions, heavy ice storms or extensive fiooding. In accordance with Municipal Operational conditions, the organization shall establish employee operational status for each employee. Based upon circumstances, this status is interchangeable to accommodate the conditions and the needs of the public and the organization. The following Employee Operational Status will be employed: Alpha I Employees - Employees in an Alpha I status are an essential service capacities. These employees are required to report regardless of the City operational condition. Alpha H Employees - Employees in an Alpha H status are assigned to functions not deemed essential to the short term operations of the City. Employees in an Alpha II status can be reassigned to an Alpha I status based upon conditions and the organizational needs, in order to perform essential services in various situations. When an emergency condition is of such magnitude that the City's operations are severely disrupted, the City Manager may declare the City to be in an Essential Operational Condition. Such conditions are an extreme event. In such instances, only those services considered essential and those functions required by the Emergency Operations Plan shall be delivered. In such situations, City non-essential services are curtailed and personnel will be assigned to Alpha I status as needed to address staffing needs. Alpha H personnel, not reassigned to Alpha I, shall be released from their normal work hours and receive their regular rate of pay. Alpha I (non-exempO employees will receive pay at twice their regular rate of pay. Alpha I (exempO employees will receive pay equivalent to their regular rate of pay for all hours exceeding their normal workday. Alpha H exempt and non-exempt employees will receive their regular rate of pay. In the event that an essential operations scenario should exist for greater than a 72-hour period the additional compensation provided to Alpha I employees may be discontinued at the discretion of the City Manager. Employees are encouraged to develop a personal plan of action that would aid them in ful. filling their family and other personal responsibilities in conjunction with their work responsibilities. Recognizing that emergency situations are generally unpredictable, every effort will be made to assist employees in meeting their personal and work responsibilities. Employees are encouraged to discuss any related issues or concerns with their supervisor in order that a collaborative effort can be made to address individual situations. 14,1998 9 CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS/STAFFING POLICY/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ITEM # 43809 (Continued) Every employee needs to understand their role within the course of the next month, comprehensive employee orientations will be provided within departments and within "brown bag lunch "presentations. So that all members will have a very clear understanding of their role and the City's expectations. Within this orientation, family disaster preparedness will be addressed. IMPLEMENTATION TIME LINE Emergency Management Committee Meeting Departmental Plan guidance and discussion City Council Briefing Employee awareness/informational meetings Submit draft departmental plans to Emergency Coordinator Submit departmental Alpha I, H and Volunteers to Human Resources/Employee Relations Human Resources/Employee Relations provides staffing Support listing to requesting departments Emergency Coordinator develops emergency functional fiow July 13, 1998 July 14, 1998 August 1998 August 15, 1998 August 15, 1998 September 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 -10- AGENDA RE VIE W SESSION 12:50 P.M. ITEM # 43810 1.1. Ordinance to AMEND Section 21-337 of the City Code re driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Assistant City Attorney Randall Blow advised ora minor house keeping change relative Section 21-338. The AMENDED Ordinance was distributed to City Council. ITEM # 43811 BY CONSENSUS, the following items shall compose the CONSENT AGENDA: RI?SOL UTION/ORDINANCES H. 1 Resolution to refer to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re communication technology via fiber-optics transmission facilities within the City. 1.1. Ordinance to AMEND Section 21-337 of the City Code re driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. 12. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $42,989 grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Department of Planning for Chesapeake Bay preservation work; TRANSFER $34,511 as a grant match from the Fiscal Year 1998-1999 General Fund Reserve to the Department of Planning; continue a full time temporary Environmental Planner Ilposition in the Planning Department; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth be increased accordingly. 1.3. Ordinance to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk and Portsmouth for undertaking a feasibility phase study of the Elizabeth River Basin; and, TRANSFER $11,166 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies as the City's required match for the first year of the study. 1.4. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $65,686from the Fund Balance of the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund; and, TRANSFER $106,000 from the E-911 Emergency Communication Fund's FY1998-99 Operating Budget; $125,000 from the Police Department's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget; $90,000 from the Fire Department's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget; and, $8,314from the Department of Emergency Medical Services' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget to the Public Safety Emergency Communications System (CIP #3-009) re replacing the current emergency Computer Aided Dispatch System (CADS). 1.5. Ordinance to TRANSFER $100,000 within the Department of Public Works' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget re obtaining the United States Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the structural integrity of city facilities and conduct an analysis of the design capacity of City facilities that may be used as part of the Emergency Operations Plan and recommend modifications that could increase the survivability of these facilities and their occupants during storms or hurricanes. July 14, 1998 -11- GEND,4 RE VIE W SESSION ITEM # 43811 (Continued) I. 6. Ordinances to authorize temporary encroachments: Into a portion within the City's variable width drainage easement over Back Neck Cove by JOHN T. and WENDIE S. KAL,4FSKY re constructing and maintaining a pier, boat lift and mooring piles at 1420 Blue Heron Road. (LYNNHA VEN DISTRICT) Into a portion of the City's 300' wide drainage easement known as Canal No. 2 by FRED T. and GLEND,4 H. KNOWLES and D,4 VID W. and VIVI`4N RAMS,4 Y re maintaining an existing 18" pipe, a 24" pipe and an air conditioner pad; and, constructing and maintaining a dry detention pond, a 15"pipe with related rip-rap, a 21 "pipe with related rip-rap, an 18"pipe with related rip-rap, a 15"pipe and a lO"pipe in connection with the development of their adjacent property described as Lots 77 and 95 Oceana West Industrial Park (2655 International Parkway), subject to the dedication of an ingress/egress easement to the City for access to provide periodic maintenance (PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT) Into a portion of the City's variable width ingress/egress/drainage easement by DICK and KATHLEEN LAMB re constructing and maintaining a floating pier at 1820 Eden Way (L YNNHA VEN DISTRICT). Into a portion of the City's 10'drainage easement by KEITH A. and CAR1 D. ZELLO re constructing and maintaining a sunroom addition at 1872 John Brown Lane (CENTERVILL.E DISTRICT). I. 7 License Refunds - $6,454.75. Item L 1. will be ,4MENDED B Y CONSENT. July 14, 1998 - 12- AGENDA REVIEW SESSION ITEM # 43 7812 J. 1 Application of ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH & ENLIGHTENMENT, INC., for an enlargement in a nonconforming use at the Northwest corner of Atlantic Avenue and 67th Street (L YNNHA VEN DISTR[CT This Application will be DEFERRED until the City Council Session of August 4, 1998. ITEM # 43813 ,1.6. Application of MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia Corporation for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-2 Communi~ Business District at the Northeast corner of Lynnhaven Parkway and Salem Road, containing 5.17 acres (CENTERV[LLE DISTRICT). This item will be discussed during the Formal Session relative the access. ITEM # 43814 BY CONSENSUS, the following items shall compose the PLANNING B Y CONSENT AGENDA. Application of ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH & ENLIGHTENMENT, INC., for an enlargement in a nonconforming use at the Northwest corner of Atlantic Avenue and 67th Street (LYNNHA VEN DISTRICT). Ordinance in the petition of POTTERS ROAD INVESTMENT GROUP for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Potters Road beginning at the Southeast intersection of Potters Road and Wesley Drive, running in an Easterly direction 270feet, more or less, containing 6, 577.56 square feet (ROSE HALL DISTRICT). J. 3 Ordinance in the petition of DeFORD LIMITED, a Virginia Corporation for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Wishart Point Court beginning on the Eastern boundary of Battle Royal Circle and running in an Easterly direction a distance of 53& 18feet, containing 14, 711 square feet (BA YSIDE DISTRICT). Application of B. M. STANTON, JR., for Conditional Use Permits on the East side of Lynnhaven Parkway, North of Holland Road (1108 Lynnhaven Parkway), containing 1.584 acres for (PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT): a. Automobile detailing center b. Automobile repair garage Application of CAPE HENRY COLLEGIATE SCHOOL for a Conditional Use Permit for a private school (addition) at the Southeast corner of Mill Dam Road and South Woodhouse Road (1320MillDam Road), containing 30.625 acres (LYNNHAVEN DiStRIct). Item J. 1. will be DEFERRED, BY CONSENT, until the City Council Session of August 4, 199& Item J. 2. will be DEFERRED AN ADDITIONAL 180 DAYS, BY CONSENT, until the City Council Session of January 12, 1999. Item J. 2. will be DEFERRED AN ADDITIONAL 180 DAYS, BY CONSENT, until the City Council Session of January 12, 1999. - 13- CITY COUNCIL CONCERNS 12:53 P.M. ITEM # 43815 Council Lady Parker referenced her attendance at a meeting yesterday, July 13, 1998, with James Spore - City Manager, Oral Lambert - Chief of Staff, Mark Wawner - Development Authority, Mike Tabor - Amphitheater, relative the Amphitheater noise. Mr. Lambert will contact residents to determine, irrespective of the Metallica Concert, if changes have been noticed in the noise level. The City Manager advised over the last two and one 'half seasons a number of improvements have been made and the situation has improved. He wished to determine from the residents if the City has been successful. The City Manager also referenced the possibility of issuing an RFP for costs involving an independent analysis by professionals to review the configuration of the Amphitheater and determine if there are any other solutions the City might consider. Councilman Weeks inquired if, when the amphitheater was designed, the City employed enough experts to alleviate the sound situation and what has been done to monitor the noise over the past two and one-half years. Council Lady Eure advised in contract negotiations the performer sets the sound level. Council Lady Eure has a problem with this as one group is overriding the will and the conditions under which the amphitheater was built. Some of the settings which the performers request are unreasonable. Council Lady McClanan advised even the newspaper reviewer of the Metallica Concert commented on the level of the sound Council Lady Henley has a problem with having participated in imposing on residents noise discomfort in their own homes even with the windows closed and the air-conditioning running. One resident in Three Oaks advised his windows would vibrate at certain concerts. The City Manager advised the City did have a sound consultant to work with the architect and he was involved with setting the standard. This RFP is an effort to determine if there is any solution which would be cost effective. These cost quotes would be presented to City Council before any funds would be expended. The City Manager advised the standard is being met as most performers are co-operative; however, despite this fact, some citizens are irritated by the sound level. Therefore, the City is trying to go a step further to determine ways to make the situation more acceptable. The RFP would not be sent to the designer of the amphitheater. Mayor Oberndorf advised relative the Metallica Concert she heard from residents even from as far as North Landing Road and near the Kellam High School. ITEM # 43816 Council Lady Eure referenced correspondence from a handicapped resident who visited the Oceanfront in his wheel chair and is concerned that handicapped wheel chair accessible trolleys are not available and circling the Oceanfront. Council Lady Eure believes it would be appropriate to have a liaison request TRT for these trolleys to be available. The citizen was told they were not available as the wheel chairs occupy too much room. Council Lady Eure requested this issue be addressed and a reply be forwarded to the resident. ITEM # 43817 Council Lady Eure wished to express appreciation to the City Manager for her attendance at Computer classes in the Offices of Electronic Systems. Council Lady Eure would encourage all to take advantage of these classes. July 14, 1998 - 46- ITEM # 43843 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf entertained a motion to per,nit City Council to conduct its EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to Section 2.1-344, Code of Virginia, as amended, for the following purpose: PERSONNEL MATTER& Discussion or consideration of or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1). Boards and Commissions: Development Authority Minority Business Council Parks and Recreation Commission Planning Commission Social Services Board Tidewater Community College Board Tidewater Transportation District Commission School Site Selection Committee Virginia Beach Crime Task Force Referendum for School Modernization LEGAL MA TTERS: Consultation with legal counsel or briefings by staff members, consultants, or attorneys pertaining to actual or probable litigation, or other specific legal matters requesting the provision of legal advice by counsel pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(7). Discussion or consideration of contract terms/ negotiations involving the Virginia Beach Sports Plex. Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council voted to proceed into EXECUTIVE SESSION (3:00 P.M.). Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Linwood O. Branch, III - 14- ITEM # 43818 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, July 14, 1998, at 1:08 P.M.. Council Members Present: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Absent: None -15- ITEM # 43819 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf entertained a motion to permit City Council to conduct its EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to Section 2.1-344, Code of Virginia, as amended, for the following purpose: PERSONNEL MATTERS: Discussion or consideration of or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1). Boards and Commissions: · Development Authority Minority Business Council Parks and Recreation Commission Planning Commission Social Services Board Tidewater Community College Board Tidewater Transportation District Commission School Site Selection Committee Virginia Beach Crime Task Force PUBLICLY-HELD PROPERTY: Discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition, or use of real property for public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly-held property, or of plans for the future of an institution which could affect the value of property owned or desirable for ownership by such institution pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(3). Mst Street Project LEGAL MATTER& Consultation with legal counsel or briefings by staff members, consultants, or attorneys pertaining to actual or probable litigation, or other specific legal matters requesting the provision of legal advice by counsel pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(7). To-Wit: Discussion of consideration of contract terms/ negotiations involving the Virginia Beach Sports Plex. Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Jones, City Council voted to proceed into EXECUTIVE SESSION. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William IV. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 -16- FORMAL SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL July 14, 1998 2:50 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, July 14, 1998, at 2:50 P.M. Council Members Present: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William Ye'. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Absent: None INVOCATION: 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 of January 1, 1998, is hereby made apart of the record. July 1< ;998 Item V-E. -17- CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM ii 43820 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council CERTIFIED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION TO RECESS. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Executive Session to which this certification resolution applies; AND, Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 43819, Page 15, and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.1-344. of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Executive Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Ruth Hodges Smith, (~I~C/AAE City Clerk July 14, 1998 -18- Item V-F. 1. MINUTES ITEM it 43821 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Eure, City Council APPROVED the Minutes of the INFORMAL AND FORlffAL SESSIONS of July 7, 1998. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 - 19- Item V-G. 1. ADOPT AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION ITEM it 43822 BY CONSENSUS, City Council ADOPTED: AGENDA FOR THE FORMAL SESSION July 14, 1998 - 20- Item V-L. RESOL UTION/RES OL UTIONS ITEM # 43823 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council APPROVED IN ONE MOTION, Resolution 1 and Ordinances 1 (AS REVISED), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a/b/c/d and 7 of the CONSENT AGENDA. Item V-I.L was ADOPTED, AS REVISED, BY CONSENT. Voting: 11- 0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 - 21 - Item V-H. 1. RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43824 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution to refer to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re communication technology via fiber-optics transmission facilities within the City. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba $. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 10 11 12 13 14 15 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO FIBER-OPTICS TRANSMISSION FACILITIES WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: There is hereby referred to the Planning Commission, for its consideration and recommendation, a proposed ordinance amending Sections 111, 401, 801, 901 and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance, and adding a new Section 233.15 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to fiber-optics transmission facilities. A true copy of such proposed ordinance is hereto attached. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 14 day of July , 1998. CA-98-7064 wmm\ordres\fiberop.res R-1 June 30, 1998 APPROW. D AS TO CO T , T Planning APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Department of Law 1 2 3 ', 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF, AND STANDARDS PERTAINING TO, FIBER-OPTICS TRANSMISSION FACILITIEs AND PRESCRIBING THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH SUCH USE IS PERMITTED 7 8 9 10 SECTIONS AMENDED: CITY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 111, 401, 801, 901 AND 1001 SECTION ADDED: 233.15 CITY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 111, 401, 801, 901 and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance be, and hereby are, amended and reordained, and a new Section 233.15 be, and hereby is, added, to read as follows: Sec. 111. Definitions. Fiber-Optics Transmission Facility. A centralized facility in which fiber-optic voice and data transmission equipment is used to regenerate and route incoming fiber-optic signals. This amendment defines the term "fiber-optics transmission facility." ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS C. CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES. ,Sec. 233.15. Fiber-Optics Transmission Facilities. .In addition to general requirements, fiber-oPtics transmissio~ .facilities shall be subject to the following reauirements, whic], shall be deemed to be conditions of the conditional use permit: 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 (a) (b) (c) (d) Ail equipment shall be located within a fully-enclosed building; Minimum 10t area shall be twenty thousand (20,000) square feet: All lighting shall be directed toward the interior of the site and shall be designed so as to shield adjacent properties from ligh~ and glare; and Where adjacent to a residential or apartment district without an intervening street, alley or body of water greater than twenty-five (25) feet in width, a minimum fifteen-foot setback shall be required alonq all lot lines adjoininq such residential or apartment district, and CategQry IV landscape screening shall be required unless otherwise specified in the conditional use permit. No buildinq or structure or vehicular parking surface shall be located within such setback. This section sets forth the general requirements applicable to fiber-optics transmission facilities. Requirements pertain to minimum lot area, setbacks from adjoining residential or apartment districts, landscaping and lighting. In addition, the standards require all equipment to be located within a fully-enclosed building. ARTICLE 4. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS Sec. 401. Use regulations. (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses permitted within the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective agricultural districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and 2 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as specified shall be permitted. Use AG-1 AG-2 Fiber-optics transmission facilities COMMENT The amendments to this section add fiber-optics transmission facilities as a conditional use in the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. ARTICLE 8. OFFICE DISTRICTS. Sec. 801· Use regulations. (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses permitted within the 0-1 and 0-2 Office Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective Office Districts shall be permitted as either Principal uses indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as specified shall be permitted. Use 0-1 0-2 Fiber-optics transmission facilities The amendments to this section add fiber-optics transmission facilities as a conditional use in the O-1 and 0-2 Office Districts. 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ARTICLE 9. BUSINESS DISTRICTS. Sec. 901. Use regulations. (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses permitted within the B-1 through B-4 Business Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective business districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as specified shall be permitted. Use Fiber-optics ~ransmis~ion facilities B-1 B-iA B-2 B-3 B-3A B-4 The amendments to this section add fiber-optics transmission facilities as a conditional use in the B-lA, B-2, B-3 and B-3A Business Districts. Such facilities would not be permitted in the B-1 and B-4 Business Districts. ARTICLE 10. Sec. 1001. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. Use regulations. (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists those uses permitted within the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective industrial districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by a ~P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the respective districts. No uses or structures other than as specified shall be permitted. 124 Use I-1 I-2 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 Fiber-optics transmission facilities COMMENT 7 The amendments to this section add fiber-optics transmission facilities as a conditional use in the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts. 132 133 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 1998. 134 135 136 137 CA-98-7063 ordin\proposed\45-233et.com R-1 June 30, 1998 138 139 140 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Planning 141 142 143 144 145 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFF I C I ENCY Department of Law - 22 - Item Vd. 1. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43825 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED, AS AMENDED: Ordinance to AMEND Section 21-337 and 21-338 of the City Code re driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE X OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUGS SECTIONS AMENDED: SECTIONS 21-337 AND 21-338 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 21-337 and 21-338 of the City Code are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 21-337. Preliminary A_analysis of breath to determine alcoholic content of blood. (a) Any person who is suspected of a violation of section 21-336 or of section 21-336.1 shall be entitled, if the equipment referred to in subsection (b) below is available, to have his breath analyzed to determine the probable alcoholic content of his blood. The person shall also be entitled, upon request, to observe the process of analysis and to see the blood-alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test. His breath may be analyzed by any police officer of the city in the normal discharge of his duties. (b) The method and equipment to be used in analyzing breath samples pursuant to this section shall be such as are prescribed by the State Department of Ccncral Criminal Justice Services, Division of Forensic Science. Sec. 21-338. Chemical testing to determine alcohol or drug content of blood. (i) Assurance of breath-test validity; use of test results as evidence. To be capable of being considered valid as evidence in a prosecution under section 21-336 or of section 21-336.1, chemical analysis of a person's breath shall be performed by an individual possessing a valid license to conduct such tests, with a type of equipment and in accordance with methods approved bythe department of ~-~a~crimt-al 4ustice services, division of forensic science. The division shall test the accuracy of the breath-testing equipment at least once every six (6) months. 