The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPTEMBER 13, 1994 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL Cit.y C>l Virgir1.ia E3eacl1. "WORLD'S LARGEST RESORT CITY" MAfOR MDERAE VIO. MAYOR WIILI.'M a jOIlN A HAUM, "'"""'"'0 '",wI' LlNWooO (I RRANCH, RORIRT R IWAN, W,W RARB"A M jOHN V NA,WYK,W<KEf<,AI,Lwl' LOUISA M, STRAYHORN, Rem/emll. .",,"'" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ", OTY HALl, BUILDING MUNIOPAL CENTER VIRGINIA BEAIII, VIRGINIA 23"6.0005 "11".",ml SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Council Chamber - 11:30 AM A. B. C. II. III. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Mr. Robert J. Scott, Director of Planning 1995 HEALTH CARE Dr. Donald A. Peccia, Director of Personnel Services, Virginia Beach City Schools Mrs. Lynn Sachs, Benefits Coordinator JUVENILE CRIME STRATEGY AND PLAN Mr. Daniel M. Stone, Director of Social Services INFORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 1:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 2:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend John F. Shappell Beech Grove & Bethel United Methodist Churches ,- -- -..- -..~ ~-~.,- ".,,~-~ ~.,...,..-~ r..- AUI::[,]'t"A G. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. 50th ANNIVERSARY OF MacARTHUR'S LANDING AT LEYTE IN THE PHILIPPINES Colonel Lyman Hammond, Director, MacArthur Memorial H. BRIEFING VIRGINIA BEACH EVENTS UNLIMITED Mr. Joseph Gianascoli, Chairman of the Board, Virginia Beach Events Unlimited Mr. Dan Ryan, Chairman of the Board, Virginia Beach Neptune Festival 1. I. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered in the ordinary course of business by City Council and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. If an item is removed from the Consent Agenda, it will be discussed and voted upon separately. 1. Resolutions to program the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for urban system highway projects; and, that the City pay its share of the total costs: a. b. 2. Improvement of City Line Road (CIP #2-261) from Kempsville Road to Interstate 64, a distance of approximately 1.8 miles. Improvement of Lynnhaven ParkwayNolvo Parkway (CIP #2-257) from Centerville Turnpike to the Chesapeake city line, a distance of approximately 2,185 feet. c. Improvement of Lynnhaven Parkway from Indian River Road to Centerville Turnpike (Lynnhaven Parkway, Phase XI, CIP #2-167), a distance of approximately 2.1 miles. d. Improvement of Laskin Road from Birdneck Road to Pacific Avenue (Laskin Road, Phase II, CIP #2-165), a distance of approximately 1.0 miles. e. Improvement of Laskin Road from Route 44 to First Colonial Road (Laskin Road, Phase III, CIP #2-264), a distance of approximately 1.4 miles. f. Improvement of Ferrell Parkway from Landstown Road to North Courthouse Loop (Ferrell Parkway, Phase II, CIP #2-305), a distance of approximately 2.2 miles. g. Improvement of Ferrell Parkway from Princess Anne Road to General Booth Boulevard (Ferrell Parkway, Phase V, CIP #2-096), a distance of approximately 2.7 miles. Ordinance to authorize acquisition of property in fee simple for right-of-way for Dozier's A.I"n.. Prniect lCIP #2-1741 and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements 5. Ordinance to authorize Tax Refunds in the amount of $2,194.01. 6. Ordinance to authorize License Refunds in the amount of $45,310.40. J. PUBUC HEARING 1. PLANNING a. RECONSIDERATION OF PROFFERS that govern development opportunities on the site in the April 27, 1993, Approved Application of EIGHT D CORPORAll0N, a Virginia Corporation for a Change of Zoning from ~ to .6::Z and a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash at the Northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). Recommendation: APPROVAL b. Application of QUICK 10 CORPORAll0N for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station and car wash at the Southeast corner of Princess Anne Road and Baxter Road, containing 28,544 square feet (KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH). Deferred to August 23, 1994: Deferred to September 13, 1994: August 9, 1994 August 23, 1994 Recommendation: APPROVAL c. Application of D & M CORP., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station in conjunction with a convenience store and a ~ on the Southwest side of Independence Boulevard, Northwest of Lakeside Road (1645 Independence Boulevard), containing 1.344 acres (BAYS IDE BOROUGH). Recommendation: APPROVAL d. Application of VIRGINIA BEACH ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES and CHARLES S. FRIEDMAN for a Conditional Change of Zonin9 District Classification from fi= 5D Residential Duplex District to 0-1 Office District on the West side of Kempsville Road, South of Canterford Lane (1445 Kempsville Road), containing 34,848 square feet more or less (KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH). Recommendation: APPROVAL K. APPOINTMENTS VIRGINIA BEACH CRIME TASK FORCE VMI. - HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE N. NEW BUSINESS o. ADJOURNMENT ********** CITY COUNCIL SESSION SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 RESCHEDULED TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 ********** ********** PUBUC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 - 6:00 PM RE: ELECTORAL PLAN - Reapportionment (Unfinished Business) ********** If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 MINUTES VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia September 13, 1994 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS to the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chamber, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, September 13, 1994, at 11:30 A.M. Council Members Present: John A. flaum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones. John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor WIlliam D. Sessoms and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Absent: None Vice Mayor Sessoms, being a Corporate Officer of Central Fidelity 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 Central Fidelity Bank. The Vice Mayor regularly makes this Disclosure as he mayor may not know of the Bank's interest in any application that may come before City Council. Vice -2- C IT Y MAN AGE R 'S B R IE FIN G CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) J1 :30 AM. ITEM # 38349 Mr. WIlliam Cashman, President of the Central Business District, expressed appreciation for reporting the progress in continuing the development of the planning and implementation program for the Central Business District. Last year, the City Council instructed the Central Business District Association and City Staff to work jointly to develop a program for implementing the appraved CBD Master Plan. An ongoing dialogue has been established, which has included discussions ranging from transit to fßx districts, from aesthetics to property depreciation and from setbacks to signs. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are now being finalized, which will facilitate the CBD Master Plan implementation. A coordinated public private effort is the only sure path to a successful plan and implementation. The CBD will make every effort to avoid use of the limiting and inaccurate term "downtown ". Robert J. Scott, Director of Planning, referenced the ten (10) key points, surrounding the issue: i. Pembroke is a large commercial area with significant and downside potential. It is an area considered prone to change. 2. There is a potential vocabulary problem. The CBD is not interested in building a "downtown ". 3. 1hese areas are created by the relationships between business interests and other business interests, not between business interests and governments. 1he government's role must be as a catalyst not as a creator or a builder. 4. The public involvement should be an exercise in risk management. 5. This opportunity in planning is the face of high uncertainty. 6. The potential benefits' of this endeavor go beyond the immediate financial returns. 7. There are existing neighboring communities. Through arterials (Virginia Beach Boulevard and independence Boulevard), any development must be achieved with respect for the roles of the existing features. 8. Much of the exact nature of the area was established arbitrarily in i902 when the plat of Sunnybrook was put to record and many paper streets were platted in the area. This should not be cons-idered an overly confining factor. 9. Bigger is not better. The success of the CBD will depend upon -3- C IT Y MAN AGE R 'S B R I E FIN G CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) ITEM # 38349 (Continued) The CBD wishes to create an entity with the following characteristics: Area with coordinated design and with a public improvement system in place. Area with an aggressive introduction of amenities. Area with attention to relationships on an areawide basis, rather than a "lot by lot" basis i.e, parking, best management practices. Conscious attention to the nature and type of activity, as well as land use mix in the area. Higher than typit'al levels of intensity Emphasis on pedestrian rather than vehicular movement. The City Staff will propose amending the zoning ordinance to change land use mix and types of uses that are allowed in the area, to change the setbacks, to create a greater level of intensity, decrease the allowable building size, amend the street standards, design a public parking program, a trolley circulation system that will serve this area. develop regionalist BMP facilities, identify traffic capacity increasing measures, develop a parks and open space system, adopt design guidelines for the private sector, plan for the future integration of light rail, and establish financing programs among the property OWners in the area to assist in funding the improvements. Burrell Saunders, Architect - represented the Central Business District, and displayed renderings depicting the design. In order to accomplish this project, a commitment between the public and private sector is needed to have a coordinated design approach. The City'~' commitment is needed in the infrastructure improvements. A mixed land use is being investigated blending retail, office and residential with coordinated sign age and