41 42 43 44 45 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 14th day of July, 1998. CA-7088 DATA/ORDIN/PROPOSED/21-337et.ORD R3 - PREPARED: July 13, 1998 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCYs Department of Law 2 - 23 - Item Vd. 2. RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43826 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $42,989 grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Department of Planning for Chesapeake Bay preservation work; TRANSFER $34,511 as a grant match from the Fiscal Year 1998-1999 General Fund Reserve to the Department of Planning; continue a full time temporary Environmental Planner II position in the Planning Department; and, estimated revenue from the Commonwealth be increased accordingly. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorof, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 JhN ORDXNANCE TO ~CCEPT AND APPROPRIATE X ~R]t~T IN THE ]LMOUHT OF ~42~989 FR~ THE VXR~XNXA ~BB~E B~Y L~ ~BXBT~CE DEP~T~ ~ TO T~HF~ ~34,5L~ ~ A Q~ ~TCH FROM THE ?IBC~ Y~ ~998-~999 GENE~ F~REB~VE ~ER~S, the Commonwealth of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department has provided a grant in the amount of $42,989 for the purpose of working towards achieving full consistency with Phase II of the Re~lations regarding Compr~ensive Plans, continuation of local program implementation, and refinement of GIS info~ation for local mapping assistance; ~ER~S, this grant requires a cash match of $34,511 which is available in the FY 1998-1999 General Fund Reserve; ~E~S, the work to be provided through these resources is considered vital to the continuing work in Chesapeake Bay preservation in Virginia Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT O~AINED BY THE CO~CIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA B~CH, VIRGINIA, that a $42,989 grant be accepted from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and be appropriated to the Department of Planning for Chesapeake Bay preservation work, and that estimated Revenue from the Co~onwealth be increased by $42,989. BE IT F~THER O~AINED that $34,511 be transferred from the FY 1998-1999 General Fund Reserve to the Department of Planning for a re~ired cash match for the grant. BE IT F~TH~ O~AINED that a full time temporary Enviro~ental Planner II position be continued within the Department of Planning to carry out the work of this grant. This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. Adopted the 14 day of July of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. , 1998, by the Council 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Department James S. Gilmore, III Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resourccs COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT 805 East Broad Street Suite 701 Michael D. Ciower Richmond, Virginia 23219 Executive Director FAX (804) 225-3447 (804) 225-3440 June 3, 1998 1-800-243-7229 Voice/TDD James K. Spore, City Manager City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Re: Local Assistance Contract tt 99-1-077 Dear Mr. Spore: Enclosed are two originals of the proposed FY 99 Local Assistance Program grant contract between CBLAD and the City of Virginia Beach. Please review all of the information carefully and if it is acceptable, obtain an authorized signature on each document. After signing, you should retain one contract for your files and return the other to this Department attention to David Kovacs, your Department liaison. Please note, that pursuant to direction from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board and Section (7) of the Contract, it must be signed and returned within six weeks of its receipt; otherwise, it will become void and the allocated funds will revert to the grant pool. If the County should have any questions concerning the award or this proposed contract, please contact your liaison or Mr. Scott Kudlas, Chief of Local Planning Assistance. We look forward to working closely with you on the continuing implementation of your local Chesapeake Bay Program and work on amendments to your Comprehensive Plan to achieve full Phase II consistency with the Act and its Regulations. Enclosure: * original grant contract (2) Since~ · Michael D. Clower Director c: (letter only) Clay Bernick, Planning Administrator An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat - 24 - Item V-L3. RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 4382 7 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk and Portsmouth for undertaking a feasibility phase study of the Elizabeth River Basin; and, TRANSFER $11,166from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies as the City's required match for the first year of the study.. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William rE. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara 3/1. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba $. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None 1998 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AND THE CITIES OF CHESAPEAKE, NORFOLK, AND PORTSMOUTH FOR UNDERTAKING A FEASIBILITY PHASE STUDY OF THE ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, AND TRANSFERRING $11,166 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES AS THE CITY'S REQUIRED MATCH FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF THE STUDY WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study of the Elizabeth River Basin with a view toward determining the need for modifications associated with environmental remediation and restoration; WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a reconnaissance study of the Elizabeth River Basin and has determined that a further feasibility study is required to fulfill the intent of Congressional authority and to further assess the extent of federal interest in participating in a solution to identified problems of wetlands losses and contaminated sediments in the river; WHEREAS, this study requires a cash match of $11,166 for the first year of the study from the City of Virginia Beach as its contribution to undertaking the feasibility study, which is available in the Fiscal Year 1998-1999 General Fund Reserve for Contingencies; and WItEREAS, the work to be provided through these resources will significantly enhance the ability to restore, enhance and conserve valuable natural resource amenities within the City and the Elizabeth River Basin and provide a unique opportunity to augment both passive recreational opportunities and environmental education. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the Department &the Army, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, and Portsmouth for undertaking a Feasibility Phase Study of the Elizabeth River Basin; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That funds in the amount of$11,166 are hereby transferred from the FY 1998-99 General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to provide the City's required cash match for the first year of the study. day of 36 July Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the 14 ,1998. 37 38 39 4O CA-7087 ORDIN/NONCODE/E-RIVER.ORD R2 JULY 7, 1998 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Planning APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Department AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, CITY OF NORFOLK, CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, AND CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FOR THE ELIZABETH RIVER, VIRGINIA, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION STUDY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Department of the Army (hereinafter the "Government"), represented by the District Engineer executing this Agreement, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach (hereinafter the "Sponsors"), WITNESSETH, that WHEREAS, the Congress (House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate) has authorized the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers to conduct a study of Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, published as House Document 187, 89th Congress and other pertinent reports with specific emphasis on the Elizabeth River, Virginia watershed with a view to determining the need for modifications associated with environmental and related purposes; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has conducted a reconnaissance study of the Elizabeth River, Virginia watershed with a view to determining the need for modifications associated with environmental and related purposes pursuant to this authority, and has determined that further study in the nature of a "Feasibility Phase Study" (hereinafter the "Study") is required to fulfill the intent of the study authority and to assess the extent of the Federal interest in participating in a solution to the identified problem; and WHEREAS, Section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, as amended) specifies the cost sharing requirements applicable to the Study; WHEREAS, the Sponsors have the authority and capability to furnish the cooperation hereinafter set forth and are willing to participate in study cost sharing and financing in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Sponsors and the Government understand that entering into this Agreement in no way obligates either party to implement a project and that whether the Government supports a project authorization and budgets it for implementation depends upon, among other things, the outcome of the Study and whether the proposed solution is consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies and with the budget priorities of the Administration; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement: A. The term "Study Costs" shall mean all disbursements by the Government pursuant to this Agreement, from Federal appropriations or from funds made available to the Government by the Sponsors, and all negotiated costs of work performed by the Sponsors · pursuant to this Agreement. Study Costs shall include, but not be limited to: labor charges; direct costs; overhead expenses; supervision and administration costs; the costs of participation in Study Management and Coordination in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement; the costs of contracts with third parties, including termination or suspension charges; and any termination or suspension costs (ordinarily defined as those costs necessary to terminate ongoing contracts or obligations and to properly safeguard the work already accomplished) associated with this Agreement. B. The term "estimated Study Costs" shall mean the estimated cost of p~rforming the Study as of the effective date of this Agreement, as specified in Article III.A. of this Agreement. C. The term "excess Study Costs" shall mean any excess of the cost of the study over the cost estimate if the excess results from a change in Federal law; or a change in the scope of the study requested by the non-Federal interests. D. The term "study period" shall mean the time period for conducting the Study (estimated to be 36 months as presented in the Project Study Plan), commencing with the release to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District of initial Federal feasibility funds following the execution of this Agreement and ending when the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) submits the feasibility report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review for consistency with the policies and programs of the President. E. The term "PSP" shall mean the Project Study Plan, which is attached to this Agreement and which shall not be considered binding on the parties. F. The term "negotiated costs" shall mean the costs of in-kind services to be provided by the Sponsors in accordance with the PSP. G. The term "fiscal year" shall mean one fiscal year of the Government. The Government fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. 2 ARTICLE 1I - OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES A. The Government, using funds and in-kind services provided by the Sponsors and funds appropriated by the Congress of the United States, shall expeditiously prosecute and complete the Study, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and Federal laws, regulations, and policies. B. In accordance with this Article and Article III.A., m.B. and IlI. C. of this Agreement, the Sponsors shall contribute cash and in-kind services equal to fifty (50) percent of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. The Sponsors may, consistent with applicable law and regulations, contribute up to 25 percent of Study Costs through the provision of in- kind services. The in-kind services to be provided by the Sponsors, the estimated · negotiated costs for those services, and the estimated schedule under which those services are to be provided are specified in the PSP. Negotiated costs shall be subject to an audit by the Government to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability. C. As limited by Article XI. and upon agreement by the Sponsors under Article II.E, the Sponsors shall pay a fifty (50) percent share of excess Study Costs in accordance with Article III.D. of this Agreement. D. As limited by Article XI, the Sponsors understand that the schedule of work may require the Sponsors to provide cash or in-kind services at a rate that may result in the Sponsors temporarily diverging from the obligations concerning cash and in-kind services specified in paragraph B. of this Article. Such temporary divergences shall be identified in the quarterly reports provided for in Article m.A. of this Agreement and shall not alter the obligations concerning costs and services specified in paragraph B. of this Article or the obligations concerning payment specified in Article 11I of this Agreement. E. If, upon the award of any contract or the performance of any in-house work for the Study by the Government or the Sponsors, cumulative financial obligations of the Government and the Sponsors would result in costs in excess of the estimated Study Costs at the time of the execution of this Agreement or excess Study Costs as defined in this Agreement, the Government and the Sponsors agree to defer award of that and all subsequent contracts, and performance of that and all subsequent in-house work, for the Study until the Government and each Sponsor agrees to proceed with, suspend, or terminate involvement in the study2 Should the Government and the sponsors require time to arrive at a decision, the Agreement will be suspended for a period of not to exceed six months. In the event the Government and the sponsors have not reached an agreement to proceed by the end of their 6 month period, the Agreement may be subject to termination in accordance with Article X. F. No Federal funds may be used to meet the Sponsor's share of Study Costs unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute. 3 · G. The award and management of any contract with a third party in furtherance of this Agreement shall be exclusively within the control of the contracting party, but in all cases shall be subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations. H. All data and information generated as part of the study shall be made available to all parties. ARTICLE 1/I - METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The Government shall maintain current records of contributions provided by the parties, current projections of Study Costs, current projections of each party's share of Study Costs, and current projections of the amount of Study Costs that will result in excess Study Costs. At least quarterly, the Government shall provide the Sponsors a report setting forth this information. As of the effective date of this Agreement, estimated Study Costs are $2,402,000 and the Sponsors' share of estimated Study Costs is $1,201,000. In order to meet the Sponsors' cash payment requirements for its share of estimated Study Costs, the Sponsors must provide a cash contribution currently estimated to be $1,030,787 [EQUAL TO THE SPONSOR'S SHARE LESS THE VALUE OF IN- KIND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORS]. The total cash contribution over three fiscal years will be apportioned among the Sponsors as follows: Commonwealth of Virginia: $650,200; City of Chesapeake: $84,227; City of Norfolk: $138,060; City of Portsmouth: $124,800; City of Virginia Beach: $33,500 as set forth in Table 9.3 of the PSP as drafted on the date of this Agreement. The dollar amounts set forth in this Article are based upon the Government's best estimates, which reflect the scope of the study described in the PSP, projected costs, price-level changes, and anticipated inflation. B. The Sponsors shall provide their cash contribution required under Article II.B. of this Agreement in accordance with the following provisions: i. The Government shall notify the Sponsors by i October of each year of the funds, as set forth in Table 9.3 of the PSP, that are required from the Sponsors to meet the Sponsor's share of Study Costs for their upcoming fiscal year. 2. No later than 15 calendar days after the beginning of the Sponsor's first and subsequent fiscal years of the Study (1 July), the Sponsors shall verify to the satisfaction of the Government that the sponsors have deposited the required funds in an escrow or other account acceptable to the Government, with interest accruing to the Sponsors. 3. The Government shall draw from the escrow or other account provided by the Sponsors such sums as the Government deems necessary to cover the Sponsor's share of contractual and in-house fiscal obligations attributable to the Study as they are incurred. 4. In the event the Government determines that there will be excess Study Costs, the Government shall so notify the Sponsors in writing. In that event, the parties shall be 4 governed by Article II.E. in deciding whether to proceed to incur excess Study Costs. If excess Study Costs are agreed to by the Sponsors, they shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of paragraph D of this Article. C. Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Study Period or ter~nination of this Agreement, the Government shall conduct a final accounting of Study Costs, including disbursements by the Government of Federal funds, cash contributions by the Sponsors, the amount of any excess Study Costs, and credits for the negotiated costs of the Sponsors, and shall furnish the Sponsors with the results of this accounting. Remaining funds in the Sponsors escrow accounts shall be released to the Sponsors within 30 days of the final accounting period. Within thirty (30) days of the final accounting, the Government, subject to the availability of funds, shall reimburse the Sponsors for the excess, if any, of cash contributions and credits given over its required share of Study Costs, other than excess Study Costs, or the Sponsors shall provide the Government any cash contributions required for the Sponsors to meet its required share of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. D. The Sponsors shall provide their cash contribution for excess Study Costs as set forth under Article II.C. of this Agreement by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, USACE Norfolk" to the District Engineer as follows: 1. After the project that is the subject of this Study has been authorized for construction, no later than the date on which a Project Cooperation Agreement is entered into for the project; or 2. In the event the project that is the subject of this Study is not authorized for construction by a date that is no later than 5 years of the date of the final report of the Chief of Engineers concerning the project, or by a date that is no later than 2 years after the date of the termination of the study, the Sponsors shall pay their share of excess Study Costs where applicable on that date (5 years after the date of the Report of the Chief of Engineers or 2 years after the date of the termination of the study). ARTICLE IV - STUDY MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION A. To provide for consistent and effective communication, the Sponsors and the Government shall appoint named senior representatives to an Executive Committee. Thereafter, the Executive Committee shall meet regularly until the end of the Study Period. B. Until the end of the Study Period, the Executive Committee shall generally oversee the Study consistently with the PSP. C. The Executive Committee may make recommendations that it deems warranted to the District Engineer on matters that it oversees, including suggestions to avoid potential sources of dispute. The Government in good faith shall consider such recommendations. 5 The Government has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the Executive Committee's recommendations. This paragraph shall not affect the decision'to accept excess Study Costs as governed by Article I1. E. of this agreement. D. The Executive Committee shall appoint representatives to serve on a Steering Committee (Study Management Team). The Steering Committee shall keep the Executive Committee informed of the progress of the Study and of significant pending issues and actions, and shall prepare periodic reports on the progress of all. work items identified in the PSP. E. The costs of participation in the Executive Committee (including the cost to serve on the Steering Committee) shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE V - DISPUTES As a condition precedent to a party bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement, that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non- binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to both parties. Arbitration costs shall not be included in Study Costs and shall be the responsibility of the parties involved. All parties understand that the Government's share of arbitration costs shall be limited to 50 percent. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VI - MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS A. Within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Government and the Sponsors shall develop procedures for keeping books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total Study Costs. These procedures shall incorporate, and apply as appropriate, the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to state and local governments at 32 C.F.R. Section 33.20. The Government and the Sponsors shall maintain such books, records, documents, and other evidence in accordance with these procedures for a minimum of three years after completion of the Study and resolution of ail relevant claims arising therefrom. To the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government and the Sponsors shall each allow the other to inspect such books, documents, records, and other evidence. B. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. Section 7503, the Government may conduct audits in addition to any audit that the Sponsors is required to conduct under the Single Audit Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sections 7501-7507. Any such Government audits shall be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the cost principles in OMB 6 Circular No. A-87 and other applicable cost principles and regulations. The costs of Government audits shall be included in total Study Costs and shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE VII - RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES The Government and the Sponsors act in independent capacities in the performance of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, and neither is to be considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other. ARTICLE VIII - OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT - No member of or delegate to the Congress, nor any resident commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. ARTICLE IX - FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS In the exercise of the Sponsor's rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Sponsors agrees to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto and published in 32 C.F.R. Part 195, as well as Army Regulations 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army". ARTICLE X - TERMINATION A. This agreement shall terminate at the end of the Study Period; provided, that prior to the end of the study period the Government may terminate this Agreement immediately upon failure of any of the Sponsors to fulfill their obligations under Article 111 of this Agreement. In the event that the Government terminates this Agreement, the parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Study and proceed to a final accounting in accordance with Article III.C. of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, all data and information generated as part of the Study shall be made available to all parties. Also, prio. r to the end of the study period and upon thirty (30) days written notice, any Sponsor may terminate or suspend its own responsibilities under this Agreement. In the event that any Sponsor elects to terminate its own responsibilities under this Agreement, both the Government and the terminating Sponsor shall conclude the activities relating to the terminating Sponsor's portion of the Study and proceed to a preliminary end-of-study accounting in accordance with Article III.C. of this Agreement, and to a final accounting in accordance with Article III.C. of this Agreement. Upon termination of a Sponsor's responsibilities, all data and information generated as part of the Study shall be made available to the parties. B. Any termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties of liability for any obligations previously incurred, including the costs of closing out or transferring any existing contracts. C. In the event that any of the Sponsors elect to terminate its own responsibilities under this Agreement, and there are remaining Sponsors who elect to continue to participate in the Study, the Government shall negotiate in good faith with the remaining Sponsors to effect a timely and productive conclusion to that portion of the Study pertaining to the remaining Sponsors' area of statutory authority. The Government shall prepare a revised PSP and revised estimated Study costs, including the remaining Sponsors' proportional share, to complete that portion of the Study of interest to the remaining Sponsors. If the remaining Sponsors elect to complete the Study, this Agreement shall be amended to reflect the negotiated revisions to the PSP and Study costs. Cost amendments to this Agreement made pursuant to this sub-article shall reflect credits for the previous cash and in-k/nd contributions of all Study Sponsors and shall reflect task reductions made as a result of withdrawal of any Study Sponsors. ARTICLE XI - OBLIGATION OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement is · intended to obligate any funds not appropriated by the General Assembly (in the case of the Commonwealth) or by a political subdivision of the State which derives its power from the State Legislature; any monies owed under this Agreement are expressly subject to the availability of appropriated funds. ARTICLE XII- AMENDMENT PROVISION This agreement may be amended or modified only in writing by agreement of all parties. l/q WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the District Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BY. ROBERT H. REARDON, JR. COLONEL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER NORFOLK DISTRICT DATE: SPONSORS: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DENNIS H. TREACY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA APPROVED AS TO FORM: DEBORAH LOVE FEILD ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CITY OF CHESAPEAKE APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS RONALD S. HALLMAN CHESAPEAKE CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: DOLORES A. MOORE CLERK, CITY OF CHESAPEAKE DATE: CITY OF NORFOLK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: NORFOLK CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: CLERK, CITY OF NORFOLK DATE: CITY OF PORTSMOUTH APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: PORTSMOUTH CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: CLERK, CITY OF PORTSMOUTH DATE: JOHN L. PAZOUR CITY MANAGER, CITY OF CHESAPEAKE JAMES B. OLIVER, JR. CITY MANAGER, CITY OF NORFOLK RONALD W. MASSIE. CITY MANAGER, CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 10 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY AR'TEST: CLERK, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH JAMES K. SPORE. CITY MANAGER, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DATE: Atth'chment - Project Stu.cly Plan - ~ .: ... ~ ~"~ 11 Project Study Plan ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA Elizabeth River Environmental Restoration- Feasibility Investigation US Army Corps Of Engineers Norfolk District August 1997 (rvsd Apr 1998) Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Elizabeth River Basin, Virginia Elizabeth River, Virginia - Environmental Restoration Study Negotiated Project Study Plan Table of Contents Subject Purpose Organizational Breakdown Description of Products Scope of Work Work Breakdown Structure Organization Breakdown Structure Responsibility Assignment Matrix Schedules Budget and Cost Estimates Page 1 2 5 6 28 29 31 31 33 Elizabeth River Basin, Virginia Elizabeth River, Virginia - Environmental Restoration Study Negotiated Project Study Plan 1. PURPOSE 1.0 This document supports the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) and outlines the Project Study Plan (PSP) for the conduct of the feasibility study of sediment and wetland restoration to provide environmental restoration in the Elizabeth River Basin. The feasibility study is the second phase of the two-phase Corps of Engineers process and tbllows a favorable reconnaisance report. This PSP has been developed by the Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach, the study local sponsors. Other coordinating study participants, the Elizabeth River Project (ERP), and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), have provided valuable input. 1.1 The PSP details the scope, schedule, and budget of the feasibility study tasks as well as the division of responsibilities for accomplishment by the Norfolk District, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach, and the respective consultants and contractors. Included in the PSP is a detailed work description, cost summary table, and schedule outlining the initiation of tasks by the aforementioned sponsors. 1.2 The PSP was prepared by the Norfolk District and will have to be approved by the North Atlantic DivisiOn (NAD) (Norfolk District's next higher authority) and certified by the Office of the Chief of Engineers. The plan will be implemented by the Norfolk District, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach. The Elizabeth River Project and Hampton Roads Planning District Commission will act as coordinating study participants. 1.3 This study and its recommendations will conform to and be fully compatible with the regulations on Project Management (Engineering Regulation [ER] 5-7-1 and Engineer Circular [EC] 1105-2-208 dated 23 December 1994); Real Estate (ER 405-1-12, Draft Chapter 12); Planning (ER 1105-2-100); Engineering and Design (ER 1110-2-1150); Cost Engineering (ER 1110-8-1 ); Ecosystem Restoration in the Civil Works Program (EC 1105-2-210); the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA); the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344; and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. 1.4 The PSP has served as the basis for negotiations between Norfolk District and the Non- Federal sponsors. The document was coordinated with all District elements and the Non-Federal sponsors to develop the baseline study cost, schedule and assignment of responsibilities. The work scope, schedule and cost detailed in this PSP was carefully developed and reflects the requirements, desires and interests of all parties. Each of the 5 local sponsors provided specific comment, including item by item breakdowns on in-kind services that will be provided to support the feasibility study effort. Based upon this collaboration with the local sponsors, the PSP presents the share and value of the in-kind services. 2. ORGANIZATIONAL BREAKDOWN 2.0 INTRODUCTION: This section defines the study organization and the roles and authorities of the Corps of Engineers and the local sponsors in accomplishing the study. 2.1 Executive Committee: Membership: Norfolk District Engineer; the Chief of Programs and Project Management Division; the Chief of Planning Division; the Commonwealth of Virginia (Secretary of Natural Resources) and the City Managers of the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach (or their representatives). Responsibilities/Roles: As indicated in the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA), the overall study management is the responsibility of the Executive Committee which will meet to review study progress, finances, and findings developed and reported by the Steering Committee and study team. The Chief of Planning Resources Branch, Norfolk District, will act as alternate for the Chief of Planning Division while also serving as liaison to the study team. The Executive Committee must approve any amendments to the FCSA. Meeting Frequency: Biannually or as-needed. 2.2 Steering Committee: Membership: A Steering Committee comprised of field-level representatives from each of the local sponsors, the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, the Elizabeth River Project and various state agencies and academia was formed during the Reconnaissance Phase of investigation. This group will remain intact during the feasibility study. Responsibilities/Roles: As indicated in the FCSA, the day-to-day study management is the responsibility of the Steering Committee. This includes dealing with the daily issues related to conduct of the study including design of field studies, acco~nplishment of field investigations, preparation of documents and other work products, public involvement, provision of in-kind services, etc. Meet#~g Frequency: Monthly or as determined by the committee. 2.3 District Study Team: Membership: The District study team is composed of representatives from the Norfolk District Construction-Operations Division, Office of Counsel, Engineering Division, Planning Division, PPMD, and Real Estate Division. Responsibilities/Roles: The District study team is responsible for accomplishment of the study in accordance with the FCSA, PSP, and appropriate Federal and state guidance and regulations. The District study team will meet regularly to track the accomplishment of District work items and products related to timely and successful conduct and completion of the study. Meet#~g Frequency: Monthly or on an as- needed basis as determined by the project manager or the study team members. In addition, the District Team will meet periodically with the Steering Committee. 2.3.1 The Project Manager (PM) from PPMD (see paragraphs 4.6.20 and 4.6.22) is responsible for the general management of the feasibility study and handles the upward reporting to the Project Review Board (Norfolk District Corps senior staff) and for preparation of required Life Cycle Project Management (LCPM) reports. In addition, PM responsibilities include the 2 monitoring of study schedules and finances, processing of schedule and cost change requests, management of contingencies, review of budget documents, development of the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) (the contractual agreement for cost sharing in the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase, the construction phase, and the operation and maintenance phase), and identification of problems and issues. 2.3.2 The Technical Managers (TM's) in Environmental Analysis Branch and Planning Resources Branch of Planning Division (see paragraphs 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.16, 4.6.18, 4.6.19, and 4.6.21) are responsible for day-to-day, technical study management such as preparing budgetary data, preparing detailed study schedules, managing study funds, organizing the study team, conducting further reconnaissance of the study area, research, analysis, evaluation, formulation, development of the feasibility report and Project Management Plan (PMP), coordinating with the district and non-district study team, coordinating with higher headquarters, monitoring progress on work tasks, preparing correspondence, public involvement, institutional studies, and handling any miscellaneous tasks which may develop. 2.3.3 National Economic Development (NED) effects on alternatives are not an appropriate measure for environmental restoration projects. During the feasibility phase, an attempt will be made to quantify environmental quality (EQ) benefits by determining the environmental outputs of all alternatives which will be measured in like units. Output estimates may be measured in acres, habitat units, population counts, or any other cardinal units of measurement that are consistent when evaluating alternatives. 2.3.4 Other study team members of Environmental Analysis Branch of Planning Division (see paragraphs 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.6.5, and 4.6.6) are responsible for developing socio-economic, cultural, and environmental data; assessing study impacts on these subjects; preparing mitigation plans; preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assesment (EA); accomplishing environmental coordination and compliance; and managing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) contract. 2.3.5 The study team members of Real Estate Division (see paragraph 4.6.8) are responsible for developing real estate cost estimates, obtaining real estate mapping and rights of entry, coordinating all real estate aspects, and developing a Real Estate Plan. 2.3.6 The study team members of both Planning and Engineering Division (see paragraphs 4.6.9, 4.6.10, 4.6.11,4.6.12, 4.6.13, 4.6.14, and 4.6.15) are responsible for all hydrology and hydraulics studies; geotechnical matters including subsurface exploration and sediment testing; Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes (HTRW) investigations; surveys and mapping; engineering and design; dredging investigations; and cost estimates for initial construction and maintenance of alternative plans and the selected plan(s). 2.3.7 The study team members of Office of Counsel (see paragraphs 4.6.2 and 4.6.22) are responsible for assisting in the institutional analysis, development of the PCA, and review of the feasibility report and PMP. 2.3.8 The study team members of Construction-Operations Division are responsible for monitoring and reviewing the study as it proceeds through the permitting process to the PED phase. 2.3.9 The study team members of Contracting Division are responsible for providing contract support. They will review scopes of work and assist in procuring contractors to support the District's work during feasibility. 2.3.10 The local sponsors are responsible for assisting in the feasibility study and, where possible, providing in-kind services. They also appoint representatives to coordinate scheduling, study management of in-kind services, review, and other matters related to study conduct. Representatives will also participate on the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee to oversee and review the study progress. 3. DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS 3.0 INTRODUCTION: The PSP will cover the development of five products during the feasibility study: 3.1 Feasibility Report: This product includes all activities leading to the approval of the final feasibility report documentation by the Office of the Chief of Engineers. The report will consist of a main report summarizing the technical findings and containing the study conclusions and recommendations. It also contains the supporting documentation which consists of technical sections covering work accomplished in the various work task subaccounts. The report entails all problem identification and formulation activities required to identify and recommend a plan of improvement. It also includes NEPA Section 106 and other environmental compliance documentation; coordination of the study and results with all interested parties; initial and final review by NAD; final review by the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and the Office of Management and Budget; and ultimately, transmittal to Congress. 3.2 Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assesment: The EIS/EA, although an independent document, will be physically included in the feasibility report. This product includes all activities leading to the assessment of environmental impacts related to the plans for the restoration of the study area. This includes scoping and preparation of the environmental document, public coordination and review, and notification of findings. The EIS/EA will be approved in conjunction with the final feasibility report. 3.3 Preliminary_ PCA and Financing Plan: As the details of the recommended plan(s) are finalized, coordination will be undertaken with the local sponsors to review the model language for a PCA. A letter of intent will be developed which acknowledges the requirements of local 4 c°operation and expresses a good faith intent to provide those items for the recommended project. Additionally, a preliminary financing plan will be developed by the local sponsors to detail plans for financing costs. An assessment of this plan will then be completed by Norfolk District. 3.4 Project Management Plan: As part of the feasibility study efforts, a draft PMP will be prepared based on the recommended project and a baseline cost estimate will be developed. The draft PMP will address the schedule of PED activities which include preparation of plans and specifications for the initial construction contract. The draft PMP may also address the development of other supporting plans such as- local cooperation, real estate and acquisition, quality control, value engineering, environmental and cultural matters, safety and security, and operation and maintenance. This document will form the basis for the PMP to be finalized for project construction. The draft PMP will be submitted with the draft feasibility report. 3.5 Technical Review Plan: Documentation of the technical review for Elizabeth River Environmental Restoration, Virginia will be sufficient to provide a quality assurance reviewer that a comprehensive, independent review was conducted in accordance with the principles and guidelines established. Both the scope of the review and the documentation of the review process for the feasibility study will be established in the Quality Control Plan (QCP). It is expected that all in-progress review actions, study and review team meetings, and other significant review-related actions will be documented in the form of written memorandum. A Quality Control Report (QCR) will be prepared that includes all review related memoranda as discussed above, the technical review team's comments with responses and actions and the executive level certification that the review process has been conducted in accordance with the QCP and other pertinent regulations and guidelines. 4. SCOPE OF WORK 4.0 INTRODUCTION: This scope of work identifies and outlines the processes and procedures that the Norfolk District, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach will use in this feasibility study. The scope of work will be used to develop a work breakdown structure and will also be combined with an organizational structure in the schedule and cost summary to produce a responsibility matrix that will govern the development of the products in this PSP. 4.1 STUDY AUTHORITY: The study was authorized by a resolution dated 14 September 1995 of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which reads in part as follows: "Resolved by the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate, that the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers be, and is hereby, requested to review studies conducted under Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virgir/ia, published as House Document 187, 89th Congress and other pertinent reports with specific emphasis on the Elizabeth River, Virginia watershed with a,view to determining the need for modifications associated with environmental and related purposes." 4.2 STUDY PURPOSE: The purpose of this feasibility study is to ensure the timely and economical completion of a quality feasibility report that is expected to recommend habitat restoration as implementable solution(s) to the loss of wetlands and degradation of sediments in the Elizabeth River Basin. The feasibility study serves as the basis for formulating projects and developing a decision-making document to determine whether projects should be authorized for construction. The solution must be in the Federal interest and in concert with current polices and budgetary priorities. 4.3 STUDY AREA: The Elizabeth River is located approximately 135 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. at the junction of Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay. The river is a tidal estuary which runs through Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach, and drains into the Chesapeake Bay. It is the economic mainstay of the Hampton Roads community, providing navigable waters for commercial, industrial, recreational and defense use. 4.3.1 The Elizabeth River is a tidal system located within the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach and drains into the James River near its entry into the Chesapeake Bay. The watershed is approximately 300 square miles and the surface area of the tidal water portion is approximately 145 square miles. Popula.tion and economic growth along the Elizabeth River have created many environmental problems within the river basin. Stormwater runoff, point source discharges, and spills from commercial, industrial and military sources over several hundred years have reduced water quality and have contaminated river sediments. Industrial and urban development and associated fill activities have destroyed many of the wetland habitats that once existed on the river, which has had an adverse effect on the ecosystem. 4.3.2 Historically, tidal wetlands within the Elizabeth River watershed have suffered significant losses from dredging, filling, and urban development. 'Nichols and Howard-Strobel (1991) provide an indication of the magnitude of wetlands loss with their estimate that the surface area of the Elizabeth River Basin was reduced by 26% between 1872 and 1982 through deposition of dredged material on marginal wetlands and subtidal bottoms. As much as 50 percent of tidal wetlands were lost on the Elizabeth River between 1944 and 1977 (Priest, et al. 1997). The 6 Elizabeth River's 350-mile shoreline has experienced extensive loss of wetlands and there is little "vegetated buffers," natural areas which mix trees, shrubs and grasses. 4.3.3 The specific area addressed by this study includes the entire Elizabeth River and surrounding riparian areas. This includes the main stem, Lafayette River, Eastern Branch, Southern Branch, and Western Branch of the river. 4.3.4 The main stem of the Elizabeth River opens to the Chesapeake Bay and extends South to the Norfolk/Portsmouth commercial and downtown areas, where it splits into the Eastern · Southern, and Western Branches. 4.3.5 The Lafayette River branches off of the main stem in Norfolk, just south of the Norfolk Naval Operations Base (NOB) and the Norfolk International Terminal (NIT). It extends eastward and south into the city of Norfolk. 4.3.6 The Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River breaks off of the main stem at the downtown tunnel of Interstate 264, at the junction of the cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Portsmouth. The Eastern Branch flows alongside the cities of Chesapeake and Norfolk and ends in the city of Virginia Beach. 4.3.7 The Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River also breaks off the main stem at the downtown tunnel of Interstate 264, at the cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Portsmouth. The Southern Branch flows alongside the cities of Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Chesapeake and ends in the city of Chesapeake. 4.3.8 The Western Branch of the Elizabeth River branches off the main stem in Portsmouth, just South of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area. The Western Branch flows through the city of Portsmouth and ends in the city of Chesapeake. 4.4 PRIOR STUDIES AND REPORTS: Several reports and studies of varying scope and detail have been prepared by the Corps of Engineers and others prior to the initiation of this study which concern the environmental conditions of the Elizabeth River Basin and other problems in the study area and its immediate vicinity. They are listed here for those who wish to refer to them. All studies were performed by the Norfolk District unless indicated otherwise. 4.4.1 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, July 1980, and FEIS Addendum, dated December 1980. 4.4.2 Waterways Experiment Station, Development of a Management Plan for Craney Island Disposal, Technical Report EL-81-11, dated December 1981. 4.4.3 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Deepening and Disposal, Final Supplement I to the FEIS, and Appendix: Dam Neck Ocean Disposal Site Evaluation Study, dated May 1985. 4.4.4 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, General Design Memorandum 1, dated June 1986. 4.4.5 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, 50-Foot Outbound Element, Supplemental Engineering Report to General Design Memorandum 1, dated June 1986. 4.4.6 Waterways Experiment Station, Effects of Norfolk Harbor Deepening on Management of Craney Island Disposal Area, dated April 1983 (draft), 1987 (final). 4.4.7 Waterways Experiment Station, Site Operations and Monitoring Report 1980-1987, dated February 1989 (draft). 4.4.8 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Supplemental Engineering Report to General Design Memorandum 1, revised September 1989. 4.4.9 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Long-Term Disposal (Inner Harbor), Draft Information Report, dated June 1990. 4.4.10 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Long-Term Dredged Material Management (Inner Harbor), Final Supplemental Report, dated May 1992. 4.4.11 Environmental Protection Agency, FEIS for the Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Located Offshore Norfolk, Virginia, dated November 1992. 4.4.12 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Long-Term Dredged Material Management, Lower Bay Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, Draft Information Report, dated July 1994. 4.4.13 Old Dominion University, Defining the Problem: The Elizabeth River, A Region of Concern dated May 1995. 4.4.14 Old Dominion University, Feasibility Study to Mitigate Existing Contaminated Subaqueous Sediments in the Southern Branch, Elizabeth River, No[folk, Virginia dated May 1996. 4.4.15 Elizabeth River Project Watershed Action Team, Elizabeth River Restoration: A Watershed Action Plan to Restore the Elizabeth River, dated April 1996. 4.4.16 Elizabeth River Project, Elizabeth River Restoration Executive Summary dated June 1996. 4.5 STUDY ALTERNATIVES: The expedited reconnaissance study has identified several feasible alternatives for activities that would help restore the Elizabeth River Basin. The two major areas to be evaluated include sediment remediation and wetlands restoration, each of 8 which to provide habitat restoration in the river. During the feasibility study, 14 wetland sites (figure 1) and 5 sediment sites (figure 2) will be examined. For the sediment site evaluations, a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of one of the sites will be conducted following broader initial investigations. The wetland and sediment sites are located throughout the river and were selected by a Steering Committee comprised of representatives of the local sponsors, the Corps, and others as discussed previously. Detailed engineering, design, and environmental information and formalized cost estimates (MCACES) have not been developed during the reconnaissance phase. '4.5.1 Sediment Remediation/Habitat Restoration - A search of documented studies and existing literature identified two broad categories of sediment contamination in the Elizabeth River: heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. Two major tasks will be accomplished during the feasibility phase. The first step in evaluating any given site is characterizing the site and sediments. The second step is the identification of treatment technologies and methods. To save time and money, a two-step sediment characterization protocol was developed for both a general characterization of sites and an intensive characterization of sites. The characterization strategy for the feasibility effort is to first characterize a large .area on a wide grid to locate and isolate smaller sites which will then be targeted for intensive characterization. Only one of the 5 sites shown on figure 2 will be evaluated intensively. 4.5.2 The EPA handbook entitled "Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment" (June, 1993) and the Corps/EPA reports related to WRDA 1992, Section 405 (a) and WRDA 1996, Section 226 (Sediment Decontamination Technology Studies) will serve as useful references in the endeavor of identifying cost effective remediation techniques. Project activities will be coordinated with the Elizabeth River EPA Pilot Project. In consultation with EPA, a determination will be made regarding the impact of runoff from Brownfield sites and impacts of proposed Brownfield redevelopment activities on candidate sediment cleanup sites. 4.5.3 Wetland Restoration - Fourteen (14) candidate wetland restoration sites throughout the watershed have been identified and are supported by the local sponsors (table 4. I). In the feasibility phase, field studies will be accompli'shed to evaluate the environmental, economic and engineering suitability of these sites for restoration. These candidate sites primarily afford the opportunity for tidal saltmarsh wetland restoration. Various size and configuration alternatives will be developed at the various sites, as designated. NORFOLK PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA BEACH CHESAPEAKE Priest & Hopkins (VIMS) Source: USGS'Topographic IVlap, 1944, 1977. Figure 1. Candidate Wetland Restoration Sites 10 CHESAPEAKE Priest & Hopkins Figure 2. Sediment Sites 11 Table 4.1. Elizabeth River Environmental Restoration Wetland Sites 1. Great Bridge Locks Park Chesapeake i Public Park 2. Scuffietown Creek Chesapeake 2-3 Public Park; Fill area; previous wetland? 3. East of Campostella Bridge/Site 2 Norfolk 4-5 Disturbed/Filled Wetland 4. East of Chesterfield Heights Norfolk 11 Disturbed/Filled Wetland 5. Lamberts Point/Drainage Channel Norfolk i-2 Disturbed Wetland 6. Portsmouth City Park Portsmouth 1-2 Public Park/Wetland 7. Northwest side Jordan Portsmouth 2-3 (Old) Creosote Plant; Bridge ('old W¥coff Pipe) previous wetland? 8. Paradise Creek (throughout) Portsmouth 20 Phragmites ~ (Common Reed) invasion 9. Scotts Creek Disturbed Wetland & (3 sites) Portsmouth 3-4 Creek 10. Crawford Bay Portsmouth ! Shallow/ Intertidal water 1 I. Indian R. Rd. & Military Hwy. Virginia Beach I Disturbed Wetland 12. City Park (Woodstock) Virginia Beach 1-2 City Park/Wetland 3. Elizabeth R. Shores Virginia Beach 1-2 Disturbed Wetland 14. 1-64 Crossing of E. Branch Virginia Beach -2 Disturbed Wetland 4.5.4 Plans which are cost'effective and maximize environmental outputs will be recommended. The "no action" plan will be considered. 12 4.6 WORK TASKS:. As mentioned previously, the two major areas to be evaluated in the feasibility study include sediment remediation and wetlands restoration, each of which to provide habitat restoration in the river. The following tables provide a list of the generic work tasks that would be required to do the feasibility level study of the wetland and sediment sites. Table 4.2. Wetland Restoration Site Evaluations I. Location 1 ) Existing resources/habitat 2) Accessibility of site (to construct) 3) Public access/visibility 4) Historical wetland boundaries 5) Debris removal required? 6) Private or publicly owned site; real estate acquisition 7) Cultural resources concerns 8) Utilities II. Existing Physical & Environmental Conditions I) Determine surrounding natural environment 2) Blend created marsh with existing ecosystem 3) Define elevation, slope, shape, orientation, and size 4) Energy regime and erosion rate 5) Substrate foundation 6) Topographic surveys (elevations) 7) Volume of sediment added, removed or reworked to attain preferred elevations 8) Hydrology or hydrologic connection (incl. flushing characteristics) 9) Sediment quality (physical/chemical) of existing substrate 10) Protection structures required III. Plant Material I ) Determine preferred plant type(s) 2) Natural invasion or artificial propagation 3) Time of planting 4) Determine factors important in success of planted material: salinity, tidal range, soil texture, wave & wind action, etc. IV. Monitoring Plan I ) Follow-up monitoring required to determine success 2) Develop success criteria V. Bcncfits Analysis I ) Incremental Cost Analysis 2) Habitat Evaluation Procedure to determine environmental "outputs", i.e., benefits from environmental restoration project VI. NEPA Document & Permits I ) Prepare and circulate NEPA document which addresses wetland restoration project(s) & environmental concerns 2) Apply for and obtain appropriate state and local permits 13 Table 4.3. Sediment Remediation/Restoration Evaluations I. Location 1) Public access/visibility 2) Near-shore or deep water 3) Accessibility of site (to remediate) II. Distribution and Type of Contaminants 1) Vertical distribution 2) Aerial plume distribution 3) Type and level of contaminants: organics, inorganics, metals, and/or combination III. Sources of Contamination 1) If contaminants are from historical actions 2) If contamination are from current actions 3) Does possibility exist for recontamination 4) Can responsibility for remediation fall onto another organization (i.e., Superfund) IV. Other Technical Evaluations 1 ) Topographic surveys (depths) 2) Volume of sediment removed, treated, or replaced 3) Hydrology & hydraulic factors (tidal velocities, change in tidal prism, etc.) 4) Best and most cost effective method(s) for remediation V. Monitoring Plan I) Follow-up monitoring required to determine success 2) Develop success criteria VI. Benefits Analysis I ) Incremental Cost Analysis 2) Habitat Evaluation Procedure to determine environmental "outputs", i.e., benefits from environmental restoration project VII. NEPA Document & Permits I ) Prepare and circulate NEPA document which addresses sediment restoration project(s) & environmental concerns 2) Apply for and obtain appropriate state and local permits For accounting and administrative purposes, all of the tasks required to accomplish the evaluations outlined in Tables 4.2 and 4.3, including in-kind services provided by the local sponsors, are categorized by cost subaccount as indicated in the Chart of Accounts (dated 9 November 1994), the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (dated 30 November 1993), the WBS Business Rules (dated 30 November 1993), and WBS Definitions (dated 23 August 1993). Acceptance of the product of in-kind services will be subject to prompt review by the Corps. The following is a listing of each subaccount and a description of what each entails. 4.6.1 Public Involvement (22A): This study will include a sponsor-lead public involvement program designed to meet National Environmental Policy Act requirements; solicit public and government agency input about the watershed condition and its problems; ensure that public and 14 agency concerns are addressed; and keep the public and agencies involved in the development of the study goals, study progress, and proposed projects. Initial background presentations will be made to civic and advisory groups active in the watershed. Community input will be solicited when establishing study goals and objectives and when developing project alternatives. Briefings will be conducted to discuss the scope and scheduling of the feasibility study; detail the extent of watershed problems observed; explain the study goals, objectives, and project evaluation criteria; identify alternative projects considered; and present feasibility study results and recommendations. Civic, advisory, and neighborhood groups will be encouraged to actively participate in the development of alternatives and will be consulted when making siting and 'design decisions. The public's commitment to a comprehensive restoration package will be sought. Preliminary agency approval will be sought when proposing projects on public land. Agencies will be notified of public meetings, provided with copies of newsletters, and solicited for report review comments. Federal agencies to be solicited for comments include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. State and local agencies to be coordinated with include the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach and the ERP. 4.6.1.1 Work under this subaccount will be performed by the primary sponsors and closely coordinated with the Corps of Engineers' Study Managers. General public meetings and study briefings will be held, as determined necessary, during the feasibility study. Other work tasks to be performed include preparing public notices, responding to inquiries from the general public and Congressional interests, coordination with the media, briefing various committees and private organizations, and preparing materials, including visual aids, for meetings. The existing mailing list will be expanded and updated throughout the study. 4.6.1.2 The local sponsors will be responsible for having representatives at the public meetings and meetings with other agencies and officials/An account of public involvement activities that includes a discussion of the public's goals and 9bjectives for the watershed and their concerns about the proposed projects will be provided by the primary sponsors. Additionally, the local sponsors will be responsible for providing the facilities for the general public meetings/workshops. 4.6.2 Institutional Studies/Report (22B): This subaccount includes the effort required to establish the capabilities of the local sponsors to finance their portion of project costs, determine the cost allocations between the Federal Government and the local sponsors, and determine the best methods of financing project costs and effort sharing. In specific, this subaccount includes an evaluation of local sponsor's financial capability for project construction and for handling post-construction project costs such as operation and maintenance, bond debt service, major repairs and long-term replacements to project features, etc. It also includes preparation of a financing plan for project construction, including Federal Government outlays, and local 15 sponsors cash and credit contributions. These efforts will be summarized in the "Division of Plan Responsibilities" and "Financial Analysis" portions of the feasibility report. 4.6.2.1 The local sponsors will be. responsible for preparing the forms and documentation demonstrating their financial capability, including the credit analyses and the identification of funding sources for project construction. 4.6.3 Social Studies/Report (22C): This subaccount includes the studies that are required to determine and assess the social impacts of the alternative plans under consideration. The existing population, housing, land use, employment, income, transportation, utilities, and other related items for the study area will be defined and projections of these items will be prepared for the "Existing and Future Conditions" portion of the feasibility report and summarized in the EIS and the "Benefit Evaluation" section of the supporting documentation. In addition, this information will be used in assessing the social impacts of the project alternatives and the recommended plans in the EIS and the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" sections of the feasibility report. 4.6.4 Cultural Resources Studies/Report (22D): This subaccount includes all tasks required for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Specifically, an analysis of the historical and archaeological aspects of the study areas will be conducted. The study areas may include both underwater sites (sediment remediation), intertidal, or upland areas (wetland restoration). This will involve updating the reconnaissance level literature search and obtaining, as required, appropriate field data to support the analysis. A baseline description of the cultural aspects of the study areas will be prepared for the "Existing and Future Conditions" portion of the feasibility report and summarized in the EIS. The impact of the various alternative plans on the historical and archaeological features in the study area and the possible mitigation measures, if necessary, will also be assessed and summarized in the EIS and in the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" sections of the feasibility report which address the evaluation of the alternative plans and the recommended plan. 4.6.5 Environmental Studies/Report Except for U.S. Fish and Wildlife (22E): This subaccount includes collecting environmental data including field evaluationS, providing a baseline identification and description of environmental aspects of the study area, assessing of the impacts on these aspects resulting from the various alternative plans, developing restoration measures as needed, preparing all appropriate National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental compliance action documents, coordinating a review of the documents, obtaining all necessary permits and certificates, 'and issuing the necessary public notices. The baseline description of the environmental aspects of the study area will be prepared for the "Existing and Future Conditions" portion of the feasibility report. The impact of the various alternative plans on the environmental features in the study area will also be assessed and summarized in the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" sections of the feasibility report which address the evaluation of the alternative plans and the recommended plan. The EIS, although an independent document, will be physically included in the feasibility report. This subaccount also includes managing all 16 aspects of the mandatory FWS contract. The FWS Coordination Act Report will be included as a separate section in the supporting documentation. Since the study will recommend environmental restoration, no mitigation is anticipated for the study area. The Corps Regulatory Branch will be coordinated with for Section 404 (Clean Water Act) consistency in the evaluation of alternatives. Other environmental documentation will be included in the feasibility report, as needed. Some additional information follows: 4.6.5.1 Sediment characterization will be accomplished as a part of the environmental data collection. Characterization will involve sediment sample acquisition and analysis and will provide technical information used-to describe the baseline conditions. Using the sediment characterization information, alternative methods of sediment clean up will be evaluated for effectiveness and cost. Bioremediation, which has been used successfully to deal with organics contamination, is one of several methods of clean up which will be carefully considered as a cost effective measure. Other remediation technologies available as alternatives will also be considered. These broadly fall into the following categories: biological; chemical; extraction; immobilization; radiant energy; and thermal treatment. In-situ (in place) alternatives such as capping will also be evaluated. 4.6.5.2 The evaluation of wetland restoration alternatives will involve consideration of location, orientation and shape, plant material, hydrology, amount of fill to be removed, etc. The following is a list of the environmental evaluations to be conducted during the feasibility study in relation to potential wetlands restoration projects: determining existing resources/habitat; researching historical wetland type/boundaries; blending created marsh with existing ecosystem; defining elevation, slope, shape, orientation, and size; topographic surveys (elevations); determining volume of sediment added, removed or reworked to attain preferred elevations; determining hydrology or hydrologic connection (incl. flushing characteristics); determining energy regime and erosion rate; determining preferred plant type(s), natural invasion or artificial propagation and time of planting; determining factors important in success of planted material: salinity, tidal range, soil texture, wave & wind action, etc. 4.6.5.3 As part of the economic studies (22G), an incremental cost analysis will be performed for both wetland restoration and sediment clean up alternatives with an objective to maximize environmental outputs and minimize costs. To support these evaluations, a method such as a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) will be used to determine environmental "outputs", i.e., benefits from alternative environmental restoration projects. The environmental impacts unique to various alternatives will also be assessed. A thorough evaluation of the alternatives as they may affect wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, fisheries, and other biological resources, will be conducted. A monitoring plan will be developed and success criteria will be established for the restoration projects. 4.6.5.4 The FWS will be coordinated with throughout the feasibility study. Consultation will be conducted as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. A FWS Coordination Act Report will be prepared by FWS and will become part .of the feasibility 17 document, as just discussed. A Scope of Work will be prepared for FWS to cover tasks to be accomplished during the feasibility study. 4.6.5.5 Aquatic resources and their habitat are valuable environmental assets and are regulated at local, state, and Federal levels. Future studies will verify by field examination the exact type, location, and areal extent of these resources which should be documented in relation to any proposed habitat restoration activity. 4.6.5.6 The Virginia Outdoors Plan (VOP) provides a vision for the future of Virginia's outdoors and attempts to address, in a comprehensive way, Virginia's open space, natural and recreation resources. Over the past 20 years, Virginia has developed a set of goals which describe the state's intent toward the protection, acquisition, and development of its natural and recreational resources. These goals form the basic policy of the Commonwealth with respect to meeting the challenge of providing adequate recreational opportunities for residents and visitors while preserving the resource base. In the VOP, the Elizabeth River Basin is within the Hampton Roads Planning District which covers approximately 1,300 square miles and encompasses 22 governments. For this planning district, the VOP recommends that "...Boating, fishing, beach access and natural area access adjacent to the water bodies should be increased throughout the region." The recommended plan for the Elizabeth River Basin will be evaluated to insure that it is consistent with the VOP and would support the goals of the VOP. 4.6.5.7 An EIS or an EA will be required in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the NEPA process, a Section 404 (b) (1) Evaluation Report will be prepared and included in the EIS/EA. These documents, along with the feasibility report, will be coordinated for review and comment with all interested Federal, state, and local agencies. 4.6.5.8 Work in waters and/or wetlands within the Commonwealth of Virginia are regulated through the acquisition of appropriate permits. In compliance with Federal, state, and local regulations, applicable permits should be applied for and obtained. These would include, but may not necessarily be limited to, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission permit, the Virginia Water Protection Permit, and the Local Wetlands Board Permit. 4.6.5.9 The local sponsors will be responsible for providing support in conducting field evaluations for environmental studies. For the 14 wetland restoration sites, the 4 cities will provide varying levels of staff support for sites within their city boundaries. Staff support will come from one or all of the following city offices: Parks and Recreation; Stormwater; City Engineer; Planning; Real Estate. City staff will assist the Corps in conducting site evaluations to include: biological assessments; surveys; delineating existing wetlands; historical site use. The cities will provide any existing information available on the sites and will assist the Corps in obtaining additional field data. For the sediment remediation evaluations, the Commonwealth of Virginia may provide technical support to the assist the Corps in conducting sediment sampling and analysis. Support which may be provided will be determined during the early stages of the feasibility study pending the outcome of a detailed and finalized sediment sampling strategy, and 18 the results of some preliminary field studies. 4.6.6 Fish and Wildlife Studies (22F): This subaccount includes the participation of the FWS (as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, referenced previously) in technical environmental investigations such as a baseline description of the existing and future without project conditions; an evaluation of potential impacts resulting from the various alternative plans. These investigations will be documented in a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. As discussed previously, the FWS Coordination Act Report will be included as a separate section in the supporting documentation. 4.6.6.1 No local sponsor effort is anticipated in this subaccount. 4.6.7 Economic Studies (22G): This subaccount includes studies pertinent to an economic assessment of the alternative plans under consideration, and, where applicable, studies of cost allocations among the purposes involved. The reconnaissance level economic analysis will be extended to include the most recent data available and will provide an incremental cost analysis of plans to determine which alternatives are most cost effective and which ones maximize environmental outputs. The feasibility study will evaluate both the cost-effectiveness and the biological effectiveness of expected habitat quality changes associated with multilSle sediment cleanup and wetlands restoration alternatives. Cost effectiveness in both cases is defined as "...those project (alternatives) which produce the greatest environmental output when compared to the cost of the project (alternative)" (EC 1105-2-210, paragraph 10). Cost effectiveness will be used to screen all project alternatives to assure that for any level of output, the alternative is the least costly option. Incremental cost analysis will then be employed to identify changes in costs for increasing levels of environmental output. 4.6.7.1 An economic evaluation of a variety of sediment clean up alternatives will be conducted. Sediment clean up alternatives to be evaluated include various technological options. Broadly, these options fall into the following catagories: biological, chemical, extraction, immobilization, radiant energy, and thermal treatment. 4.6.7.2 An economic evaluation of wetland restoration alternatives will also be conducted. The 14 candidate wetland restoration sites to be evaluated during the feasibility study are believed to be historical wetlands that have been altered, primarily by fill activities. The evaluation of alternatives will involve a careful examination of the most cost effective methods needed to restore these sites, primarily through removal of fill, restoration of hydrology, and reintroduction of native plant materials. 4.6.7.3 An incremental cost analysis will be performed which will include estimates of environmental outputs, investment costs, interest during construction, average annual costs, present value and annual equivalent value of restoration costs. 4.6.7.4 Situations of risk and uncertainty will be defined and evaluated in the feasibility study. Their assessment in project formulation will be reported and displayed in a manner that makes 19 clear to decision makers the types and degree of risk and uncertainty believed to characterize the benefits and costs of the alternative plans considered. 4.6.7.5 The local sponsors will be responsible for assisting Federal Government personnel and their contractors during field surveys in the study area. Additionally, the local sponsors may work with Government personnel to estimate future with and without project conditions. 4.6.8 Real Estate Studies (22H): In general, this subaccount includes the Real Estate Division (RE) work products as set forth in the "Real Estate Handbook," ER 405-1-12, Draft Chapter 12, such as preparation of preliminary real estate cost estimates for each of the alternatives, including the recommended plan; determination of the methodology for acquiring real estate interests; participation in pre-PCA activities; preparation of a Gross Appraisal Report; preparation of baseline cost estimate for lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material placement areas (LERRD) prepared in the Chart of Accounts format; and preparation of information for the real estate portion of the PMP. This information will be compiled in the supporting documentation section entitled "Real Estate Plan (REP)" and summarized in "The Selected Plan" portion of the feasibility report. Specific tasks conducted under the "22H" subaccount are as follows; other subaccounts are shown subsequently. 4.6.8.0. I Coordination: This activity includes, but is not limited to RE participation in team meetings, negotiation of work agreements, coordination with other offices regarding project data needed for RE's major study projects, and monitoring of progress and findings associated with RE study products. 