a coordinated approach to handle master planning of each site. Mr. CasJunan referenced proposed capital improvements. The extension of Constitution Drive from Columbus to Bonney is being recommended for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program. This extension will also aid in arterial circulation by providing an alternative to the Independence/Bonney Intersection. Mr. CasJunan cited the CBD Master Plan projects: Jeanne Street and Constitution Drive Streetscapes to Virginia Beach Boulevard. Trolley Circulation system ISTEA enhancements Sanitary Sewer Study -4- C IT Y MAN AGE R 'S B R IE FIN G CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) ITEM # 38349 (Continued) A tax increment financing district is proposed to provide a revenue stream to support the continued investment in the Central Business District. Mr. Cashman requested the following: Instruct Planning Commission to complete work on the Planning and Zoning Amendments by January or ninety days from submittal. Instruct staff to include the CBD Capital Improvement Projects in the CIP Program Development Process. Instruct staff to analyze the issues in the development of a TIF district in the CBD core area. - 5- C IT Y MAN AGE R 'S B R I E FIN G 1995 HEALTH CARE ITEM # 38350 12:20 P.M. Dr. Donald A. Peccia, Director of Personnel Services - VIrginia Beach City Schools, advised over a 2- year period, City employees will have saved over $2,6-MILLION in premiums and over $I-MILLION due to benefit enhancements. The City will save $1.5-MilUon in 1995 and hopefully comparable amounts in 1996. Through the utilization of slides, Dr. Peccia outlined: Health Care VISion To develop a partnership with City, Schools and Health Care Providers To continue to offer employees a choice among various types of health plans, ie. HMOS, PPOS. Look at quality issues, as well as cost with health care providers, Keep rates at a level that employees can afford. Provide comprehensive health care plans with a variety of benefits. Benefits offered in various health care plans are very similar and the costs are very close. Employees are encouraged to select plans based on physician and hospiÙlI networks. School and City Health Plan Benefús are comparable and rates do not show major differentials. Goal over next few years is to offer the same benefits at the same cost for City and School employees. Encourage employees to live a healthy lifestyle and practice prevention and self-care. Place emphasis on consumer education. Work with health carriers to enhance reports reflecting health care usage. Dr, Peccia cited the 1995 HealthCare Offerings: HMO Plans Health First/Priority Sentara Optima -6- CITY MANAGER 'S BRIEFING 1995 HEALTH CARE ITEM # 38350 (Continued) 1995 HMO ENHANCEMENTS RATES AND BENEFITS No rate increases, and in many cases rate decreases From 1994 to 1995 decreases ranged from 2% to 11%. From 1993 to 1995 decreases ranged from 26.19% to 99.27%. For 1995 the subscriber + minor and family categories will see the greatest premium reductions. In 1993 the subscriber + spouse category experienced a substantial decrease in premiums because the category previously had to pay family rates. Small differentiation among the rates of the various HMOs Role Guarantee (This is a NOT to exceed figure) 1996 1997 5% 5% Benefits between HMOs are standardized to encourage employees to choose HMOs based on doctors and hospitals. In some instances benefits had been enhanced, ie. copayment in priority for urgent care and after hours care has been reduced. TRIGON BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD KEYCARE PLAN 1995 BENEFIT AN RATE ENHANCEMENTS Lower Premiums - 5% reduction in all categories of coverage Fiscal Liability is capped. Rate cap 5% for plan year 1996 and 1997 No risk to city-fully insured Minor benefit enhancements ie, lower deductible, lower copayments. Rate decreases from 1993 to 1995 ranged from 8% to 72% Baby benefits will be offered to all City employees at no additional charge. More stringent case management -7- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING 1995 HEALTH CARE ITEM # 38350 (Continued) PREVENTION COMPONENTS 1994 Plan Year Baby Benefits Healthwise Program Mobile Mammography Screening and Breast Cancer Educational Programs at various City Locations Prostate Screening Body Fat Analysis and Diabetes testing at various City locations. Healthy eating and healthy cooking classes offered to City employees. Women's Health and Nutrition programs offered to City employee~" Joint project with Sentara, VIrginia Beach City Public School System and City of VIrginia Beach (Vuleo Services and Human Resources). Comparison of 1993 Rates and 1995 Rates Category of 1993 Rates 1995 Rates 1993 Employee 1995 Employee Coverage Travelers Priority Pays Pays Subscriber $177.48 $177.50 $27.48 $ .50 Subscriber + $207.60 $189.43 $57.60 $ 19.43 minor Subscriber + $422.94 $273.85 $272.94 $103.85 Spouse Family $422.94 $371.05 $272.94 $201.05 Family - 2 $422.94 $371.05 $122.94 $ 31.05 employees 1995 Monthly Rates - Priority/Health First Comparison of 1993 Rates and 1995 Rates Category of 1993 Rates 1995 Rates 1993 Employee 1995 Employee Coverage Travelers Optima Pays Pays Subscriber $177.48 $170.30 $27.48 $ .30 Subscriber + $207.60 $189.76 $57.60 $ 19.76 1995 Monthly Rates - Optima Health Plan - 8- C IT Y MAN AGE R 'S B R IE FIN G 1995 HEALTH CARE ITEM # 38350 (Continued) Comparison of 1993 Rates and 1995 Rates Category of 1993 Rates 1995 Rates 1993 Employee 1995 Employee Coverage Travelers Sentllra Pays Pays Subscriber $177.48 $170.20 $27.48 $ .20 Subscriber + $207.60 $189.66 $57.60 $ 19.66 minor Subscriber + $422.94 $274.90 $272.94 $104.90 Spouse Family $422.94 $371.36 $272.94 $201.36 Family - 2 $422.94 $371.36 $122.94 $ 31.36 employees 1995 Monthly Rates - Sentllra Health Plan Comparison of 1993 Rates and 1995 Rates Category of 1993 Rates 1995 Rates 1993 Employee 1995 Employee Coverage Travelers Point KeyCare Pays Pays of Service Plan Subscriber $192.72 $191.16 $42.72 $ 21.16 Subscriber + $226,03 $229.16 $76.03 $ 59.16 minor Subscriber + $462.33 $314.70 $312.33 $144.70 Spouse Family $426.33 $457.24 $312.33 $287.24 Family - 2 $462.33 $457.24 $162.33 $117.24 employees 1995 Monthly Rates - Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield - KeyCare The City shall see a $1.5-MILL10N savings going into the 1995 year. This is based on the assumption the City has usually increased their subsidy by approximately $10 each year. This number was also calculated taking into account the savings in each health care plan in 1995 compared to 1994. - 9- C IT Y MAN AGE R 'S B R IE FIN G JUVENILE CRIME STRATEGY AND PLAN 12:45 PM. ITEM # 38351 Daniel M. Stone, Chairman - Task Force and Director of Social Services, advised the Task Force Report on Juvenile Crime Strategies was distributed to City Council on August 2, 1994, and is hereby made a part of the record. Being aware that City Council has already been presented with two relatively recent reports on Crime/Juvenile Crime in the City, the Task Force wanted to avoid duplicating those efforts. Instead, the effort was to concentrate on local problems. and to make realistic and "doable" recommendations that, if implemented. would build on an already excellent array of services. It is essential that any service/program developed maintain a flexible capacity to re~pond to the increasing and potentially explosive juvenile crime presence in the Community. The United States Department of Justice has determined that more than 50% of all the youth in the United States are from moderate to high risk. The label "at risk" is often loosely used to identify children and youth who display certain negative and self- defeating behaviors, or those who come from high crime and/or impoverished neighborhoods and communitie~; or who demonstrate poor academic performance. A host of risk factors are associated with this general definition, but research concludes that specific definitions of "at risk" children and youth are determined by the particular funding source or legislative targeting a particular group of children and youth for which that entity assumes re~ponsibility. Ihe National Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Virginia State Department of Youth and Family Services take a more inclusive approach by defining "at risk" as those youth who fall within the 10-17 year age range. The assumption here takes into consideration that this is the age range when most juvenile crime exposure occurs. If this broad definition were to be assumed, the City would not include approximately 43,000 children in VIrginia Beach between the ages of IO and 17, who are truly "at risk" and by the year 2000 would exceed 65,000. The City has the third highest number of child abuse reports in the State. The City is Number One in the State concerning child sexual abuse. Since his employment, Mr. Stone has witnessed over a 250% increase in individuals seeking basic needs. Over 40% of the children committed to the State Correctional Facilities come from single parent families. 60% of the AFDC caseload in the City are from families without fathers. There are approximately 30,000 impoverished cases handled by Social Services. Mr. Stone cited the two most significant recommendations of the Report. In addition to and in collaboration with the Community Policy and Management Team of the comprehensive Services Act, the City create a Youth Servic..' Coordinating Office. A Youth Services Coordinating Council should be established to provide support, guidance, and advice to the Youth Services Coordinating Office. Such a Council would be composed of appropriate City Department representatives, parent~.. youth. non-profit organizations and representation from the c.A.R.E Board and the business community. - 10 - ITEM # 38352 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the INFORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chßmber, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, September 13, 1994, at 1:25 P.M. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, Linwood 0, Branch, Ill. Robert K Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr... Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss,Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor WIlliam D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn - 11 - ITEM # 38353 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). To WIt: Appointments: Boards and Commissions: VIrginia Beach Crime Task Force VML - Human Development Committee VML - Public Safety Committee Wetlands Board 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 in"titution pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(3). To- WIt: AcquisitionlDisposition of Public Property - Lyrrnhaven Borough Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Strayhorn, City Council voted to proceed into EXECUTIVE SESSION. Voting: 11-0 Council Member:; Voting Aye: John A. Bawn, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Loui~' R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor WIlliam D. Sessom>~ Jr. and Louisa M, Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None -12- FORMAL SESION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL September 13, 1994 2:00 P.M. Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the FORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chamber, City /fall Building. on Tuesday, September 13, 1994, at 2:00 P.M. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K. Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. /fenley, Louis R. Jone,; John D. Mos,; Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor WIlliam D, Sesso",,; Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Absent: None INVOCATION: Reverend John F. Shappell -13- Item III-E I. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM # 38354 Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, 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 Se,vs'ion were heard, discussed or considered by VIrginia Beach City Council. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr" Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker. VIce Mayor WIlliam D. Ses's'oms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members' Voting Nay: None Itønlutinu 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 # 38353, Page No. 11, 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 confonnity 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. - 14 - Item III-F.]. MINUTES ITEM # 38355 Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Council Lady Parker, City Council APPROVED the Minutes of the INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS of August 23, 1994. Voting: 10-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, 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: John D. Mæs - 15 - Item llI-G.l.a. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION ITEM # 38356 Mayor Oberndorf PRESENTED to Colonel Lyman Hammond, Director, MacArthur Memorial: Resolution In Recognition of the 50th Anniverstlry of MacArthur's Landing at Leyte in the Philippines. On the morning of October 20, 1944, General MacArthur watched aboard his flagship, Nashville, as air and naval bombardments began. With 17 aircraft carriers, six battleships, 17 cruisers and 64 destroyers, MacArthur wrote in his Journal: "around me lay one of the greatest armadas of history. " After watching the initial invasion, MacArthur boarded a landing craft and headed toward the beach. CBS corespondent, William J. Dunn, reported, as he accompanied MacArthur, "General Douglas MacArthur waded ashore from a tiny landing barge, escorting through the knee deep surf, President Sergio Osmena, rightful leader of this free Commonwealth. " .,snlutinn IIŒJŒU: DaU¡¡las IllacArthur mas barn in £ltHe lIack, Arkansas, an January 26, 1880. the san af Army Captain Arthur MacArthur anð Mary Pinkney Harðy MacArthur af Narfalk, Qirginia, he accmnpanieð his family ta aariaus military pasts ðuring hh Hauth. MacArthur mas appainteð ta the Uniteð ,tates military Acaðmy, !Dest Paint, mhere he graðuateð first in his class in 1903; IIŒJŒU: Hh first ðuty assiglll1l2nt mas ta the Philippines anð aaer the years his career pragress mas steaðy, but it mas IDarlð !Dar I that helpeð launch a stellar career. macArtbur seraeð as Chief af ,tarr af the 42nð "lIainbam" Diaislan anð tammanðer af the 84th Infantry Brigaðe. Hh acHaiHes earneð him t..a DhHnguhheð 'eraice Crasses, a DhHnguisheð 'era ice lllaðal, seaen 'ilaer 'tars anð tma Purple Hearts. He mas pramateð ta Brigaðhr General af the NaHanal Army. fram 1922 ta 1930, he serad tma taurs in the Philippines; IIŒJŒU: In 1930, presiðent Herbert Haaaer appainteð MacArthur as Chief af ,tarr Uniteð ,tates Army, a past he helð until 1935, mhen he returneð ta the Philippines as military Aðaher ta the nemly establisheð Philippine Cammø...eaUh. He reHreð in 1937; hameaer, the General rmaineð military Maher ta the Philippine tammønmeaUh; IIŒJŒU: Because af Japan's acceleraHng expansian in the far East, Presiðent J!aaseaeU recalleð General MacArthur ta acHae ðuty in 1941 ta cammanð the nemly farmeð Uniteð ,tates Army farces, far East. IllacArthur mas taskeð mith mnbilhing the Philippine Army. !Dhen the mar ca... an December 7th, the U.'.- Philippine units mere na match far the Japanese assauU. they mere beaten back anta the Bataan peninsula anð fartress hlanðs blacking lllanila Bay, incluðing tarregiðar Islanð. Preslðent lIaaseaeU arðereð General macArthur ta leaae the Phillipines anð praceeð ta Australia. the General left Carregiðar in a tarpeða (PO baat. After hh eaacuaHan frmn the manila Bay fartress islanð af Carregiðar in 1942, General Dauglas macArthur faceð a 31-mnnth struggle ta return ta the Philippines anð aaenge the humiliaHng atraciHes the Japanese hað inflicteð an the Uniteð $tates anð Philippine traaps an the Bataan peninsula. General MacArthur traineð, arganiaeð, anð then leð his 'authmest Patific Cammanð thraugh Nem Guinea, Nem Britain, the Bismarcks, anð II1øratai priar ta arriaing in Ceyte Gulf, central Philippines in mið- (lctaber 1944; IIŒJŒU: (In the mnrning af (lctaber 20, MacArthur matcheð abaarð hh flagship, Nashaille, as air anð naaal bambarðments began. !Dith 17 aircraft carrhrs, six batHeships, 17 cruisers anð 64 ðestrayers, MacArthur mrate in hh Jaurnal: "araunð me lay ant af the greatest armaðas af hhtary." After matching the iniHal inaasian, MacArthur baarðeð a lanðing craft anð heaðeð tamarð the beach. tB' carrespanðent, !Dilliam J. Dunn, reparteð, as he aceampanhð macArthur, "General Dauglas macArthur maðeð ashare fram a Hny lanðing barge, 2ScarHng thrau¡¡h the knee ðeep surf, Presiðent ,ergia (ls...na, rightful leaðer af this free Cammø...eaUh." IIŒJŒU: As the General tank the mike ta ðeliaer his first message ta the Filipina peaple, a hm ðraps af rain began ta fall, the general ignareð the rain anð starteð hh famaus speech mith the marðs, "Peaple af the Philippines, I haae returneð." (In that ðay, 132,000 men anð aaer 107 thausanð tans af equipment anð supplies mere ðhchargeð anta the beaches aff Ceyte Gulf. As the traaps mnaeð inlanð, the fighHng became mnre intense. A tae- hn1ð hað been maðe by American anð Filipinn traaps anð macArthur's pramise hað been kept ta the filipina peaple. lei, UŒI£fIJII£, lIE It 1f.J«Œ): that the Qirginia Beach City Cauncil pays tribute ta this hhtarical aceasian anð recagnhes all tithens mha remember this great realhaHan af a pramise mhen General Danglas MacArthur returneð ta the Philippine peaple anð lanðeð an the islanð af Ceyte fifty years aga an (lctaber 20, 1944. Giaen unðer aur hanðs anð seals this thirteenth ðay af 'eptember, Nineteen Hunðreð anð Ninety Faur. Jahn A. Baum £lnmaað e. Branch, III J!ahert K. Dean !D. !D. Harrhan, Jr. Barbara m. Henley Cauls II. Janes Jahn D. lllass Nancy K. Parker Cunha m. $trayharn lllayera E. ebernðarf mayar !Dilliam D. 'essams, Jr. Qice mayar - 16 - Item III-G.l.b. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION ITEM # 38356 (Continued) Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Branch, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution In Recognition of the 50th Anniversary of MacArthur's Landing at Leyte in the Philippines, Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baurn, Linwood O. Branch. III, Robert K Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None -17- Item III-H.i. VIRGINIA BEACH EVENTS UNLIMITED ITEM # 38357 Nancy Creech, Pre!;ident of Virginia Beach Events Unlimited, advised Mr. Joseph Gianascoli, Chairman of the Board was out of town. Mrs. Creech advised the grandfather of all the events is the Neptune Festival. Between now and October Second, there will be activities every weekend. The public private partnership began in 1974 and is still going strong. Following 1995, the City will no longer be giving any direct monetary grants to support the Festival. At the present time approximately 97% of the funds are raised by the VBEU. The survey indicates one in every three residents attends some portion of the Neptune Festival. Dan Ryan, Chairman of the 1994 Neptune Festival, advised the results of the Economic Impact Study oj the 1993 Neptune Festival. Copies were distributed and are hereby made a part of the record. In 1993, the Festival generated expenditures of under $12-MIUION an increase of $3-MILLION from 1987. On the monetary investment from the City of $31,500.00, approximately $400,000 was returned in tax revenue. Over 80% oj the out-oj-town visitors stayed in hoteÜ' and accounted for over 12,000 hotel room nights during the week of the festival. Out-of-town visitors accounted for nearly 60% of the economic impact. 93% of the visjtor~. were repeat and plan to visit again within the next two years. 44 years was the average age of the visitor with income levels of $54,000. Mr. Ryan distributed Poseidon Pins and other mementoes of the Neptune Festival to Members of City Council. King Neptune, Roger Pierce, presented the Mayor and Members of City Council with commemorative coins. - i8- item ill-i. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38358 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council APPROVED in ONE MOTION, items i a.b.c., 4, 5 and 6 of the CONSENT AGENDA. AND, Item I.d.e.fg. was DEFERRED FOR THIRTY (30) DAYS until the City Council Session of October 25, 1994, Item 2 was DEFERRED INDEFINITELY and Item 4 were DEFERRED until the City Council Session of September 20, 1994. Voting: 1/-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch. III. Robert K Dean, William W. Harrison. Jr" Barbara M. Henley. Louis R. Jone,; John D. Mos,; Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker. Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None - 19 - Item III-lI.a.b.c. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38359 Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Mos~', City Council ADOPTED: Resolutions to program the VIrginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for urban system highway projects; and, that the City pay its share of the total costs: Improvement of City Line Road (CIP #2-261) from Kempsville Road to Interstate 64, a distance of approximately 1.8 miles. Improvement of Lynnhaven Parkway/Volvo Parkway (CIP #2- 257) from Centerville Turnpike to the Chesapeake city line, a distance of approximately 2,185 feet. Improvement of Lynnhaven Parkway from Indian River Road to Centerville Turnpike (Lynnhaven Parkway, Phase XI, CIP #2- 167), a distance of approximately 2.1 miles. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None PROJECT PROGRAMMING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by council resolution be made in order that the Department program an urban highway project in the city of Virginia Beach; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to establish a project for the improvement of city Line Road from Kempsville Road to Interstate 64, a distance of approximately 1.8 miles. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city of virginia Beach hereby agrees to pay its share of the total cost for preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction of this project in accordance with section 33.1-44 of the Code of Virginia, and that, if the city of virginia Beach subsequently elects to cancel this project, the city of Virginia Beach hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Adopted this 13 day of September , 19 ~ city of Virginia Beach, virginia. BY C ATTEST /J / /1- /~~ CI T Y LINE ROAD PROJECT PROGRAMMING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by Council resolution be made in order that the Department program an urban highway project in the city of Virginia Beach; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to establish a project for the improvement of Lynnhaven Parkway/Volvo Parkway from Centerville Turnpike to the Chesapeake city line, a distance of approximately 2185 feet. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city of Virginia Beach hereby agrees to pay its share of the total cost for preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction of this project in accordance with Section 33.1-44 of the Code of Virginia, and that, if the city of Virginia Beach subsequently elects to cancel this project, the City of virginia Beach hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Adopted this 13 day of September , 19 94 city of Virginia Beach, Virginia. BY r byfl. '--./ ATTEST ~~ Ch-n ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q~) f ~ () " --.-.-.---. LYNNHAVEN PARKWAY/ PROJECT PROGRAMMING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by Council resolution be made in order that the Department program an urban project in the city of Virginia Beach; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the city of Virginia Beach, virginia requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to establish a project for the improvement of Lynnhaven Parkway from Indian River Road to centerville Turnpike a distance of approximately 2.1 miles. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city of Virginia Beach hereby agrees to pay its share of the total cost for preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction of this project in accordance with section 33.1-44 of the Code of virginia, and that, if the city of virginia Beach subsequently elects to cancel this project, the city of Virginia Beach hereby agrees to reimburse the virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Adopted this 13 day of September , 19~ city of virginia Beach, Virginia. BY , \s{J1t ATTEST ~~<Z~ ~ ,C-U ERK OF COUNCIL !"~~'.".' ';~/{J,~." ".'.'.'.','.., !U)~- Kt:« / . -,~?:!-::f..s . "'>. ur úlV'( " '-'- CITy OF' . CiiYòl~~/~,! BEAC CHESAPÈ:Àìci: .!i .-.-.-.-.-.-. LYNNHAVEN PKWYa PHASE XI - 20- Item III-J.1.d.e.~¡:, CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38360 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Se>'soms. seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council DEFERRED FOR THIRTY (30) DAYS (10/25/94): Resolutions to program the VIrginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for urban system highway projects; and, that the City pay its >'hare of the total costs: Improvement of Laskin Road from Birdneck Road to Pacific Avenue (Laskin Road, Phase II, ClP #2-165), a distance of approximately 1.0 miles. Improvement of Laskin Road from Route 44 to First Colonial Road (Laskin Road, Phase Ill, ClP #2-264), a distance of approximately 1.4 miles. Improvement of Ferrell Parkway from Landstown Road to North Courthouse Loop (Ferrell Parkway, Phase II, ClP #2-305), a distance of approximately 2.2 miles. Improvement of Ferrell Parkway from Princess Anne Road to General Booth Boulevard (Ferrell Parkway, Phase V, ClP #2- 096), a distance of approximately 2. 7 miles. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor WIlliam D, Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn - 21 - Item III-I.2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38361 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITEL Y: Ordinance to authorize acquisition of property in fee simple for right- of-way for Dozier's Bridge Project (CIP #2-174) and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements of right-of-way, either by agreement or condemnation (PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH). Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Bourn, Linwood O. Branch, 111, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W HarrÜ'on, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Mos>~ Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor WIlliam D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Yoting Nay: None - 22 - Item III-I.3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38362 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $67,500 from the Health Insurance Trust Fund to the FY 1994-1995 General Fund Operating Budget re supporting increased preventive health care programs. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch. III, Robert K Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss. Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf. Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: 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 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $67,500 FROM THE HEALTH INSURANCE TRUST FUND TO THE FY 1994-95 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE OPPORTUNITIES WHEREAS, the City has achieved significant cost avoidance regarding in proactive health preventive due to part, care, programs; WHEREAS, national literature suggest that preventive health care programs can save from $3.00 to $10.00 for every dollar spent on prevention; WHEREAS, the Benefits Administration has identified several prevention programs costing $67,500 that have been and will be effective; WHEREAS, the Health Care Trust Fund was established for the sole purpose of supporting health care programs that are deemed effective; WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in the Health Insurance Trust Fund to pay for the prevention program; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA that $67,500 be appropriated from the Health Care Trust Fund to the FY 1994,95 General Fund Operating Budget supporting care preventive for the of health purpose programs. Adopted the Thirteen September , 1994, by the day of Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. This ordinance shall be in effect from the date of its adoption. - 23 - Item III-IA. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38363 Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council DEFERRED TO THE SEPTEMBER 20, 1994, CITY COUNCIL SESSION: Authorize cash payment in lieu of open space dedications of less than one acre with the Developer of Hidden Pointe Subdivision consistent with the policy for acquisition and development of park lands as outlined in the draft VIrginia Beach Outdoors Plan. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W Harrison, Jr., Barbara M Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D, Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor WIlliam D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None - 24 - Item III-I.5. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38364 Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize Tax Refunds in the amount of $2,194.01 upon application of certain persons and upon Certification of the City Treasurer for payment. Voting: lI-O Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III. Robert K Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M, Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None 'MNO.C.A.7 8/22/94 EMC AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TAX REFUNDS UPON APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS AND UPON CERTIFICATION OF THE TREASURER FOR PAYMENT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the following applications for tax refunds upon certification of the Treasurer are hereby approved: NAME Tax Type Ticket Exonera- Date Penalty Int. Total Year of Tax Number tion No. Paid Lomas Mortgage USA 94 REp/2¡ 84408-9 12/5/93 413.62 Burgess 0 & Ida C Taylor 94 RE 1/2 15862-2 5/19/94 54.87 Paul D & Vicki L Rasmussen 94 RE ( 1/2) 95729-7 11/26/93 736.44 Ba rba ra Jones 94 RE(I/2) 3722-8 2/9/94 23.24 United House of Prayer 94 RE(2/2) 127638-8 5/20/94 786.60 Laurence H Woods (See request form) 8/2/94 179.24 Total 2,194.01 - 25 - Item III-I.6. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 38365 Upon motion by VIce Mayor Sessoms, seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to authorize License Refunds in the amount of $45,310.40 upon application of certain persons and upon Certification of the Commissioner of the Revenue. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None FOAM NO CA . REV .... 