4.6.8.0.2 Preparation of Preliminary Real Estate Cost Estimates: This activity includes the development of preliminary cost estimates of the total real estate costs associated with various alternative plans. The real estate cost estimates will include an estimate of the various alternative plans' real property requirements, an assessment of land values for market value and "nearshore" land value to 'assist in the economic analysis of the alternative plans, an estimate of the local sponsorg administrative cost to accomplish these requirements, and an estimate of the Federal Government's administrative cost to assist and monitor the local sponsor's real property acquisition program. The cost estimates will be included in the feas!bility report where the various alternatives are analyzed. 4.6.8.0.3 Preparation of Baseline Cost Estimate for Real Estate: This activity includes accounting for the recommended plan's total estimated real estate cost in Chart of Accounts format. This estimate of total real estate cost should include estimated costs for all Federal and local sponsor activities necessary for completion of the project. 4.6.8.1 Real Estate Plan (22H1): In general, this document will be attached as a separate section of the supporting documentation to the feasibility report. The REP is an overall plan describing the minimum real estate requirements for the recommended plan and will include such information as ownership data, acreage, the gross appraisal, and preliminary real estate 20 right-of-way maps. The plan will identify easements needed for surveying, coring, construction, and access to potential restoration sites. 4.6.8.2 Gross Appraisal/Report (22H2): This document includes a detailed estimate of all real estate costs of LERRD acquisition of the recommended plan's real property requirements and a written narrative discussion of the method used to determine value, sales comparisons, etc. The costs include the administrative costs of real estate acquisition and will be part of the baseline cost estimate for the recommended plan. ER 405-1-12, Draft Chapter 12, Section m, Appraisals, paragraph 12-12b and Real Estate Policy Guidance Letter Number'3, Guidance for Preparation of 'Gross Appraisals, dated 31 May 1991 will be used to prepare this document. 4.6.8.3 Preliminary Real Estate Acquisition Maps (22H3): This product includes the set of maps and drawings that delineates the real estate acquisition lines, based on technical design drawings developed during the feasibility phase. These maps and drawings reflect the real estate required for project purposes and should be reconciled to the engineering mapping. 4.6.8.4 Rights of Entry (22H6): This is the written temporary permission to be on privately owned property which is obtained for the purposes of environmental and cultural assessments, core samplings, surveys, and explorations. They can be obtained by the Federal Government, the contractor, or the local sponsor. 4.6.8.5 All Other Real Estate Analyses/Documents (22H7): This includes any documents pertinent to the study, such as preliminary title reports, plat maps, county recorder's data, etc., as needed, including input to the PMP (taskings, costs, and schedules). It also includes all activity involved in ensuring that the REP is provided to the planning TM and its components are properly incorporated into the PMP; that the Chief of RE's endorsement of the PMP which certifies that the real estate requirements, including schedule of acquisition, are adequately and accurately included in the PMP; and that the feasibility report is reviewed and responses provided for any comments. 4.6.8.6 Local sponsor tasks: The local sponsor will be responsible for assisting Federal Government personnel in obtaining rights of entry and conducting field surveys of affected properties in the study area. Where applicable, the local sponsors may furnish tax maps, gross appraisals, and survey information. Additionally, the local sponsors will work with Government personnel to establish the local sponsor's administrative costs for acquiring LERRD. Also included are the costs for obtaining the necessary rights of entry and assistance in preparation of real estate documents. 4.6.9 Hydrology and Hydraulic Studies/Report (22J): Sediment addition and/or removal from the bottom of the river or from bank areas adjacent to the river may be required for sediment remediation or wetlands construction activities to provide habitat restoration. These construction activities could pOtentially alter hydraulic conditions in the river. Two-dimensional numerical models which are available for use on PC computers (such as FastTABS or STREMR or 21 comparable from the Corps Waterways Experiment Station) will be used to further evaluate hydrology and hydraulic related effects of the alternatives. Guidance is provided in ER 1110-2- 1150, paragraph 10, and Appendix A, paragraph 2. 4.6.10 Geotechnical Studies/Rep6rt (22K): This subaccount includes conducting foundations investigations for structural plans, as required; surface and subsurface investigations at wetland restoration sites, as required. This information will be compiled in the supporting documentation section entitled "Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates" and summarized in the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" portions of the feasibility report. Guidance is provided in ER 1110-2-1150, paragraph 10, and Appendix-A, paragraph 4. 4.6.11 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes Studies/Report (22L): This subaccount includes conducting feasibility level HTRW investigations in support of proposed restoration initiatives. This information will be compiled in the supporting documentation section entitled "Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates" and summarized in the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" portions of the feasibility report. 4.6.12 Surveys and Mapping Except for Real Estate (22N): This subaccount includes all surveying, mapping, drafting, and digitizing that may be required. Specific tasks include conducting horizontal and vertical control verification surveys; obtaining photographic record of project area(s); surveying wetland restoration sites; providing real estate mapping; and conducting hydrographic surveys in sediment remediation sites requiring sediment removal. This information will be compiled in the supporting documentation section entitled "Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates" and summarized in the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" portions of the feasibility report. The National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse will be checked for available GIS data during initial phase of feasibility effort (ER 1110-1-8156). 4.6.12.1 The local sponsors will be responsible for assisting Government personnel in conducting surveys of candidate wetland restoration sites. 4.6.13 Engineering and Design Analysis/Report with Preliminary_ Drawings (22P): This subaccount includes the development of designs, plates, and quantity estimates, as well as, abbreviated cost estimates for alternative projects, final cost estimates for recommended projects, cost estimates for average annual project operation and maintenance, and cost estimates for project pre-construction engineering and design. This portion of the study and its recommendations will conform to and be fully compatible with the regulations on Engineering and Design. These regulfitions and Engineering Appendix requirements are set forth in ER 1110- 2-1150 (31 March 1994), as amended by CECW-EP memorandum, 31 May 1995, subject: Engineering, Design and Dam Safety Guidance. 4.6.13.0.1 The design cost estimate is based on the following project assumptions: The team design engineer will refine alternative project design sketches, so as to describe the proposed projects in enough detail to obtain a reasonable preliminary cost estimate. The design 22 engineer will prepare detailed designs for the recommended to obtain a reasonable preliminary cost estimate. Cost estimate quantities will be calculated for each alternative and recommended project. 4.6.13.0.2 The team cost engineer will prepare reconnaissance-level cost estimates for each alternative design and a detailed feasibility-level cost estimate for the recommended project(s). Unit costs for miscellaneous construction items will be based on historical cost data that is · available and will be adjusted to meet the needs of the current site conditions. The estimate will be developed in accordance with the guidance addressed in ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering using the MCACES software and will be presented in the Civil Works Breakdown Structure (CWBS). The estimate will be documented with notes to explain the assumed construction methods, crews, sources of materials, and other specific information. Labor costs will be based on the prevailing Davis-Bacon wage rates for each trade. Equipment costs will be based on EP 1110-1-8, Construction Equipment Ownership and Operating Expense Schedule. Contingencies will be developed and applied where areas of uncertainty exist. Detailed costs for all of the non-construction cost items (lands and damages, pre-construction engineering and design, construction management) will be provided by the appropriate offices and incorporated into the estimate. The cost Engineering Appendix will include a written description of the methodology used in the development of the baseline cost estimate. The appendix will also include a description of the scope of the projects included in the estimate and a description of the potential risks associated with the estimate. 4.6.14 All Other Engineering Documents (22P): This subaccount includes providing the engineering and design for dredging operations which may be necessary for sediment remediation and wetlands restoration. This information will be compiled in the supporting documentation section entitled "Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates" and summarized in the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" portions of the feasibility report. 4.6.15 Cost Estimates (22P): This subaccount includes providing conceptual cost estimates for the initial screening of plans that include wetland restoration and sediment remediation; cost estimates for the final array of plans; and a detailed cost estimate for the recommended plan(s). This information will be compiled in the supporting documentation section entitled "Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates" and summarized in the "Plan Formulation" and "The Selected Plan" portions of the feasibility report: 4.6.16 Coordination Documents (22Q): This subaccount includes all activities related to the management of the study by the planning TM, such as coordinating with the district and non- district study team, coordinating with higher headquarters, monitoring progress on work tasks, preparing internal correspondence, preparing detailed study schedules, preparing budgetary data, managing study funds, conducting further reconnaissance of the study area, and handling any miscellaneous tasks which may develop. This work effort also includes assisting the PM in the preparation and presentation of monthly reports for the Project Review Board and the preparation for a minimum of three meetings of the feasibility study Executive Committee. In addition, there 23 will be a technical review conference (TRC) held a few months after the initiation of the study and a feasibility resolution conference (FRC) held during the latter part of the study; both conferences will be with NAD and HQUSACE. The planning TM is responsible for assisting the PM in the dissemination of the FRC memo and NAD comments on the draft feasibility report to the study team and coordinating their responses, if necessary. 4.6.16.1 The local sponsors will be responsible for the general coordination and management of their portion of the study, including the in-kind work to be provided under other subaccounts; for having the appropriate personnel attend the referenced meetings/conferences/workshops; for responding to comments and inquiries regarding the TRC, FRC, and other meetings/ conferences/workshops; for all their clerical efforts such as typing, records management, funds accounting, timekeeping, etc.; and for progress reports to the planning TM for all tasks performed as in-kind services. 4.6.17 All Other Management Documents (22Q): This subaccount includes all activities related to the administration of the study by supervisory personnel and their staff. It includes all supervisory participation in public involvement, study management, coordination, contracting, plan formulation and evaluation, meetings/conferences/workshops, and review. It also includes all routine clerical support such as typing, records management, funds reporting, timekeeping, etc. 4.6.17.1 The local sponsors will be responsible for providing all supervisory administration of personnel and staff performing in-kind services to the study. This includes all supervisory participation in public involvement, study management, coordination, contracting, plan formulation and evaluation, meetings/conferences/workshops, and review. It also includes all routine clerical support such as typing, records management, funds reporting, timekeeping, etc. required to support the in-kind services. 4.6.18 Plan Formulation and Evaluation (22R): The primary objective of the feasibility study is to formulate a plan and plan scale to be recommended for implementation that maximizes environmental outputs, is cost effective, and is in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. The study team will use the following plan formulation process: I ) The specific problems and opportunities that will be addressed by the study will be identified, and causes of the problems will be discussed and documented. Planning goals will be set and objectives will be established. Constraints will be identified. Ecosystem structures and functions that will influence the success of the effort, as well as, information to be collected, appropriate techniques, and appropriate quantitative and/or qualitative measurements to be used during an environmental resource inventory will be identified. 2) Environmental resources will be analyzed and forecast. The existing condition of resources, problems, and opportunities will be characterized. By referring to patterns in natural systems and human behavior and relationships among variables and systems the timing, nature, and magnitude of future conditions will be estimated. 24 3) With public input, the study team will formulate alternative habitat restoration project plans that will address the planning objectives. Concept designs will be prepared for a sediment restoration project, and (as many as) 14 wetland restoration projects. 4) Alternative project plans will be evaluated using hydrologic, hydraulic, sediment transport, and pollutant removal efficiency models and estimated habitat benefits. A project will be judged as significant if it provides a net gain in habitat, improves water quality, and reduces channel erosion and sedimentation while expanding an existing area of good quality habitat. 5) Alternative project plans will be compared. Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis will be the principal organizing framework for comparison. Project impacts will also be considered. 6) A plan will be selected for recommendation and a justification for the selection will be provided. Detailed designs will be developed for as many as 14 wetland restoration and one sediment restoration projects. The study managers, with assistance from the study sponsors, will review information provided by the study team and lead the plan formulation process. The study managers will provide an account of the plan formulation process in the study report. 4.6.18.1 The local sponsors will participate on the study team throughout the feasibility phase and will be responsible for providing administrative and technical guidance on local acceptability of the plan alternatives and for input regarding the locally preferred plans, if any, other than the EQ plan. 4.6.19 Report Preparation (22S): This subaccount includes assembling, writing, editing, typing, drafting, reviewing, reproducing, and distributing the feasibility report, the EA or EIS, and other related documentation required for transmittal to higher authorities. Work will entail preparing a draft feasibility report and draft EA or EIS; soliciting comments from the study team, NAD, and Federal, state, and local agencies; responding to those comments; and preparing a final feasibility report and final EA or EIS. 4.6.19.1 The local sponsors will be responsible for providing guidance and comments throughout the report preparation phase; assisting in documentation of that portion of the work provided as in-kind service; reviewing the report; and assisting in distributing the report to all local constituents and responding to comments. 4.6.20 Programs and Project Management and Project Management Plan (22T): This subaccount includes costs for macro-level tracking of the study by the PM in PPMD. The PM has the overall responsibility of a project through all phases of the feasibility study, PED, and construction. This work effort also includes the primary responsibility for preparing and presenting monthly reports for the Project Review Board and preparing for a minimum of three 25 meetings of the feasibility study Executive Committee and monthly meetings of the Steering Committee. The PM has the primary responsibility for disseminating the FRC memo and NAD comments on the draft feasibility report to the study team and coordinating their responses, if necessary. The planning TM is responsible for the day-to-day management of the feasibility study as discussed in the "Coordination Documents" work task. 4.6.20.1 This subaccount includes the preparation of the PMP by the PM (PPMD) and Planning TM incorporating the recommended plan baseline cost estimate, the PED and project construction work tasks and schedules, and operations and maintenance requirements. It folloWs the same basic format of the PSP but is more detailed and may contain additional sections such as the Value Engineering Plan, Safety Plan, Cultural Resources Plan, Environmental Plan, Operation and Maintenance Plan, etc. 4.6.20.2 The local sponsors will be responsible for providing work task, budgetary, and schedule input for the PMP. 4.6.21 Quality Control and Assurance (22U) Provides for development of a Quality Control Plan (QCP) as well as the verification and validation of study assumptions, methodologies, data, level of detail, and reasonableness of results. Provides for an independent technical review team of District personnel representing all technical elements providing significant input to the Feasibility Report. The team members will be selected based on their experience and knowledge relative to the subject matters under review. The technical review team has the credentials and experience necessary to provide a comprehensive review particularly as it relates to plan formulation, environmental, economic, engineering, real estate, legal, and public involvement matters. The team members will not have been involved in the preparation of the technical products under review. Also includes documentation of the review process. The independent technical review/certification will be conducted in compliance with EC 1165-2-203. Also, consistent with EC 1165-2-203 (Appendix B), Value Engineering efforts will also be provided. 4.6.22 Project Cooperation Agreement Package (22V): This subaccount includes work by the PM, who has the primary responsibility, and planning TM, who assists the PM, for coordination with the local sponsors to develop a PCA to include obtaining a letter of intent from the local sponsors to sign the PCA. 4.6.22. I The local sponsors will be responsible for assisting Federal Government personnel in developing the PCA and for providing the letter of intent. 4.6.23 Washington Level Report Approval (22Y): By regulation, 5 percent of study cost (or $50,000, whichever is less) is set aside to cover the expenses incurred by Norfolk District and the local sponsors during the review of the feasibility report at the Washington level (this does not include the review by NAD) subsequent to the Division Commander's Notice announcing the completion of the feasibility report. If costs for this work task exceed this limit, then a negotiated modification to the FCSA will be required to cost share the additional amount. 26 4.6.23.1 The local sponsors will be responsible for responding to comments on that portion of the work provided as in-kind service. Additionally, representatives of the local sponsors may, along with representatives of Norfolk District, attend one meeting in Washington, D.C. and one meeting at the project site with representatives of the HQUSACE. 4.7 RISK AND UNCERTAINTY: There is some risk and uncertainty regarding the scope and cost of the study tasks. No field investigations of any detail were conducted during the expedited reconnaissance study. During the course of the feasibility studies broader areas of sediment 'contamination may be encountered which will require more intensive characterization; wetland sites may be discovered to contain fill material which requires more intensive testing and evaluation. These and other potential risks and uncertainties have been accounted for in developing the study costs by adding a contingency factor to the Environmental Studies (22E) of approximately 15 percent. 4.8 STUDY COST: The cost for the feasibility study is estimated to be $2,402,000 including contingencies. More detailed information on study costs are within Section 9 of this report. References 1. Nichols. Maynard M. and M. Howard-Strobel. 1991. Evolution of an urban estuarine harbor: Norfolk, Virginia. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 7, No. 3. 2. Priest, Walter I., [] and K. J. Hopkins. 1997. Historic losses of wetland habitat in the Elizabeth River. Virginia Institute of Marine Science for VA Dept. of Environmental Quality, Virginia Coastal Resource Management Program and NOAA. 27 5. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 5.0 The Work Breakdown Structure is based on the "Description of Products" and "Work Tasks" sections. The work products shown depict the major work products that comprise study management, the feasibility report~ PMP, PCA package, and Washington level review. Each numerically higher level provides additional detail on the major work product. Level 1' Elizabeth River Basin, Virginia, Elizabeth River Restoration Study/Project Level 2: Feasibility Study Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Study Management Coordination Documents All Other Management Documents Programs and Project Management Quality Control Plan Feasibility Report Main Report -Introduction Section -Existing and Future Conditions Section -Problems, Needs, and Opportunities Section -Plan Formulation Section -The Selected Plan Section -Division of Plan Responsibilities Section -Financial Analysis Section -Project Management Plan Section -Public Coordination, and Comments Section -Conclusions Section -Recommendations Section -Note on the Information Presented in -This Document -References Section Supporting Documentation -FWS Coordination Act Report -Engineering, Design, and Cost -Estimates Section -Benefit Evaluation Section -Real Estate Plan -Pertinent Correspondence Section -EA or ElS 28 5. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (cont'd) Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 PMP PCAPackage Washington Level Report Approval 6. ORGANIZATION BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE RESOURCE NAME RESOURCE CODE Norfolk District Resources Office of Counsel Construction-Operations Division Engineering Division Civil Programs Branch Cost Engineering Branch Design Branch Geoenvironmental Branch Hydraulics and Hydrology Branch Planning Division Environmental Analysis Branch Planning Resources Branch Programs and Project Management Division Civil Branch Real Estate Division CENAO-OC CENAO-CO CENAO-EN CENAO-EN-C CENAO-EN-CE CENAO-EN-D CENAO-EN-G CENAO-EN-H CENAO-PL CENAO-PL-R CENAO-PL-P CENAO-PM CENAO-PM-C CENAO-RE Other Federal Agency Resources U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS 29 6. ORGANIZATION BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (cont'd) RESOURCE NAME RESOURCE CODE Local Sponsor Resources Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality City of Chesapeake City of Norfolk City of Portsmouth City of Virginia Beach LOC SPONS VA DEQ CHES NORF PORT VABCH Support Organization Resources Elizabeth River Project Hampton Roads Planning District Commission ERP HRPDC Architect-Engineer Resources Various Contractors CONTR 30 7. RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENT MATRIX 7.0 The responsibility assignment matrix presents the assignment of product responsibility to the specific organizational elements and other responsible resources (see the section entitled "Organization Breakdown Structure") for the feasibility study. The resources are shown in tables 8.1 'and 9.1 in the sections entitled "Schedules" and "Budget and Cost Estimates" and may be adjusted as required by the planning TM in consultation with the functional managers and the local sponsor to achieve the study objectives. 8. SCHEDULES 8.0 The feasibility study schedule by fiscal year is currently being developed and will be presented in table 8.1 in the Microsoft Project format. The schedule was developed by cooperatively developing with each performing organization a detailed estimate and commitment as to the duration in man-hours and start and finish dates for each task, based on the "Work Tasks" section. As discussed previously in the section entitled "Responsibility Assignment Matrix," the responsible organizational elements are shown in table 8.1 under the column entitled "Resource." The prefix "CENAO-" is omitted in this listing. The major milestoneS; have been excerpted from the schedule and are included in table 8.2. The three-digit numeric milestone code is relatively new and was developed as part of the LCPM concept. The "P" milestones refer to the older NAD milestone code system. Both codes are being used for the time being. 31 Table 8.2. MA,,IOR MILESTONES, PROJECT STUDY PLAN, ELIZABETH RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, VIRGINIA Milestone Description of Milestone Date P5 Execute Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement June 1998 Initiation of Feasibility Study June 1998 P6 Initial Feasibility Coordination Meeting September 1998 Division Receives Formulation Package March 2000 P7 Formulation Meeting/Briefing April 2000 P8 Division Receives Draft Feasibility Report/EIS November 2000 Feasibility Review Conference (FRC) P9 Division & HQ Receive Final Feasibility Report/EIS May 2001 P10 Completion of Feasibility Report/ Division Engineer's Public Notice June 2001 9. BUDGET AND COST ESTIMATES 9.0 A summary budget for the feasibility study by fiscal year is presented in table 9.1 in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format. (In some. cases, the numbers on the spreadsheet may not appear to be Calculated properly and seem to vary by one or two dollars. This is due to the rounding process which is being applied to the results of various eqUations hidden in the spreadsheet.) The budget was developed by coordinating a cost estimate and commitment from each performing organization, based on the "Work Tasks," "Organizational Breakdown Structure," and "Schedules" sections. As discussed previously in the section entitled "Responsibility Assignment Matrix," the responsible organizational elements are shown in Table 9.1 under the column entitled "Resource." The cost estimates were prepared using the Code of Accounts format and summarized for each element of the Organization Breakdown Structure. Table 9.2 summarizes the cash and in-kind services provided by the local sponsors in support of the feasibility study. Table 9.3 displays Federal and sponsors cash contributions by Fiscal Year. 33 ;~':oii~ ~ o o ~ o o o ~ ~m ~ o o o o o o Z W Z ~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~1;~/ W o ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 : w E ~ -- ~ ~ I~ 0 ~5 Table 9.2 Elizabeth River Environmental Restoration: Summary of In-Kind Services SPONSOR Total Cost Share In-Kind Service Net Cash Share Commonwealth of $686,000 $35,800 $650,200 Virginia Chesapeake $94,500 $10,273 $84,227 Norfolk $179,500 $41,440 $138,060 Portsmouth $174,500 $49,700 $124,800 Virginia Beach $66,500 $33,000 $33,500 Totals $1,201,000 $170,213 $1,030,787 43_ ~ ~ ~ 0 U ~ o o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 2 ~ 0 ~ 0 .~ ~ -~ - 0 ~ > i ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 -~ 0 0 ¢ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 0 0 i 0 U ri] U 0 0 124 U] ~tem V~~ 4. - 25 - RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43828 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $65,686 from the Fund Balance of the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund; and, TRANSFER $106, O00 from the E-911 Emergency Communication Fund's FY1998-99 Operating Budget; $125, O00 from the Police Department's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget; $90,000 from the Fire Department's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget; and, $8,314 from the Department of Emergency Medical Services' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget to the Public Safety Emergency Communications System (CIP #3-009) re replacing the current emergency Computer Aided Dispatch System (CADS). Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara 34. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None 1 2 3 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING $65,686 FROM THE FUND BALANCE OF THE FORFEITED ASSET SHARING SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND TRANSFERRING $329,314 FROM THE FY 1998-99 OPERATING BUDGET FOR CITY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF AN E-911 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 WHEREAS, City Council has previously approved a contract to replace the current emergency Computer Aided Dispatch System; WHEREAS, certain activities that are necessary to ensure the completion of the contract are the responsibility of the City; WHEREAS, funding for City activities in support of the CADS replacement is available through fund balance in the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund, and the FY 1998-99 operating budgets of the E-911 Emergency Communication Systems Fund and the Departments of Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services; and WHEREAS, the providing of funding by the Departments of Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services will have no detrimental programmatic effect on their operations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, 1. That funds in the amount of $65,686 from the fund balance of the Forfeited Asset Sharing Special Revenue Fund are hereby appropriated to Capital Project No. 3-009 Public Safety Emergency Communications System; and 2. That funds in the amount of $106,000 from the E-911 Emergency Communication Fund's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget, $125,000 from the Police Department's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget, $90,000 from the Fire Department's FY 1998-99 Operating Budget, and $8,314 from the Department of Emergency Medical Services' FY 1998- 99 Operating Budget are hereby transferred to Capital Project No. 3-009. 32 33 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 14 _ of July , 1998. Approved as to Content Approved as to Legal Sufficiency CA-7069 NONCODE/E 911. ORD R-2 PREPARED: 07/06/98 2 Item V-I. 5. - 26- RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 45829 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to TR_4NSFER $100,000 within the Department of Public Works' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget re obtaining the United States Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the structural integrity of city facilities and conduct an analysis of the design capacity of City facilities that may be used as part of the Emergency Operations Plan and recommend modifications that could increase the survivability of these facilities and their occupants during storms or hurricanes. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 1 2 3 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $100,000 WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS' FY 1998-99 OPERATING BUDGET FOR AN EVALUATION OF THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF CITY FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR DISASTER RESPONSE, RECOVERY AND SHELTER 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the City's emergency planning efforts is dependent upon the use of City facilities; WHEREAS, the Emergency Operations Plan has identified more than 40 facilities which may be used for disaster response, recovery and sheltering; WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain the services of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an analysis of the design capacity of these facilities and recommend any minor modifications which may increase the survivability of these facilities and their occupants during storms or hurricanes; and WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available within the Department of Public Works' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget as a result of savings from the City's recently renegotiated electrical services contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH: That $100,000 is hereby transferred within the Department of Public Works' FY 1998-99 Operating Budget for the purpose of obtaining the services of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an analysis of the design capacity of City facilities that may be used as part of the Emergency Operations plan and recommend any modifications that could increase the survivability of these facilities and their occupants during storms or hurricanes. 30 31 Adopted the 14day of July, of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 1998, by the Council of the City 32 33 34 35 CA-7075 PREPARED: JULY 2, 1998 Ri ORDIN/NONCODE/STORMS.ORD 36 37 38 39 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Walter C. Kra~er, Jr., Department of Management Services 40 41 42 43 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney (~) l'II IlIiI I PJA 4 APPROXIMATE YEAR OF ACCEPTANCE (COMPLETION) FIRE STATIONS 16 Locations 1. Station 2 - Davis Corner 2. Station 3 - London Bridge 3. Station $ - Court House 4. Station 6 - Creeds $. Station 7 - Thalia (Volunteer Station) 6. Station 8 - Oceana 7. Station 9 - Kempsville 8. Station 10- Woodstock 9. Station 11 - Beach (flood) 10. Station 12 - Seatack 11. Station 13 - Blackwater Road 12. Station 14- Virginia Beach Rescue 13. Station 16 - Plaza 14. Station 18- Green Run 15. Station 19 - Stumpy Lake 16. Station 20 - Little Neck 1979 1990 1968 1998 eaHy 1950's 1974 1982 1973 1998 1983 early 1950's 1998 late 1960's 1983 1989 1993 1. Cox High School - 2425 Shoreimven Dr. 2. Larkspur Middle - 4696 Princess Anne Ed. 3. Green Run High = 1700 Dnldia Dr. 4. Tnllwood High - 168 Kemps .villa Rd.. 5. Snletn High - 1993 Sun Devil Dr. 6. Snlem lVllddle - 2380 Lynnhaven Pkwy. ?. Landstown lVliddle - 2204 Recreation Dr. 8. Landstown Elementary - 2212 Recreation Drive 9. Corporate Landing Elementary - 1590 Corporate LandingPnrkway .' 10. Strawbridge Elementary - 2553 Strawbridge Road 1983 1994 1979 1992 1989 1988 1992 1992 1993 1991 POLICK PRECINCTS 1. 1st Precinct - Public Safety Building 2.. 2nd Precinct - Ocean Front 3. :]rd Prec*mct - Independence Blvd. 4. 4th Precinct - Kempsville Road 1975 1998 1967 1967 CITY PRE-POSITIONING SHELTERS 10 LOCATIONS 1. Judicial Center 2. Great Neck Rec Center 3. Bayside Rec Center 4. Princess Anne Rec Center 5. Kempsville Rec Center 6. Landstown Public Utilities Building 7. Landstown Highway Building 8. Operations Building 9. Fire Training Center 10. Fire Administration, Building #21 1994 1994 1994 1994 1977 1975 1975 1979 1978 Late 1940's TOTAL number of all structures to be evaluated 40 (Fire stations, police, shelters, pre-positioning sites) Scope of Work Section 22 Shelter Analysis U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Structural Section Imowieage of tile ~;tl(:=tAIre'~ hi,tory. ·ava. aM., ..... . will ,__ ~ildings, floor plans, e~ 2. The Corps Mil m~ke a plan In Imncl site visit of eech ofthe 37 Ixa'ldin~s to: wind Inuident. 7-g~, A win(3 Spoa. m. u. uae. wind resisting systenm per ASC.,E ould be at)lo to the ~ wind res~ng syi~nts. Note: Only buildings will be analyzed that sh witllstand 8 Categon/I event. · damaged uncle'winds I~ ~ tho mmn mn~ resls.ng sy~ems ca. w...~.,... 5. Pmcluce a mpmt. A dmlt repmt roll be submflMcl for review prior to produdng a final reporL Tho repo~ MI iadude the following:. .... L An emcxJUve summery atlting whet ~ in the mpofl and tho relative wind resi~ng ,:aW of the buik~ng~ b. A de~3rlpl~m of wlmt la provided in ma report. c. Ag~teml d~ ofea~ building, including ~e ~ilcllng cort~truclion, fun~on, clare Ix~ ~d a general dMc~l~ _of tM wind...r~ll.. ~..sy?_?.. d. 8lfW hlVllll lrld IMMnt~ Imzmfl:Jl will Do IOOllUn.~., rr smml ICmllO drlwings am average they w~ be Wed.' ,..v,, o, f. A qualitative study ~i'the (=mponents and cladding will be provloe=, sumng .mas. g. Mibgst~e measures will be addressed that will help the 13uiklings withslan(I wlflcl pressures. Item VJ. 6. a. -27- RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43830 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize temporary encroachment: Into a portion within the City's variable width drainage easement over Back Neck Cove by JOHN T. and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY re constructing and maintaining a pier, boat lift and mooring piles at 1420 Blue Heron Road. (LYNNHA VEN DISTRICT), subject to: The following conditions shall be required: The applicants agree to construct and maintain the temporary encroachment in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location. It is expressly understood and agreed that the temporary encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of Virginia Beach to the applicants, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given such temporary encroachment shah be removed from the City's variable width drainage easement by the applicants, and the applicants shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. The applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against aH claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shah be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such temporary encroachment. 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 applicants. 5. The applicants agree to maintain said encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. 6. The applicants must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center and/or Waterfront Operations, if needed, prior to commencing any construction within the City's variable width drainage easement. The City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the applicants and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes, may require the applicants to remove such temporary encroachment; and, if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City shall impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that such 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. - 28- Item V-L 6. a. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43850 (Continued) Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William gE. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None Juty 4, 1998 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 2009 and authorize easements prescribe. Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY'S VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY JOHN T. KALAFSKY AND WENDIE S. KALAFSKY, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, JOHN T. KALAFSKY and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY desire to construct and maintain a pier, boat lift and mooring piles within the City's variable width drainage easement over Back Neck Cove across the rear of their property at 1420 Blue Heron Road. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2- 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to temporary encroachments within the City's existing subject to such terms and conditions as Council may NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, JOHN T. KALAFSKY and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY, their heirs, assigns and successors in title, are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a pier, boat lift and mooring piles in the City's variable width drainage easement as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT SITE PLAN PROPOSED PIER, LIFT & PILINGS FOR JOHN T. KALAFSKY LOT 24, SHOREHAVEN, SECTION THREE LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (M.B. 120, PG. 11) DATE: MARCH 20, 1998," prepared by Waterfront Consulting, Inc., a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and JOHN T. KALAFSKY and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the city Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as JOHN T. KALAFSKY and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 14 day of July , 1998. 45 46 47 48 CA//- TKEN N\ENCROACH\KALAFSKY.OFID PREPARED: TK APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 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 ~-{~u ' 19 ~ ~ , by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, party of the first part, and JOHN T. KALAFSKY and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, Grantee (even though more ,, than one), party of the second part. W I T N E S S E T H: THAT, WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated as I.ot 24, as shown on tho plat of Shorehavon, So¢tion Thre., in Lynnhaven Borough. Said property is also known as 1420 Blue Heron Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23454, and is further identified by the GPIN indicated hereinbelow; and WHEREAS, it is proposed by the party of the second part to construct and maintain a pier, boat lift and mooring piles in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining such pier, boat lift and mooring piles, it is necessary that the said party of the second part encroach into a portion of an existing City variable width drainage easement, and said party of the second part has requested that the party of the first part grant a temporary encroachment to facilitate such pier, boat lift and mooring piles within a portion of the City's variable width GPIN 1498-58-7054 drainage easement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the party of the second part and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid, to the said party of the first part, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part doth grant to the party of the second part a temporary encroachment to use a portion of the City's variable width drainage easement for the purpose of constructing and maintaining such pier, boat lift and mooring piles. It is expressly understood and agreed that such 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 of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: An area of encroachment into a portion of the City's variable width drainage easement described as: "PROPOSED PIER, BOAT LIFT AND MOORING PILES" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT SITE PLAN PROPOSED PIER, LIFT & PILINGS FOR JOHN T. KALAFSKY LOT 24, SHOREHAVEN, SECTION THREE LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH VIRGINIA BEACH, VA," M.B. 120, PG. 11, dated March 20, 1998, and prepared by Waterfront Consulting, Inc., 4698 Hanover Court, Virginia Beach, VA 23464, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and 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 of Virginia Beach to the party of the second part, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given such temporary encroachment shall be removed from the City's variable width drainage easement by the party of the second part, and that the party of the second part shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the party of the second part shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such 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 party of the second part. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the party of the second part agrees to maintain said encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the party of the second part must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center and/or Waterfront Operations, if needed, prior to commencing any construction within the City's variable width drainage easement. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the party of the first part, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the party of the second part and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes, may require the party of the second part to remove such temporary encroachment; and, if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City shall impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that such 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JOHN T. KALAFSKY and WENDIE S. KALAFSKY, husband and wife, the said party of the second part, 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 4 City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk (SEAL) / f~hn T. Kalafsk~~ f ~endie S. Kalafsk~- ~J STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of CITY MANAGER. , 19 , by CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this J.~2~day of ~,~V~ , 19 ~ by John T Kalafsky Notary Public My Commission Expires: ~ ~ ~)- 9 ~ STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me day of % ./-~. , 19 ~ , by Wendie S. 0 Kalafsky. My Commission Expires: ; b~;-$9 Notary Public 6 ,9,~R, PROVED A,S TO CONTEN'I' DEPARTMENT I I SITE- LOCATION MAP © © SCALE: 1" = 1,600' © © ©©© © / / / / --© \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ BACK NECK COVE x, LOCATION MAP FOR ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR JOHN T. KA~FS~ & WENDIE S. KA~FS~ SCA~ F: 1",~= 100' "~~~ PREPARED BY PAN ENG. DRAFT. 23-JUN-1998 PROPOSED PIER,, BOAT LII='I' AND MOORING PILE5 BACK, NECK, COVE 5 ~2'29'22' W I ~.00' PL NOTE: MLW -0.7' NOT IN VIEW' ON PLAN IN THIS SCALE. FIN(~ ® N/I= ROBERT K. HARRELL PIN(t=) PIN(I') DUE TO 51TE CONSTRAINTS, ALL MATERIAL..5 BROUGHT TO 51TE AND INSTALLED VIA BARGE. 24 PIN(~ ® N/ff BAI~.Y P. E?STEIN PIN(I"3 LAT: N 3G.8799° LON: W 7G.OG2D° OWNER5 AGENT: WATERFRONT CONSULTING, lNG 4{;98 HANOVER COURT VIRGINIA DEACI'I, VA 234l;4 PHONE: (757) 495-85~;~; FAX: (757) 495-85~ PIN(~ BLUE HERON ROAD (50') PLAN VIEW ENCROACHMENT 51TE PROPOSED PIER, LIFT ¢ flOR JOHN T. KALAFSKY LOT 24, 5HOEHAVEN, SECTION THRJ~E LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (M.D. 120 ?G. I I) DATE: MARCH 20, 1998 5GALE I" = 50' PLAN F'ILING5 Item V-I. 6. b. - 29- RES OL UTION/ORD INANCES ITEM # 43831 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize temporary encroachment: Into a portion of the City's 300' wide drainage easement known as Canal No. 2 by FRED T. and GLENDA H. KNOIVLES and DAVID IV. and VIVIAN RAMSA Y re maintaining an existing 18 "pipe, a 24"pipe and an air conditioner pad; and, constructing and maintaining a dry detention pond, a 15"pipe with related rip-rap, a 21 "pipe with related rip-rap, an 18"pipe with related rip-rap, a 15"pipe and a lO"pipe in connection with the development of their adjacent property described as Lots 77 and 95 Oceana West Industrial Park (2655 International Parkway), subject to the dedication of an ingress/egress easement to the City for access to provide periodic maintenance (PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT) The following conditions shall be required: o 6. 7. It is expressly understood and agreed that such 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 of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location. It is understood and agreed that the temporary encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of Virginia Beach to the applicants, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, such temporary encroachment shall be removed from the City's 300' drainage easement by the applicant, and that the applicants shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. The applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such temporary encroachment. 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 applicants. The applicants agree to maintain said temporary encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. The applicants must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center prior to commencing any construction within the City's 300' drainage easement. Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicants must post a Performance Bond. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Department of Planning, Development Services Center (DSC) at the time of site development plan review. Item V-I. 6. b. - 30- RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM It 43831 (Continued) 10. 11. 12. The applicants shah dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City across their property for access to the aforesaid 300' drainage easement in order to provide periodic maintenance to the aforesaid 300' drainage easement. The size and location of the ingress/egress easement shall be determined by the Department of Planning, Development Services Center (DSC), at the time of site development review and shall be a condition of site plan approval and release. Said ingress/egress easement shah be dedicated to the City by plat and Deed of Easement containing General Warranty that shall be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach following its review and approval by the City. The applicants shall obtain and keep in force AH Risk Property Insurance and General Liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and aH insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The applicants also agree to carry Comprehensive General Liability Insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The applicants will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The applicants assume all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the temporary encroachment. Any above ground temporary encroachments shall conform to the minimum setback requirements, as established by the City Traffic Engineer's Office. The applicants shall submit for review and approval, a survey of the area being encroached upon, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the temporary encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required, by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. The City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such temporary encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the applicants, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the applicants to remove such temporary encroachment; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, 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. ./uly 998 -31 - Item V-I. 6. b. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43831 (Continued) Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY'S 300' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT KNOWN AS CANAL NO. 2 BY FRED T. KNOWLES AND GLENDA H. KNOWLES, HIS WIFE, AND DAVID W. RAMSAY AND VIVIAN RAMSAY, HIS WIFE, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WI-IEREAS, Fred T. Knowles and Glenda H. Knowles, his wife, and David W. Ramsay and Vivian Ramsay, his wife, desire to maintain an existing 18" pipe, a 24" pipe, and an air conditioner pad and to construct and maintain a dry detention pond, a 15" pipe with related rip-rap, a 21" pipe with related dp-rap, an 18" pipe with related dp-rap, a 15" pipe, and a 10" pipe within a portion of a portion of the City's 300' drainage easement known as Canal No. 2 in connection with the development of their adjacent property designated and described as "Parcels 77 and 95, Oceana West Industrial Park" and being further designated and described as "2655 International Parkway, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 · GPIN's 1496-75- 1540 and 1496-75-1027"; and WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's easement subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended FRED T. KNOWLES and GLENDA H. KNOWLES, his wife, and DAVID W. RAMSAY and VIVIAN RAMSAY, his wifb, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to maintain an existing 18" pipe, a 24" pipe, and an air conditioner pad and to construct and maintain a dry detention pond, a 15" pipe with related rip-rap, a 21" pipe with related dp-rap, an 18" pipe with related dp-rap, a 15" pipe, and a 10" pipe within the City's 300' wide drainage easement known as Canal No. 2 as shown on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT SHOWING ENCROACHMENT INTO 300' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG CANAL NO. 2 (MB 103, PG 31) · LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH - VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. JANUARY 08, 1998 SCALE: 1' = 60' MILLER-STEPHENSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, PLANNING, SURVEYING & ENGINEERING" a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to the dedication of an ingress/egress easement to the City by FRED T. KNOWLES, and GLENDA H. KNOWLES, his wife, and DAVID W. RAMSAY and VIVIAN RAMSAY, his wife, for access to the aforesaid 300' drainage easement in order for the City to provide periodic maintenance to the aforesaid 300' drainage easement. The size and location of the ingress/egress easement shall be determined by (DSC). the Department of Planning, Development Services Center BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and FRED T. KNOWLES and GLENDA H. KNOWLES, his wife, and DAVID W. RAMSAY and VIVIAN RAMSAY, his wife, (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as FRED T. KNOWLES and GLENDA H. KNOWLES, his wife, and DAVID W. RAMSAY and VIVIAN RAMSAY, his wife, Agreement. of July and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 14flay ,1998. SIGNATURE DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM CITY'AtI'TORNEY 2 LILL1AN OR RELI~CE OR SCALE: 1" m 1,600' ,4q6-75t560 14qG-75-43¢ / / ., 14q6-75-' H iiii I SCALE: 1" = 100' MAP FOR ENCROACHMENT · . INTO THE CITY'S 300' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 14~e-~KNOWN AS CANAL NO. 2 FRED T. KNOWLES AND C;LENDA H. KNOWLES DAVID ,W..R~ SAY AIN. D VI~¥~IV, I PRI:PAI~KI"J RY PAA/ I:N~, I~RAI=T ')4.