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 Total Cae Link Corporation P.O. Box 1237 MS 594 Binghamton, NY 13902-1237 License Date Base Penalty In!. Year Paid 1991-94 Audit 7,556.86 1992-93 Audit 11,757.00 Chevron-USA Inc. T/A Chevron-Majik Mart P.O. Box F Concord, CA 94524 Christian Broadcasting Network T/A Founders Inn/Conference Center 5641 Indian River Road 1991-94 Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Audit 943.42 Certif,ed as to Payment: >' :/- //~/ÇjÇ--- ~obert P, Vaugha Commissioner of the Revenue Approved as to form' This ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. The above abatement(s) totaling $ 20.2'>7 2R 13 of the City of Virginia Beach on the - day of were approved by the Council September ,19 ~ Ruth Hodges Smith City Clerk 7,556.86 11,757.00 943.42 """"NO. C.A' AEV. HI 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 01 the Revenue are hereby approved: NAME Ucense Year Date Paid Base Penalty Int. Total Countless Keepsakes, Inc. 913 Sonora Court Virginia Beach, VA 23456 1992-93 Audit 35.22 35.22 Lattural0, Karl J., President Diamond Shores Exxon, Inc. 1029 winchester Way 1991-93 Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Audit 861.76 861. 76 Dragon Station, Inc. T/A Forbidden City 3644 Virginia Beach Blvd. Virginia Beach, VA 23452 1992-94 Audit 432.69 432.69 Certified as to Payment: /7, - ~:; ~;::;:?- Commissioner of the Revenue Approved as to form: This ordinance shall be effective Irom date of adoption. The above abatement(s) totaling $ 1.329.67 were approved by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the ~ day 01 September , 19 ~ Ruth Hodges Smith City Clerk fOAM NO. C.A. . REV. 3111 L - 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 Year Date Paid Base Penalty In!. Total Hayes, Tim F. 4701 Eastwind Road Virginia Beach, VA 23464 1991-93 Audit 30.00 30.00 Johnson, Richard W. 1992-93 T/A Blue Ridge Feeders & Homes 5395 Elm Forest Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Audit 12.00 12.00 Lawson Group, Ltd. The P.o. Box 61789 Virginia Beach, VA 23466 1992-94 Audit 324.03 324.03 Certified as to Payment: ~¿ ~;;)'-L-- ,;....¡:IÓbert P. Vaugha Commissioner of the Revenue Approved as to form: ~~ Leslie L. Lilley City Attorney This ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. The above abatement(s) totaling $ 366.03 of the City of Virginia Beach on the ~ day of were approved by the Council September 94 ,19_. Ruth Hodges Smith City Clerk FORM NO C.A. . REV .... 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 Year Paid 1992-94 Audit 1992-94 Audit Base Penalty Int. Total Lawson Realty Corporation P.O. Box 61789 Virginia Beach, VA 23466 2,302.42 2,302.42 Lee, C. Frank T/A Pacific Company USA 2120 Advent Court Virginia Beach, VA 23454 34.75 34.75 May Department Stores Company, The T/A Hechts (North & South) 1992-94 685 North Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22203 Audit 20,022.00 20,022.00 Audit 402.19 402.19 Renager, Burton W. 1991-94 T/A Burton W. Renager-USPA 161 Business Park Drive #200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Cer1itled as to Payment. ~~~~ L--!'I6bert P. Vaughan / Commiss,oner of the Revenue Approved as to form: ~irt!~ City Attorney This ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. The above abatement(s) totaling $22.761 16 of the City of Virginia Beach on the ~ day of were approved by the Council September ,19~ Ruth Hodges Smith City Clerk FOAM NO CA' REV,"" 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 Year Date Paid Base Penalty In!. Total Taylor, David L. T/A Frost Land Concepts 5720 Vol sung Court #203 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 1992-93 Audit 41. 88 41.88 Tibbett, Larry James 1992-93 T/A Larrys House of Guns 1765 Chase Pointe Circle #1117 Virginia Beach, VA 23454 Audit 30.00 30.00 Till We Meet Again Inc. P.O. Box 11274 Norfolk, VA 23517 1993 Audit 53.74 53.74 1991-94 Audit 470.44 470.44 5-S Corporation, The T/A Dunkin Donuts 2928 Shore Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Certif,ed as to Payment. p y,~ 't[: .:...--Áobert P. Vaughan Commiss,oner of the evenue Approved as to form This ordinance shall be effective from date of adoption. The above abatement(s) totaling $ 596.06 of the City of Virginia Beach on the ~ day of were approved by the Council September .19~ Ruth Hodges Smith City Clerk - 26- Item III-J.I. PUBliC HEARING ITEM # 38366 PLANNING Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf DECLARED a PUBliC HEARING on: PLANNING I. (a) EIGHT D CORPORATION (b) QUICK 10 CORPORATION (c) D & M CORPORATION (d) VIRGINIA BEACH ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES AND CHARLES S. FRIEDMAN RECONSIDERATION OF PROFFERS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF ZONING - 27 - Item III-J.I.a PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 38367 PLANNING Attorney R Edward Bourdon, Pembroke One, Fifth Floor, represented the applicant Upon motion by Councilman Dean, seconded by VIce Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPROVED the REVISED CONDITIONS. that govern development opportunities on the site in the April 27, 1993, Approved Application of EIGHT D CORPORATION, a VIrginia Corporation for a Change of Zoning from AG-2 to J1.=l and a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF EIGHT D CORP., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION FOR A C1IANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLAS~LFICATION FROM AG-2 TO B-2 204931385 Ordinance upon application of Eight D Corp., a VIrginia Corporation for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-2 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District on certain property located at the northeast corner of General Booth Boulevard and Culver Lane. The proposed zoning classification change to B-2 Community Business District is for community-wide commercial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for medium density single-family residerttial land use at densities that are compatible with single-family use in accordance with other plan policies. The Plan also allows for neighborhood office land use if standards outlined in the Courthouse- Sandbridge chapter of the plan are adhered to. Said parcel contains 2.2 acres. PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH. AND, ORDINANCES UPON APPLICATION OF EIGHT D CORP., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION R04931817 Ordinance upon application of Eight D Corp., a VIrginia Corporation for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station and car wash on certain property located at the northeast corner of General Booth boulevard and Culver Lane. Said parcel contains 2.2 acres. PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH. .Proffer #4 of said agreement has been revised to provide for a newly submitted 5'ite plan to govern development opportunities on the property. (Rendering prepared by Talbot Group, dated July 12, 1994, entitled "Culver Lane Convenience Center",) The differences between the previously approved site plan and the newly submitted site plan include relocation of the retention pond from the front . .... . - 28- Item Ill-J.J.a PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 38367 (Continued) PLANNING Voting: lJ-O Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, Ill, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor William D. Sessoms. Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None EIGHT D CORPORATION, a virginia corporation TO CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a Municipal corporation AMENDMENT OF COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS PROFFERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 107(h} OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31st day of May, 1994, between EIGHT D CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation (hereinafter "GRANTOR"), and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter "GRANTEE"). ~.l:.rIi]i;~~]i;:.rH":" WHEREAS, in connection with the re-zoning of certain property then owned by the GRANTOR, an Agreement of covenants, restrictions, and conditions (hereinafter "AGREEMENT" ) was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 3208, at Page 1607, on April 28, 1993; and WHEREAS, the GRANTOR has petitioned the Council of the City of Virginia Beach pursuant to Section l07(h} of the City's Zoning Ordinance to amend the covenants, restrictions and conditions contained in the Agreement; and . CARNES. BOURDON UHERN. " C, I'ORNEYS AT LAW - 1 - WHEREAS, after a public hearing before GRANTEE, advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-431, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach did approve the amendment of the AGREEMENT as stated herein; and WHEREAS, a certified copy of the Ordinance adopted by the City Council wherein consent to this amendment to the AGREEMENT was given is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW, THEREFORE, the GRANTOR, for itself, its successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntari ly and without any requirement by or exaction from the GRANTEE or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or JI1.li.d l1.X.Q .9.Y2 for zoning, re-zoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of covenants, restrictions and conditions as to the physical development and operation of the Property and governing the use thereof and hereby tenders the following covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the GRANTOR, its assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: (1) Paragraph numbered 4. of the AGREEMENT is hereby deleted and the following Paragraph is added in its place: . ""RNES. BOuRDON . AHERN. ~ c. IORNEVS AT LAW 4. The site plan prepared by Talbot Group, Ltd. , dated May 25, 1994, entitled "Culver Lane Convenience Center for Eight D Corporation" and those right-of-way dedications for Culver Lane and General Booth Boulevard depicted thereon, as well as the "Rendering" prepared by Talbot Group, dated July 12, 1994, entitled "Culver Lane Convenience Center", which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, shall be substantially adhered to so that there shall be coordinated design and development of the site in terms of