-FFR-1QqR I~PR-'-~8-1-.:~8 li*:~J9 MSA 757 490 E~63~ P. 03/E',3 I ! ! I I I Z TOTAL P~03 S 86'08'24" W 169.97' R=905,00' ,Ol.'tgi, L=163,15' 108.81' dO~9 .c~ t ,~'~'~,g / / / / / / / / II N 87'45'29" E 429.36r 532.68 (O.A.) If ' II1 I =1~1 -.J / TOTAL P. 03 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 12th day of June ,19 98., by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, party of the first part, and FRED T. KNOWLES and GLENDA H. KNOWLES, his wife, and DAVID W. RAMSAY and VIVIAN RAMSAY, his wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, Grantees, parties of the second part. WlTNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of those certain lots, tracts, or parcels of land designated and described as "Parcels 77 and 95, Oceana West Industrial Park" and being further designated and described as "2655 International Parkway, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 · GPIN's 1496-75-1540 and 1496-75-1027"; and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the parties of the second part to maintain an existing 18" pipe, a 24" pipe, a drop inlet, and an air conditioner pad and to construct and maintain a dry detention pond, a 15" pipe with related rip-rap, a 21" pipe with related rip-rap, an 18" pipe with related rip-rap, a 15" pipe, and a 10" pipe in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in maintaining such existing 18" pipe, 24" pipe, drop inlet, and air conditioner pad and in constructing and maintaining such proposed dry detention pond, 15" pipe GPIN 1496-75-1540 & 1496-75-1027 with related rip-rap, 21" pipe with related rip-rap, 18" pipe w/th related rip-rap, 15" pipe, and 10" pipe, it is necessary that the said parties of the second part encroach into a portion ora portion of the City's 300' drainage easement known as Canal No. 2; and said part/es of the second part have requested that the party of the first part grant a temporary encroachment to facilitate the maintenance of the existing 18" pipe, 24" pipe, drop inlet, and air conditioner pad and to facilitate the construction and maintenance of the proposed dry detention pond, 15" pipe with related rip-rap, 21" pipe with related rip-rap, 18" pipe with related rip-rap, 15" pipe, and 10" pipe within a portion of the City's 300' drainage easement known as Canal No. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the parties of the second part and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid, to the said party of the first part, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part doth grant to the parties of the second part a temporary encroachment to use a portion of the City's 300' drainage easement known as Canal No. 2 for the purpose of maintaining such existing 18" pipe, 24" pipe, drop inlet, and air conditioner pad and for the purpose of constructing and maintaining such proposed dry detention pond, 15" pipe with related rip-rap, 21" pipe with related rip-rap, 18" pipe with related rip-rap, 15" pipe, and 10" pipe. It is expressly understood and agreed that such 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 of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: An area of temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's 300' drainage easement known as Canal No. 2 as shown on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT SHOWING ENCROACHMENT INTO 300' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG CANAL NO. 2 (MB 103, PG 31) · LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH - VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA· APRIL 28, 1998 · SCALE: l'= 60' MILLER-STEPHENSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, PLANNING, SURVEYING & ENGINEERING", together with that certain untitled cross-section drawing of the infiltration/detention basin, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" respectively, 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 of Virginia Beach to the parties of the second part, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, such temporary encroachment shall be removed from the City's 300' drainage easement by the parties of the second part; and that the parties of the second part shall bear ali costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's 3 fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such 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 parties of the second part. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part agree to maintain said temporary encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center prior to commencing any construction within the City's 300' drainage easement. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a permit, the parties of the second part must post a Performance Bond. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Department of Planning, Development Services Center (DSC) at the time of site development plan review. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City across their property for access to the aforesaid 300' drainage easement in order to provide periodic maintenance to the aforesaid 300' drainage easement. The size and location of the ingress/egress easement shall be 4 determined by the Department of Planning, Development Services Center (DSC) at the time of site development review and shall be a condition of site plan approval and release. Said ingress/egress easement shall be dedicated to the City by plat and Deed of Easement containing General Warranty that shall be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach following its review and approval by the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall obtain and keep in force Ail Risk Property Insurance and General Liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the party of the first part, and all insurance policies must name the party of the first part as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The parties of the second part also agree to carry Comprehensive General Liability Insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The parties of the second part will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the party of the first part prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The parties of the second part assume all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the temporary encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that any above ground temporary encroachments shall conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City Traffic Engineer's Office. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall submit for review and approval, a survey of the area being encroached upon, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the temporary encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the party of the first part, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such temporary encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the parties of the second part, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the parties of the second part to remove such temporary encroachment; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, 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. IN XVITNESS WHEREOF, FRED T. KNOWLES and GLENDA H. KNOWLES, his wife, and DAVID W. RAMSAY and VIVIAN RAMSAY, his wife, the said parties of the second part have 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 6 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 FRED T. KNOWLES (SEAL) D~AVID{W. t~A1VI~A ~f (SEAL) (SEAL) VIViAN RAMSAy (SEAL) 7 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,19 ,by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. day of , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this VIRGINIA BEACH. 19 day of ~, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF [/"'[.i '~(I.g Ic.~rc . CITY/COUNTY (~F !~" '~.'./.,. ,,_-~rv ~(.~&?C:/(rio-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ," 6v ~r~ 19 My Commission Expires: /~gT/_~ day of ~i, by FRED T. KNOWLES and GLENDA H. KNOWLES. , ~ )Notary Public STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF !,~':~ ~.a,~,~c':/.-~ to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~~I~ ,19 My Commission Expires: /~ day of ~, by DAVID W. RAMSAY and VIV1AN RAMSAY. t/~/ Notary ~ublic 9 APPROVED AS TO FORM - ~,~y ATTOIS, N~E~r ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ~ CITY REAL ESTATE AGENT 10 Item V-L 6. c. - 32 - RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43832 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize temporary encroachment: Into a portion of the City's variable width ingress/egress/drainage easement by DICK and KATHLEEN LAMB re constructing and maintaining a floating pier at 1820 Eden Way (LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT), subject to: The following conditions shah be required: It is understood and agreed that such 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 of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location. It is understood and agreed that the temporary encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of Virginia Beach to the applicants, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, such temporary encroachment shah be removed from the City's ingress/egress and drainage easement by the applicants, and that the applicants shah bear aH costs and expenses of such removal. The applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against aH claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such temporary encroachment. Nothing herein contained shah 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 applicants. 5. The applicants agree to maintain said temporary encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. 6. The applicants must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center prior to commencing any construction within the City's easement. 7. Any above ground temporary encroachments shah conform to the minimum setback requirements, as established by the City's Zoning Office. The applicants shah submit for review and approval, a survey of the area being encroached upon, certified by a professional engineer, and/or "as built" plans of the temporary encroachment, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. - 33 - Item V-I. 6. c. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43832 (Continued) The City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such temporary encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the applicants, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the applicants to remove such temporary encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the applicants compensation for the use of such portion of the City's easement encroached upon the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the applicants, and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, 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. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE INGRE S S / EGRE S S / DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY DICK AND KATHLEEN LAMB, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Dick and Kathleen Lamb desire to construct and maintain a floating pier into the City's variable ingress/egress/drainage easement located at 1820 Eden Way. width WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to ~ 15.2- 2107 and 15.2-2009, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's easement subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in ~ 15.2-2107 and 15.2-2009, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Dick and Kathleen Lamb, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a floating pier in the City's ingress/egress/drainage easement as shown on the map entitled: "Proposed Encroachment Fixed and Floating Pier for Dick and Kathleen Lamb Lot 106, Brighton on the Bay, Section Three Lynnhaven Borough Virginia Beach, VA" a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Dick and Kathleen Lamb, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as Dick and Kathleen Lamb and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 14 day of July , 1998. 42 43 44 45 CA-# ~ 7/ pdej esu/encroach/lamb R-1 PREPARED: 6/26/98 P~ROVED AS TO CONTENTS ,'J ' s~tm~ , DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 2 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811 (a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ r'a/ day of ~?~¢ , 19 ~ ~' , by and between the CITY OF VIRG1NIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, party of the first part, and DICK LAMB & KATHLEEN LAMB, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, Grantee, parties of the second part. WITNE$$ETH: That, WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Lot 106- Section 3 · Brighton on the Bay" and being further designated and described as "1820 Eden Way- Virginia Beach · Virginia 23454 · GPIN 2408-86-1516"; and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the parties of the second part to construct and maintain a fixed and floating pier in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining such pier, it is necessary that the said parties of the second part encroach into a portion of an existing City ingress/egress and drainage easement, and said parties of the second part have requested that the party of the first part grant a temporary encroachment to facilitate such pier within a portion of the City's easement. GPIN 2408-86-1516 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the parties of the second part and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid, to the said party of the first part, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part doth grant to the parties of the second part a temporary encroachment to use a portion of the City's easement for the purpose of constructing and maintaining such pier. It is expressly understood and agreed that such 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 of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: An area of temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's easement known as variable width ingress and egress easement for adjacent property owners and drainage easement as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT FIXED AND FLOAT1NG PIER FOR DICK AND KATHLEEN LAMB LOT 106 BRIGHTON ON THE BAY · SECTION THREE · LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH. VIRGINIA BEACH. VA · D.B. 2573 PG. 2164 · 2 OF 2 · DATE: MAY 16, 1998", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the temporary encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of Virginia Beach to the parties of the second part, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, such temporary encroachment shall be removed from the City's ingress/egress and drainage easement by the parties of the second part; and that the parties of the second part shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney% fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such 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 parties of the second part. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part agrees to maintain said temporary encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center prior to commencing any construction within the City's easement. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that any above ground temporary encroachments shall conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City's Zoning Office. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall submit for review and approval, a survey of the area being encroached upon, certified by a professional engineer, and/or "as built" plans of the temporary encroachment, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the party of the first part, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such temporary encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the parties of the second part, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the parties of the second part to remove such temporary encroachment; and pending such removal, the party of the first part may charge the parties of the second part compensation for the use of such portion of the City's easement encroached upon the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the parties of the second part; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, 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. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DICK AND KATHLEEN LAMB, the said parties of the second part have caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature and seal 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 Dick Lamb Kathleen Lamb (SEAL) ATTEST: L ......... 3., 5 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ ,19 ,by. DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. day of , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. day of My Commission Expires: Notary Public APPROVED AS TO FORM (~'ITy-ATTORNEY 6 ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DES4GNEE-OR CITY REAL ESTATE AGENT RD S LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1"--1600' © © UN~O~ LOCATION MAP FOR ENCROACHMENT AT 1820 EDEN WAY DiCKL SCALE: 1" : 200' PREPARED I~ P/W ENG. DRAFT. 24--JUN-ID98 COVE c"'"~oOV · ,/~ ~_.~// MOORING * ; · '~' -- ~,~o~ ".oo.,"' '- ~ .~ ~ ' ~~ ~_ ~ ~ · PIER ~// WATERFRONT CONSULTING, INC 4698 HANOVER COURT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 2,34-64 PHONE: (757) 495-8566 FAX: (757) 495-8566 PROPOSED FIXED AND DICK AND LOT 106, BRIGHTON ON THE LYNNHAVEN BOROUGH (D.B. 257,5 PG. 2164) 2 OF 2 ENCROACHMENT FLOATING PIER FOR KATHLEEN LAMB BAY, SECTION THREE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA DATE: MAY 16, 1998 Item Vd. 6. d. - 34 - RES 0£ UTI ON/ORD INANCES ITEM # 43833 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize temporary encroachment: Into a portion of the City's 10' drainage easement by KEITH A. and CAR1 D. ZELLO re constructing and maintaining a sunroom addition at 1872 John Brown Lane (CENTERVILLE DISTRICT): The following conditions shall be required: It is understood and agreed that such 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 of Virginia Beach Public Works Department 's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location. It is agreed that the temporary encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of Virginia Beach to the applicants, and that within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, such temporary encroachment shah be removed from the City's 10' drainage easement by the applicants; and the applicants shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. The applicants agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against aH claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such temporary encroachment. 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 applicants. 5. The applicants agree to maintain said temporary encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. 6. The applicants must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center prior to commencing any construction. 7. Any above ground temporary encroachments shall conform to the minimum setback requirements, as established by the City Planning Department/Zoning Office. The applicants shall submit for review and approval, a survey of the area being encroached upon, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the temporary encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required, by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. Item V-I. 6. d. - 35- RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 43833 (Continued) The City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such temporary encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the applicants and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the applicants to remove such temporary encroachment; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, 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. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY'S 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN THAT PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1872 JOHN BROWN LANE BY KEITH A. ZELLO AND CAR1 D. ZELLO, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Keith A. Zello and Cari D. Zello desire to construct and maintain a sunroom addition within a portion ora 10' City drainage easement along the side lot line of their property located at 1872 John Brown Lane. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's easements subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Keith A. Zello and Cari D. Zello, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for sunroom addition within the City's 10' drainage easement as shown on that 24 certain plat entitled: "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 45 SUBDIVISION PLAT OF 25 ALEXANDRIA SECTION lC KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH- VIRGINIA BEACH, 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 VIRGINIA FOR KEITH A. ZELLO AND CARl D. ZELLO · SCALE: 1" = 20'- DATE: NOV. 9, 1992" a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Keith A. Zello and Cari D. Zello, husband and wife, (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as Keith A. Zello, Cari D. Zello, and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 14 day of July , 1998. 40 PREPARED BY: The Department of Public Works/Office of Real Estate 41 c^-# 7o & o 42 43 44 45 46 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS SIGNATUkE DEPARTMENT 47 48 49 5O APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND ~RM ylTY ~, TTO~,~EY LOCATION MAP SCALE .' 1" -- 1~600' LOCATION ? / MAP PROPOSED SUNROOM ADDITION ENCROACHMENT ~ .//'/ /Z.~ INTO ..,,~.,Z.~ ~ ,/2/~ 10' CITY DRAINAGE EASEMENT -'-" '~ ~"-.//, /7%./,. FOR (,,~ //~..~ KEITH A. ZELLO AND CAR! D. ZELLO ~ ~ //~ 1872 JOHN BROWN ~NE '~.~ / 9~3~ Reales~e PREPARED BY P~ ENG. DRAFT. 17-JUN-1998 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I,. ON,,'/- ~TM , SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON, AND THAT THE TITLE LINES AND 'PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN HEREON.' THE IMPROVEMENTS STAND STRICTLY WITHIN THE TITLE LINES AND THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENTS 'EXCEPT AS SHOWN. "S,6NEO, ~'-~-"'"'~ NOTE= 10' DRAINAGE ESM'T D.B. 2729 PG.333 10' DRAINAGE ESM"r D.B.2729 PG.333 'rile PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON APPEARS TO UE IN ' C ' FLOOD ZONE ACCORDING TO F.E.M.A. MAP PANEL NO. 5155;31-0033D, REVISED DEC. 5, 1990. LOT IP(F) S 55'25'00" E 50.00' IP(F) PORT. METAL ~ SHED LOT 45 OUT $° WOOD FENCE (TYP.) 10' DRAINAGE ESM'T D.B.2729 PG.333 0.8' IN 1.2729'~PG.333 '\ 1555.73' TO P.I. BRAD DRIVE IP(F) 1 STORY FRAME # 1872 II II I 5' MAINTENANCE ESM'T. FOR LOT 45 D.B.2729 PG.333 LOT 46 R=~.025.00' L=50.06' JOHN BROWN LANE (50' PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 45 SUBDIVISION PLAT OF ALEXANDRIA SECTION lC KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH ~r~VI~RGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA DA'IF: NOV. 9, 1992 SCALE= 1" - 20' NOTE: FOR PLAT SEE ' D.B.2729 P~3~ V~ B~, V~ .~+~ WARD M. HOLMES INIA ,Ng su,wYo,, ,c. 9625 GRANBY S~, SUITE 208 NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 25505 ~o -'~q°*~ 004- 400-~o ~:-'..~ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I,. ON //- ~'-? -~ , .SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON, AND THAT THE TITLE LINES AND PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN HEREON.' THE IMPROVEMENTS STAND STRICTLY WITHIN THE TITLE LINES AND THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENT9 'EXCEPT AS SHOWN. '' SIGNED' ~'~"'~'~ NOTE: THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON APPEARS TO UE IN ' C ' FLOOD ZONE ACCORDING TO F.E.M~ MAP PANEL NO. 515531-0055D, REVISED DEC. 5, 1990. 10' DRAINAGE ESM'T-'" I D.B.2729 P0.335 ~ t 10' DRAINAGE ESM'T D.B.2729 PG,333 LOT IP(F) S 55'25'00' E 50.00' IP(F) I I PORT. METAL SHED I LOT 3~.2' OUT 10' DRAINAGE ESM'T D.B.2729 PG.333 0.6' IN LOT 1553.73' TO P.I. BRAD ORIVE IP(F) I STORY FRAME ~ 1872 · 14..7' R=4025.00' L=50.06' ii il · 0°8° I . 11 5' MAINTENANCE ESM'T. FOR LOT 45 D.B.2729 P0.333 LOT 46 JOHN BROWN LANE (50' R/W) PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 45 SUBDIVISION PLAT OF ALEXANDRIA SECTION lC KEMPSVlLLE BOROUGH - VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR KEITH A. ZELLO &: CARl D. ZELLO DATE: NOV. g, 1992 SCAI.~ 1' - 20' NOTE: FOR PLAT SEE D.B.2729 PG.333 VA. BEACH, VA. EXN e T "A" WARD M. HOLMES LAND SURVEYOR, P.C. 96?_5 GRANBY ST., SUITE 208 NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23355033 804- 480- 12330 · . PROJECT NO. PREPARED BY VIR~ BEACH C1TY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-81 l(a)(3) AND ~8.1-8] I(cX4) AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2nd day of June, 1998, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, party of the first part, and KEITH A. ZELLO and CARI D. ZELLO, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, Grantees, parties of the second part. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Lot 45, Section lC, Alexandria" and being further designated and described as "1872 John Brown Lane, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464 · GPIN 1455-80-2472" and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the parties of the second part to construct and maintain a 9' X 20' sunroom addition to their existing dwelling in the City of Virginia Beach; and ~S, in constructing and maintaining such sunroom addition, it is necessary that the said parties of the second part encroach into a portion of an existing 10' City drainage easement; and said parties of the second part have requested that the party of the first part grant a temporary encroachmem to facilitate such sunroom addition within a portion of the City's 10' drainage easement. GPIN 1455-80-2472 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the parties of the second part and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid, to the said party of the first part, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part doth grant to the parties of the second part a temporary encroachment to use a portion of the City's 10' drainage easement for the purpose of constructing and maintaining such sunroom addition. It is expressly understood and agreed that such 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 of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications and approval as to size, alignment and location and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: An area of temporary encroachment into a portion of the City's 10' drainage easement as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 45 SUBDIVISION PLAT OF ALEXANDRIA SECTION lC KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH- VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR KEITH A. ZELLO AND CARI D. ZELLO · SCALE: 1' - 20'- DATE: NOV. 9, 199T' a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A' and 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 of Virginia Beach to the parties of the second part, and that within thirty (30) days at~er such notice is given, such temporary encroachment shall be removed from the City's 10' drainage easement by the parties of the second part; and that the parties of the second part shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia Beach, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of such 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 parties of the second part. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part agree to maintain said temporary encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part must obtain a permit from the Development Services Center prior to commencing any construction. It is further expressly understood and agreed that any above ground temporary encroachments shall conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City Planning Department/Zoning Office. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the parties of the second part shall submit for review and approval, a survey of the area being encroached upon, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the temporary encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the party of the first part, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove any such temporary encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the parties of the second part and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the parties of the second part to remove such temporary encroachment; and if such removal' shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, 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 thereat~er, and shall collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KEITH A. ZELLO and CARI D. ZELLO, the said parties of the second part have caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures and seals duly affixed. Further, that the City of Vir§inia 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. 4 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By: City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk 5 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ., 19 , by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: BEACH. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,19 , by RUTH HODGES SM1TH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA My Commission Expires: Notary Public 6 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,19 q~', by KEITH A. ZELLO and CARl D. ZELLO. day of My Commission Expires: Notary Public ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ~ OR CITY REAL ESTATE AGENT Item V-L 7. -36- RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM Il 43834 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council ADOPTED: License Refunds - $6,454.75. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING LICENSE REFUNDS UPON APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS AND UPON CERTIFICATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the following applications for license refunds, upon certification of the Commissioner of the Revenue are hereby approved: NAME LICENSE DATE BASE INTEREST TOTAL YEAR PAID A C Industries Inc. Andrada, N. Y. & Baluyot, M. & Icba Aneval Inc. B A Brewmeister Inc. Carlson, Eric Cooper, Raymond E. Dawn, Theresa DRT, L.L.C. Employment Services Inc. Mar Ltd. Nanney, Michael W. Nansemond Htg & Cooling Inc. Pizzarello, Tom & Stuart, Larkin Robeson, John W. Roy Weithas Joint Venture Running Tab Inc. Sutton, Stephen C. & Karen A. 1995-1997 Audit 62.97 10.70 73.67 1996-1998 Audit 20.00 0.14 20.14 1997-1998 Audit 740.18 10.95 751.13 1996 Audit 130.00 26.50 156.50 1998 6/19/98 10.20 10.20 1995-1998 Audit 30.00 30.00 1998 5/20/98 50.00 50.00 1998 Audit 2,794.42 41.35 2,835.77 1996-1998 Audit 313.81 313.81 1998 2/10/98 259.37 259.37 1996-1997 Audit 132.60 25.01 157.61 1996-1997 Audit 24.56 2.51 27.07 1998 5/22/98 50.00 50.00 1998 5/21/98 28.00 28.00 1997-1998 Audit 1,338.49 57.37 1,395.86 1995-1998 Audit 270.25 270.25 1998 5/12/98 25.37 25.37 This ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. The above abatement(s) totaling $6,454.75 City of Virginia Beach on the Approved as to form: LeSlie/L. Lilley -- City Attorney were approved by the Council of the day of JU--[y ,19 cJ8 Ruth Hodges Smith City Clerk -37- Item PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ITEM # 43835 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf DECLARED a PUBLIC HEARING on: PLANNING 1. ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH & ENLIGHTMENT, INC. NON-CONFORMING USE 2. POTTERS ROAD INVESTMENT GROUP STREET CLOSURE 3. DEFORD LIMITED STREET CLOSURE 4. B. M. STANTON, JR. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5. CAPE HENRY COLLEGIATE SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6. MICHAEL D. SlFEN, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION CHANGE OF ZONING July 14, 1998 Item V-J. - 38- PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 43836 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council APPROVED in one motion Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the PLANNING BY CONSENT. Item J. 1. was DEFERRED until August 4, 1998, BY CONSENT. Item J. 2. was DEFERRED 180 DAYS UNTIL JANUARY 12, 1999, BY CONSENT. Item J. 3 was DEFERRED 180 DAYS UNTIL JANUARY 12, 1999, BY CONSENT. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. 3/1. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None Item V-d. 1. - 39- PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 4383 7 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council DEFERRED UNTIL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1998,, the Application of ASSOCL4TION FOR RESEARCH & ENLIGHTENMENT, INC.,for an enlargement in a nonconforming use at the Northwest corner of Atlantic Avenue and 67th Street (L YNNHA VEN DISTRICT). Resolution authorizing the enlargement of a nonconforming use on property located at the northwest corner of Atlantic Avenue and 67tn Street. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None - 40- Item V-J. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 43838 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council DEFERRED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 180 DA YS UNTIL JANUARY 12, 1999, an Ordinance in the petition of POTTERS ROAD INVESTMENT GROUP for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Potters Road: Application of Potters Road Investment Group for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Potters Road beginning at the southeast intersection of Potters Road and Wesley Drive and running in a easterly direction a distance of 2 70feet more or less. Said parcel contains 6,577.56 square feet. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None Item V-J. 3. - 41 - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 43839 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council DEFERRED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 180 DA YS UNTIL JANUARY 12, 1999, B Y CONSENT an Ordinance in the petition of DeFORD LIMITED, a Virginia Corporation for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Wishart Point Court: Petition ofDeFord Limited, a Virginia Corporation for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment ora portion of Wishart Point Court beginning on the Eastern boundary of Battle Royal Circle and running in an easterly direction a distance of 538.18. Said parcel is 30feet in width and contains 14, 711 square feet. DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara 3/1. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba $. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 - 42 - Item V-J. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 43840 PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council ADOPTED Ordinance upon application of B. M. STANTON, JR.,for Conditional Use Permits: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF B. M. STANTON, JR., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE DETAILING CENTER R07982206 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application orB. M. Stanton, Jr., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile detailing center on the east side of Lynnhaven Parkway, north ofHolland Road. Saidparcel is located at 1108 Lynnhaven Parkway and contains 1.584 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. The following conditions shah be required: 1. The building will be constructed with white masonry block and blue fascia trim. AND, A ftfty-foot (50') buffer must be preserved on the East side of the site where it abuts the A-12 Apartment District. Furthermore, only those trees necessary to accommodate the construction of the building and parking lot shall be removed from the site. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF B. M. STANTON, JR., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN A UTOMOBILE REPAIR GARA GE R07982207 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of B. M. Stanton, Jr., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile repair garage on the east side of Lynnhaven Parkway, north of Holland Road. Said parcel is located at 1108 Lynnhaven Parkway and contains 1.584 acres. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE. The following conditions shah be required: 1. The building will be constructed with white masonry block and blue fascia trim. A fifty-foot (50') buffer must be preserved on the East side of the site where it abuts the A-12 Apartment District. Furthermore, only those trees necessary to accommodate the construction of the building and parking lot shall be removed from the site. 3. AH automobile body work (painting, sanding, dent removal, etc.) will be done within the building. No outside storage of vehicles will be permitted on this site. If vehicles require storage after work has been done, then the vehicles shall be stored within the building. The existing carwash parking lot must be striped to meet the parking requirements conditioned and approved by City Council on November 17, 1990. The required parking ratio is three spaces for each car wash space within the facility. If the required Category "VI" screening is waived by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the applicant must install shrubberyfour-feet on center between the proposed detailing building and the existing parking lot. July 14, 1998 Item V-J. 4. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING - 43 - ITEM # 43840 (Continued) These Ordinances shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 O0 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Fourteenth of July, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Eight. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-J. 5. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, - 44 - ITEM # 43841 seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council ADOPTED Ordinance upon application of CAPE HENRY COLLEGIATE SCHOOL for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF CAPE HENRY COLLEGIATE SCHOOL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL (ADDITION) R07982208 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Cape Henry Collegiate School for a Conditional Use Permit for a private school (addition) at the southeast corner of Mill Dam Road and South Woodhouse Road. Said parcel is located at 1320 Mill Dam Road and contains 30. 625 acres. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN. The following conditions shall be require& The Conditional Use Permit is for the construction of the Fine Arts Complex, a 14, 400 square foot structure, as depicted on the Campus Plan for "Cape Henry Collegiate School" dated April 29, 1998 and prepared by Tymoff and Moss. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 09 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Fourteenth of July, Nineteen Hundred and Nine_tv-Eight. Voting: 11-0 (By ConsenO Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 - 45- Item V-J. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 43842 PLANNING Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Jr., Pembroke One 5tn Floor, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant Upon motion by Council Lady Eure, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED the Ordinance upon application of MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., a Virginia Corporation, for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF MICHAEL D. SIFEN, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-SD TO CONDITIONAL B-2 Z07981107 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Michael D. Siren, Inc., a Virginia Corporation for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-SD Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-2 Conditional Business District on certain property located at the northeast corner of Lynnhaven Parkway and Salem Road. The proposed zoning classification change to Conditional B-2 is for commercial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for retail service, office and other compatible uses in accordance with Plan policies. Said parcel contains 5.17 acres. DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 09 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Fourteenth of July, Nineteen Hundred and Nine_fy-Eight. The following conditions shall be required: Agreement encompassing proffers shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and is hereby made a part of the record. Accepted letter re future lease. Said letter dated July 13, 1998, is hereby made a part of the proceedings. The Formal Lease or Easement shall be reviewed and approved by City Council. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Abstaining: William W. Harrison, Jr. Council Members Absent: None Councilman Harrison ABSTAINED as the landowner objecting to the right-of-way is represented by his law firm. July 14, 1998 JON M. AHEKN K. EDWARD I~OURDON, JR. THOMAS S. CARNES JAMES T. CROMWELL KEITH L. KIMBALL KIRK B. LEVY TODD M. LYNN JENNIFER D. ORAM.SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES, JR. SYr s, CA SS, Boum3o & A .nta, E ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK PEMBROKE ONE.THE FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 July 13, 1998 Ce TELEPHONE 499-8971 AREA CODE 757 FACSIMILE (757) 456-. OR 671-1454 Via Facsimile No.: 427-4456 and Hand Delivery James C. Lawson, Director Department of Real Estate City of Virginia Beach Building 2, Room 170 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Proposed Ingress/Egress Easement or Lease of Property for Utilization for Ingress and Egress on behalf of Michael D. Siren, Inc. Property located east side of Salem Road beginning approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Salem Road and Lynnhaven Parkway Dear Jim: As you are aware, the City Council at their public heating on Tuesday, July 14, 1998 will be voting upon the application of Michael D Siren, Inc. for Conditional Rezoning to Conditional B-2 on the 5.17 acre parcel of property at the northeast corner of the intersection of Salem Road and Lynnhaven Parkway. If approved, the property will be developed into no more than four (4) commercial businesses. One of the businesses will be a pham~acy (Walgreens) on the parcel located at the corner of' Salem Road and Lynnhaven Parkway. At the request of City Council, we have proffered a revised Site Plan which depicts access to the property from Salem Road via a fight-in right-out only entrance and driveway across the excess City property which was obtained from Ms. Buckner as a part of the Salem Road widening which is due to commence later this year. Based upon our discussions, this shall confirm that the following points will form the basis of a Lease Agreement or Easement Agreement which will be prepared subsequent to an approval of the afore referenced Conditional Rezoning by City Council: 1. The owners of the rezoned property will be granted (via Lease or Easement Agreement) the right to utilize the property depicted on the Site Plan for construction and S¥ s, CA ,N .S, BOUt, DON & AH m, , E C. James C. Lat~ son. Direclor Jul)' 13, 1998 Page 2 maintenance of the turn lane and access road for ingress m,d egress to the commercial development. 2. My client will agree to landscape the subject property as depicted upon the Concept Plan prepared by Porteffield Design Center and all landscaping and grassed areas ofthe property shall be maintained by my client solely at his expense. 3. All improvements depicted and constructed on the City owned property will be maintained in a first class condition by my client solely at his expense. 4. As further consideration for lhe granting of the rights enumerated herein, my client shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping and grassed areas on the City owned properties north of the subject property on the east side of Salem Road extending northward approximately 1200+ feet. This landscape and la~vn area maintenance will be done by the contractor hired to maintain all of the landscaped areas on the property which will be granted the Easement or Lease pemfitting ingress and egress as set forth herein. 5. We understand the City will need to include provisions in the Lease or Easement preserving its rights to install utilities or other improvements on the subject property as well as potentially widening Salem Road further. I believe this accurately reflects the "business terms" which we have agreed upon. If I have failed to accurately state those terms or if there are additional agreements which I have inadvertently omitted from this letter, plez. se contact me immediately. It is my intention to advise City Council of the basic provisions recited herein with the understanding of all parties, that the fo,'mal Lease or Easement will need to be reviewed and approved by Council in the near future. With kind regards, I am R. Edwm'd Bourdon, Jr. REBjr/athm Gary L Fenlresss Assistant City Attorney Rob~'t J. Scotl, Ditecttn', l~t of Planning Mi~l D. Sife~ Presidenl MSCORRES $1FENI4 -47- ITEM # 43844 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf RECONVENED the FORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chamber, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at 3.'50 P.M. Council Members Present: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Absent: None Ju y < 1998 - 48- CER TIFICA TI ON 0 F EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM # 43845 Upon motion by Councilman Heischober, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council CERTIFIED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION TO RECESS. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Executive Session to which this certification resolution applies; AND, Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 43843, Page 46, and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.1-344. of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council herebY certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Executive Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Ru~ Hodges Smi~, CMC/AAE City Clerk July 14, 1998 - 49- Item V-K. 1. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 43846 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Robert Hagans Unexpired Term thru 8/31/99 DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-K. 2. APPOINTMENTS - 50- ITEM # 43847 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Margaret L. Eure Louisa M. Strayhorn 2-Year Terms 7/1/98 thru 6/30/2000 MINORITY B USINESS COUNCIL Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndo~ Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-K.3. APPOINTMENTS - 51 - ITEM # 43848 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: H. Frank Malbon Lynnhaven District Unexpired Term thru 8/31/2000 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-K. 4. APPOINTMENTS - 52 - ITEM it 43849 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Nancy K. Parker A. M. "Don" Weeks No Term SCHOOL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba $. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-K. 5. APPOINTMENTS - 53 - ITEM # 43850 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Carrie R. Waites 4-Year Term 7/1/98 - 6/30/2002 SOCIAL SER VICES BOARD Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William ~ Harrison, Jr., HaroM Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None Item V-K. 6. APPOINTMENTS - 54 - ITEM # 43851 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council REAPPOINTED: Shewling Moy Wong 4-Year Term 7/1/98 - 6/30/2002 TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-K. 7 APPOINTMENTS - 55 - ITEM # 43852 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Barbara M. Henley A. M.. "Don" Weeks 2-Year Term 7/1/98- 6/30/2000 TIDEWATER TRANSPOR TA TION DISTRICT COMMISSION Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William ~ Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None Item V-K. 8. APPOINTMENTS - 56- ITEM # 43853 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Barbara Wills To represent the PTA Unexpired Term thru 2/28/99 VIRGINIA BEACH CRIME TASK FORCE Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-K. 8. APPOINTMENTS -57- ITEM # 43854 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: Harold Heischober Barbara M. Henley No Term REFERENDUM FOR SCHOOL MODERNIZATION Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Harold Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and A. M. "Don" Weeks Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None July 14, 1998 Item V-K. 9. APPOINTMENTS - 58- ITEM # 43855 BY CONSENSUS, City Council RESCHEDULED the following APPOINTMENT: PLANNING COMMISSION - 59- Item V-L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 43856 Mayor Oberndorf referenced correspondence of duly 81998, from Dr. Timothy R. Jenney, Superintendent - Virginia Beach Public Schools. Said letter is hereby made a part of the record. The City Manager advised on June 11, 1998, Dr. Jenney communicated regarding a request for transfer of funds from School General Revenue Capital projects to the School Board Operating Budget for purposes of funding the Early Retirement lncentive Program. The School Board also requested a possible method of funding through year-end surplus funds. Because of the time constraint before the School division, Dr. denney will be addressing this issue with the School Board at their meeting tonight, July 14, 1998. Absent a method of funding, he will recommend deferring an increase in compensation for employees from September 2 to October 1 to fund the liability of the ERIP. The City Manager prepared a DRAFT response, which he distributed to Members of City Council It is the City Manager's understanding it will involve approximately 5years to phase out the current members of the School organization who are in the early retirement program. However, Ending Balance has always been utilized for one-time Capital Expenditures. This is an operating budget consideration and the School Board will have to decide which item they choose not to fund. The City Manager advised in his proposed correspondence, consideration of adjustments to the FY1998-99 School Operating Fund may be the most prudent approach to addressing ERIP funding needs. If the Board adopts an action at the July Fourteenth meeting which holds the Modernization Referendum harmless and does not involve use of as yet un-finalized ending balances, the City Manager will place it before the City Council for action at their August Fourth Formal Session. The City Council has made a strong commitment to "buy down "the School Modernization Referendum cost. It is the policy of City Council that the Ending Fund balance not be utilized for operating expense. These are the two issues which must be addressed. B Y CONSENSUS, the City Manager shall forward his response to Dr.. Timothy Jenney clarifying City Council does not concur with the recommended source of funding the ERIP by deferring an increase in compensation for school employees nor will funds be transferred from the Ending Fund balance. July 14, 1998 Item V-N ADJOURNMENT ITEM # 43857 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 4:05 P.M. ~ooks, CMC/AAE Chief Deputy City Clerk City Clerk Meyera E. Oberndorf Mayor City of Virginia Beach Virginia