access, circulation, parking, landscaping, best management practices as landscape features, lighting, signs, setbacks and building location consistent with or superior to the applicable Design Standards for General Booth Boulevard contained in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Except as provided herein all terms of the covenants, restrictions and condi tions contained in the AGREEMENT recorded in Deed Book 3208, at Page 1607 in the aforesaid Clerk's Office shall remain in full force and effect. CARNES. BOURDON , AHERN, R C. tIRIIEYB '" lAW WITNESS the following signatures and seals: EIGHT D CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation ~sident By: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1st day of August, 1994, by W. R. Malbon, President of Eight D Corporation, on behalf of said corporation. ~#y ¿¡JÆ,~ My Commission Expires: August 31, 1994 4592i '. CARNES. BOURDON . AHERN. A C. "TCAN!YS AT LAW Item III-I.I.b. PUBliC HEARING PLANNING - 29- ITEM # 38368 Stuart A. W¡/liams, Princess Anne and Baxter, represented the applicant Upon motion by Council Lady Strayhorn, seconded by VIce Mayor Sessoms, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon Application of QUICK 10 CORPORATION for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF QUICK 10 CORPORATION FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORAN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND CAR WASH RO99419/3 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CI1Y OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of (2uick 10 Corporation for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station and car wash on certain property located at the southeast corner of Princess Anne Road and Baxter Road. Said parcel contains 28,544 square feet. KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH. The following conditions shall be required: 1. A stormwater management plan will be required during site plan review. 2. A Real Estate encroachment agreement must be signed with the Public Works Department for improvements on the 30 foot wide drainage easement bisecting the site. 3. No repair work will be performed outside of the service bays. 4. No curb cut shall be allowed on Princess Anne Road. 5. A right deceleration turn lane with curb cut off Baxter Road into site. 6. The architecture of the building shall be constructed similar to structure depicted in the bottom left and upper right corner of the Exhibit provided and hereby made a part of the record. The brick in the building shall match the adjacent shopping center buildings. The Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (j) of the Zoning Ordinance. - 30 - Item III-J.l.b. PUBUC HEARING ITEM # 38368 (Continued) PLANNING Voting: 9-2 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baurn, Linwood O. Branch, III, WIlliam W Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor WIlliam D. Sesso,",; Jr, and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: Robert K Dean and Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Quick 10 - P.A. & Baxter Rds. ~ ~~~, " / / 170,17' / ~~-, ~ EX, ENlRANCE S 3"40'02. E t < 51 - PROPOSED CARWASH (1 BAY) [?'/ i~ I ~¡¡¡ ,,~- I i /:); / . III I 1/1. { / 1'1 N " .~ I U II I ! I ~I I I , \~ r.~ \";~, l'.~:," '. \::..:,~"" :,:~"". , : i' ~ ~~ ~ ~ 51 ~ ¡ I ~\o ~I, ~ 3 p g ~ ~ j;¡ .~ ~ ~ ~ " L-107,52' CH/..." 1'U<\P).",',:',',"',:,'. "-2922.29' "'He 1 ÅS::;!.::"."r"~'t'}~~C:~::,.::",,- CONe. ODE..u, PRINCESS ANNE ROAD 43 -~l.~Q ~~~:~~ ..u ~--"'n Quick 10 P.O. Box 29502 (919) 881-5240 ç "'" ..- 7/ØßHI',{UII""-' .r, . I ::.;fJr;.. ." ! ~ . r:, . . ;.e - la' 11 '\ ~!J --..:"- '.. ,-. ~.,.:;.-- I"'. '.:.- ~ Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0502 "-H__.. ,-"-",..,,-',. ""----,, ,~."",", - ,,-- ""-,, - -----., -"!' The one \\ith style: QuICk [0, ---"--" - " /'C-~~-' RIGHT IN.' '.. ,,' Architec~~~k~~;~~~SiOnallY, ~ How our Quick 10 grounds and structUre look are as important to our acceptance and ultimate success as ho\\' well our staff performs, We stri\"e for architecture with em1ronmentally . '--"'.-- n ---. friendly lines, materials and aesthetics. We enhance each locatIon \\ith extensi\"e landscapmg to pro\1de optimum curb appeal and assure an in\1ting welcome to our customers and neighbors, QuICk ¡Os are often located on outparccls of shopping centers with such tenants as Publix and Farm Fresh and in such desirable areas as Kildaire Farms in Cary. '\1orth Carolina, Professional in operation and appearance. cmd neighborly In attItude. a QuICk 10 is much more ._-, - ,"-----." than a place lor prompt. exacting auto semces, Its a place that in\1les success and a steady now of ~ ' business flw the community which it seC\TS, ~'~ ) Bring pnde to your parcel Enhance it \\1lh the . .'" ~chitecturally pleasing, en\'lronmentally responsIble \.,! /aUlo seC\ice center. --~--, --, ------,-'-" , ,,"-,,- - " " ...'~, . - 31 - Item JJI-J.1.c. PUBLIC HEARiNG ITEM # 38369 PLANNING Attorney John Richardson represented the applicant Upon motion by Councilman Jones, seconded by Councilman Moss, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of D & M CORP., for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF D & M CORP., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONVENIENCE STORE AND A CAR WASH RO.9941914 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of D & M Corp., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automobile service station in conjunction with a convenience store and a car wash on the southwest side of Independence Boulevard, northwest of Lake~'ide Road. Said parcel is located at 1645 Independence Boulevard. BAYSJDE BOROUGH. The following conditions shall be required: 1. All existing curb cuts on Rutherford Road will be eliminated. 2. A 15 foot land~'cape buffer consisting of shrubs and low height trees will be installed on the property along Rutherford Road. 3. A storm water management plan will be required during site plan review. 4. The car vacuum shall be located in the North side of the car wash away from the residential area. ""'- /)-.,,----- ALII L -"--,,..- ,- __M_d___- ...,.L "--"-- ",.",.. _r .,-, ." - 32 - Item III-J. 1. c. PUBliC HEARING ITEM # 38369 (Continued) PLANNING Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood O. Branch, Ill, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. OberndorJ, Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor WIlliam D. Sessoms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None - 33 - Item lII-J.J.d. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 38370 PLANNING Attorney Morris Fine represented the applicant and requested DEFERRAL. Upon motion by Council Lady Strayhorn, seconded by VIce Mayor Sessoms, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of September 27, 1994, an Ordinance upon application of VIRGINIA BEACH ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES AND CHARLES S. FRIEDMAN for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES AND CHARLES S. FRIEDMAN FOR A CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-5D to 0-1 Ordinance upon application of VIrginia Beach Orthopaedic Associates and Charles S. Friedman for a Conditional Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to 0-1 Office District on certain property located on the west side of Kempsville Road, south of Canterford Lane. The proposed zoning classification change to 0-1 is for office land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for high density residential at densities that are compatible with single-family use in accordance with other Plan policie~'. Said parcel is located at 1445 Kempsville Road and contains 34,848 square feet more or less. KEMSPVILLE BOROUGH Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood 0. Branch, Ill, Robert K Dean, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Ses~'oms, Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: IIlmw - 34- Item III-KI APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 38371 Upon NOMINATION by VIce Mayor Sessoms, City Council APPOINTED: VIRGINIA BEACH CRIME TASK FORCE Kenneth F. Palmer (to represent Chamber of Commerce) Unexpired term thru 2/28/96 Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: John A. Baum, Linwood 0. Branch, III, Robert K Dean, WIlliam W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, John D. Moss, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K Parker, VIce Mayor WIlliam D. Sessa",,', Jr. and Louisa M. Strayhorn Council Members Voting Nay: None - 35 - Item III-K2. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 38372 BY CONSENSUS, City Council RESCHEDULED the following APPOINTMENTS: VML - HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMIITEE VML - PUBLIC SAFETY COMMIITEE WETLANDS BOARD - 36 - Item IIl-LI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 38373 Mayor Oberndorf DECLARED A PUBLIC HEARING: ELECTORAL PLAN - REAPPORTIONMENT The following spoke concerning the issue: Al Strazzullo, 3120 Sand Pine Road, Phone: 481-0024 Maurice Jackson. Il25 Ditchley Road, Phone: 428-1470, Chairman of the Reapportionment Committee of the Council of Civic Organizations Ed Bacon, 2720 Ebb Tide Road, Phone: 481-2170 Lee Banks, 1901 Jack Frost Road, Phone: 464-4023 Tony Zontini, 209 69th Street, Phone: 425-7360 Jim Wzllenbrink, 605 Hudgins Court, Phone: 497-0700 Samuel W. Meekins, Jr., 4601 Crystalwood Court. Phone: 495-1428 Patrick Standing, Home: 428-3837 Lou Pace, 1908 Hunts Neck Court, Phone; 468-0925 J. E. Weirich, 1508 Back Cove Road, Phone; 481-0421 Maxine Graham. 3057 South Sandpiper Road. Phone: 721 -3000 Sheldon Corner, 325 Susan Constant Drive, Phone: 428-J731 There being no further speakers, Mayor Oberndorf CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. - 37- Item IJI-M.l. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 38374 ADD-ON Council Members Moss and Parker referenced the proposed new Vocational Educational Center. Last Friday, September 9, 1994, Council Members Moss and Parker met with Dr. Sidney Faucette - Superintendent of Schools, James Darden - School Board Chairman, and James K Spore - City Manager, to kick off the process' of groundwork for the Vocational Educational Center. They are requesting the School Site Selection Committee accelerate their decision making process on whether or not the facility should be co-located within an existing high school, and make that decis'ion by November 15, 1994, in order to be incorporated within the CIP process for site acquisition. They will be bringing forth a small study group of nine to as's'ÍS't in identifying the demand for technical training in terms of employment. - 38- Item III-M.2. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 38375 ADD-ON Council Lady Parker referenced the correspondence from the Resort Area Advisory Commission. The Soccer Complex was requesting a loan of $2-MILLION and asked the MAC recommend City Council build the stadium and negotiate a lease with the Hampton Roads Hurricanes to play in VIrginia Beach. Council Lady Parker understood the MAC would be doing the majority offund raising. Councilman Moss did not believe MAC should pass on a recommendation to City Council. The City Manager advised Michael Barrett and other members of the Soccer Association have presented a proposal requesting consideration on an interest paying loan to allow them to build the facility faster. The Association has raised approximately $1!2-MILLION and wished to accelerate the program by this loan. Parks and Recreation is reviewing the details of this proposal. Ihe Staff will return with a Briefing relative the Soccer Complex. Council Lady Parker referenced the request for funding relative a sign for the Center of the Arts also contained in the Minutes' of the MAc. Mayor Oberndorf advised meeting with the City Manager, Councilman Branch and Helen Snow concerning this' issue, The entrance sign is almost impossible to recognize. Concepts were drawn with an entranceway structure proposed. Costs quoted were between $55,000 and $65,000 and they would be requesting the City to finance same. The City Manager had Ylquired If some private participation could be utilized for this particular request, The City Attorney is investigating and the City Council will be advised. Councilman Moss advised the City is' currently paying approximately $80,000 per year for the utilities for the Arts Center. Council Lady Parker ad>'ised the MAC correspondence also suggested letters be written requesting the City Council accept the "downtown" concept of promoting. This is a far stretch from the Beachfront, Council Lady Parker requested information concerning MAC's proper role. - 39 - Item III-M.3. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 38376 ADD-ON Councilman Dean requested information relative the guidelines of the various Boards and Commissions, specifically the Resort Area Advisory Commission. Councilman Dean inquired whether said members were required to be citizens of Virginia Beach. The City Attorney will pravide information to City Council. - 40- Item III-M.4. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 38377 ADD-ON Mayor Oberndorf advised the Central Business District, while preparing a concept for the station for the light rail, plans should be made for having a raised structure at the Independence Crossing for the light rail because an at-grade crossing during major traffic would greatly inhibit other vehicular traffic. Councilman Jones understood TRT was about to enter into a contract again pertaining to light rau. Councilman Jones advised City Council, which is a significant contributor, has not been informed as to the focus or perimeters of the Study. The City Council should be informed so as to establish guidelines. Councilman Jones further referenced a major portion of the capital cost, if approved, could be obtained from the Federal Government. After the capital cost is expended and the operation is in existence, then the burden falls upon the localities to subsidize any shortfalls in operating revenues. The City Manager advised this Study is essentially a ..tudy of a starter segment to the line which might be more cost-effective than the system studied several years ago. TRT is in the process of selecting a consultant for this Study. Councilman Moss advised the TRT Steering Committee only includes members w/w have a vested interest in light rail construction. Council Lady Strayhorn, newly appointed Member of the Tidewater Transportation District Commission, will provide City Council's comments to the Commission and advise City Council. - 4i - item ill-M.S. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 38378 ADD-ON Councilman Dean reminded City Council of the PUBLIC HEARING - Princess Anne Recreation Center at 7:00 P.M., tonight, September 13, 1994, for the benefit of the Courthouse Sandbridge Coalition of Civic Leagues. The Economic Development Department will be providing information on land use proposals tor Corporate Landing. - 42 - Item lII-M.6. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 38379 ADD-ON Councilman Dean referenced the very upscale pamphlet distributed by Salem High School. Councilman Dean requested information be provided relative this very expensive brochure. Mayor Oberndorf and VIce Mayor Sessoms will be meeting with the School Board, the Superintendent of Schools and the City Manager the second Friday in October and will inquire concerning the funding for this brochure. - 43 - Item IIl-M.7. NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 38380 ADD-ON Mayor Oberndorf advised Kempsville High School recognized their Academic Excellent Scholars with a 3.2 average. This was a magnificent ceremony attended by the Junior and Senior High Students. The students received a letter with the "Lamp of Learning" for their sweaters. Mayor Oberndorf regretted Virginia Beach Municipal Cable, Channel 48, was not in attendance to record this "good news ". - 44 - [tern [[[-N.l. ADJOURNMENT ITEM # 38381 Mayor Oberndorf DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED 01 4:52 P.M. ~~~~~~---------- Chief Deputy City Clerk ~_~n_____- Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE City Clerk -------------------------- Meyera E. Oberndorf Mayor City ~f Virgi:t:1ia Beach WILLIAM D, SESSOMS, JR VICE MAYOR 809 GREENTREE ARCH VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23451 (SO,) 473.3926 September 13,1994 Mrs. Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE City Clerk Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Dear Mrs. Smith: In accordance with my letter to you dated August 10, 1993, I have thoroughly reviewed the agenda for the September 13, 1994, meeting of City Council for the purpose of identifying any matters in which I might have an actual or potential conflict under the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act. Based on that review, please be advised that, to the best of my knowledge, there are no matters on the agenda in which I have a "personal interest," as defined in the Act, either individually or in my capacity as an officer of Central Fidelity Bank. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you record this letter in the official records of the Council. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, tuv(~ William D. Sessoms, Jr. Vice-Mayor WDS,Jr.lc1b City of Virgi:r1.ia Beach WILLIAM w. HARRISON, JR COUNCILMAN, L VNNHAVEN BOROUGH (BO4) 628-5565 2088 THOMAS BISHOP LANE VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23454 September 13, 1994 Mrs. Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE City Clerk Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 RE: Disclosure Pursuant to Section 2.1-639.14(E), Code of Virginia Dear Mrs. Smith: Pursuant to Section 2.1-639.14(E) of the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, I hereby make the following disclosure: 1. International Family Entertainment, Inc. ("IFE") and its subsidiary, Great American Entertainment Company, have expressed an interest in developing an entertainment venue on property owned by the City of Virginia Beach. 2. The nature of my "personal interest," as defined in the Act, is that I am a partner in the law firm of Willcox & Savage, P.c., earning an annual income that exceeds $10,000, and that I personally provide representational services to IFE and Great American Entertainment Company. 3. The City Attorney has advised me that I am required to disclose my personal interest as it would meet the criteria of a "personal interest in a transaction" with respect to any matter considered by City Council which involves IFE or Great American Entertainment Company. He has also advised me that I would be disqualified from participating in any such matter. 4. Prior to submitting this letter, I informally notified the City Manager, the Mayor, and my fellow members on Council of this personal interest, and I have excused myself from participating in any meetings or discussions of the Council wherein the interests of my clients have been involved. Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE -2- September 13, 1994 Accordingly, I respectfully request that you record this declaration in the official records of City Council. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, :,l:!; f:!::Ð Councilmember WWH:sam City of Virgi:r1ia Beach WILLIAM W HARRISON, JR COUNCILMAN, L YNNHAVEN BOROUGH (ao,) 628-S56S 2088 THOMAS BISHOP LANE VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23454 September 13, 1994 Mrs. Ruth Hodges-Smith, CMC/AAE City Clerk Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Dear Mrs Smith: I have enclosed herewith an opinion letter from Leslie L. Lilley, City Attorney, which I respectfully request to be recorded in the official records of City Council. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, t!!:w~~ Councilmember WWH:dlr Enclosure City at Virgi:n..ia Beach LESLIEL LILLEY CIT' ATTORNE' MUNICIPAl CENTER VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23<56-9004 (8041427-4531 FAX (8041 426-5667 In Reply Refer To Our File No. OP-207 September 9, 1994 Councilmember William W. Harrison, Jr. Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion Dear Councilmember Harrison: I am writing in response to your request for our assistance in identifying the general limitations, if any, on your ability to participate in transactions before City Council, or the ability of the law firm of Willcox & Savage, P.C, to enter into a contract with the City of Virginia Beach, based on your status as a member of City Council and a partner in Willcox & Savage. SUMMARY CONCLUSION Based on the facts presented herein, you have a "personal interest" in Willcox & Savage based on your receipt of annual income from a "business" which exceeds $10,000. The issue, therefore, is whether or not you would have a "personal interest in a transaction" before City Council in which a client of Willcox & Savage is involved, or a "personal interest in a contract" between the City and Willcox & Savage. 1. "Personal Interest in a Transaction" You would not have a "personal interest in a transaction" before City Council in which a client of Willcox & Savage is the subject of the transaction, or in which it is reasonably foreseeable that such client will realize a direct or indirect benefit or detriment . Councilmember William W. Harrison, Jr. -2- September 9. 1994 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion as a result of Council's consideraûon of the transacûon, unless you personally provide representaûonal services to that client. In addiûon, you would not have a "personal interest in a transacûon" involving a business or individual which ~, at some point in the future, retain your services; provided the prospect that your services will be retained by such business or individual in the future is speculaûve. Likewise, you would not have a "personal interest in a transacûon" involving a business or individual for which you personally provided representaûonal services in the past, as long as you have not been retained by such business or individual with respect to any current or future matter, and it is not reasonably foreseeable that you will be retained by such business or individual in the future. 2. "Personal Interest in a Contract" You would not be prohibited from having a "personal interest in a contract" between the City of Virginia Beach and Willcox & Savage, provided that (i) your sole personal interest in the contract is by reason of income from Willcox & Savage in excess of $10,000 per year and (ii) you do not participate, and have no authority to participate, in the procurement of the contract on behalf of Willcox & Savage or the City. This opinion addresses, in general terms, your ability (or inability) to participate in transacûons of the City Council. With respect to specific transacûons in which you may have a personal interest, I encourage you to request an opinion which addresses the facts of a given situaûon. I base the aforesaid conclusions on the following facts which you have presented. Please review and verify the accuracy of the facts as set forth herein, as you may only rely upon this opinion if they are correct and complete. FACTS PRESENTED You have advised Ù1at your concern, and reason for requesting this opinion, is that you are a member of City Council and a partner in the law firm of Willcox & Savage, earning an annual income from each enûty Ù1at exceeds $10,000, You have also advised Ù1at alÙ1ough you have an ownership interest in Willcox & Savage, that interest does not exceed three percent of Ù1e total equity of the firm. ISSUE PRESENTED What, if any, limitaûons does Ù1e State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act impose on your ability to parricipate in transacûons before City Council, or on the ability Councilmember William W. Harrison, Jr. -3- September 9,1994 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion of the law firm of Willcox & Savage to enter into a contract with the City of Virginia Beach, based on your status as a member of City Council and a partner in Willcox & Savage? D ISCUSSI ON IC ONCL USI ON I. Applicable Definitions of the Act The State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act is set forth in §§ 2.1-639.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. For purposes of this opinion, the following definitions, found in § 2.1-639.2 of the Act, are pertinent: "Business" means a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, trust or foundation, or any other individual or entity carrying on a business or profession, whether or not for profit. "Contract" means any agreement to which a governmental agency is a party, or any agreement on behalf of a governmental agency which involves the payment of money appropriated by the General Assembly or political subdivision.... "Governmental agency" means each component part of the legislative, executive or judicial branches of state and local government, including each office, department, authority, post, commission, committee, and each institution or board created by law to exercise some regulatory or sovereign power or duty as distinguished from purely advisory powers or duties. "Officer" means any person appointed or elected to any governmental or advisory agency, whether or not he receives compensation or other emolument of office. "Personal interest" means a personal and financial benefit or liability accruing to an officer or employee or to a member of his immediate family. Such interest shall exist by reason of (i) ownership in a business if the ownership interest exceeds three percent of the total equity of the business; (ii) annual income that exceeds, or may reasonably be anticipated to exceed, $10,000 from ownership in real or personal property or a business; (iii) salary, other compensation, fringe benefits, or Councilmember William W. Harrison, Ir. -4- September 9, 1994 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion benefits from the use of property, or any combination thereof, paid or provided by a business that exceeds, or may reasonably be anticipated to exceed, $10,000 annually; (iv) ownership of real or personal property if the interest exceeds $10,000 in value and excluding ownership in a business, income, or salary, other compensation, fringe benefits or benefits from the use of property; or (v) personal liability incurred or assumed on behalf of a business if the liability exceeds three percent of the asset value of the business. 'Personal interest in a contract' means a personal interest which an officer or employee has in a contract with a governmental agency, whether due to his being a party to the contract or due to a personal interest in a business which is a party to the contract. 'Personal interest in a transaction' means a personal interest of an officer or employee in any matter considered by his agency. Such personal interest exists when an officer or employee or a member of his immediate family has a personal interest in property or a business, or represents any individual or business and such property, business or represented individual or business (i) is the subject of the transaction or (ii) may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment as a result of the action of the agency considering the transaction. 'Transaction' means any matter considered by any governmental or advisory agency, whether in a committee. subcommittee, or other entity of that agency or before the agency itself, on which official action is taken or contemplated. ll. Application of Definitions to the Facts A. General Definitions City Council is a "governmental agency. since it is a legislative branch oflocal government. In addition, you are an "officer" as defined in the Act, Willcox & Savage is a "business," any matter on which the Council either takes, or contemplates taking, official Councilinember William W. Harrison, Jr. .5- September 9, 1994 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion action is a "transaction," and any agreement between the City and Willcox & Savage for the provision of legal services would constitute a "contract." B. "Personallnterest" As stated above, a "personal interest," as defined in the Act, exists by reason of one of five specific financial interests. My review of those interests and the facts presented indicate that you have a personal interest in Willcox & Savage by virtue of the fact that you receive annual income from a "business" that exceeds $10,000. C, "Personal Interest in a Transaction" You would have a "personal interest in a transaction" before the Council if you represent a business or individual, and the business or individual (i) is the subject of the transaction or (ü) may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment as a result of Council's action with respect to the transaction. In that regard, the Anorney General has opined that "the definition of 'personal interest in a transaction,' when such an interest is based on representation, requires that the officer personally provide the representational services," CO! Advisory Opinion No. 9-A10 (1989) (attached). (Emphasis is original.) The opinion goes on to provide that "[t]his requirement [is] for ~ representation, rather than representation by another member of a finn or business...." [d. (Emphasis is original.) Therefore, you would only be prohibited from participating in a transaction which involves (or effects) a business or individual for which you personally provide representational services. This prohibition would extend to any business or individual which you personally represent even if you do not represent the business or individual with respect to the specific transaction under consideration by City Council. This prohibition would not extend, however, to a business or individual represented by another member of Willcox & Savage. ' ¡See also, CO! Advisory Opinion No. 6-A26 (1987) (attached), wherein the Attorney General opined as fo\lows: The changes in the language of the definition of "personal interest in a transaction" in the 1987 Act reflect an apparent legislative intent to limit the basis of a "persona] interest in a transaction" to the personal rather than the vicarious, representation of a business or individual by the officer or employee in question. Councilmember William W. Harrison, Jr. -6- September 9,1994 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion You would also have a "personal interest in a transaction" before the Council if a business or individual which is the subject of. or may realize a direct or indirect benefit or detriment as a result of, the transaction has retained you to represent its (his/he) interests following Council's action, even though you do not personally represent the business or individual with respect to the transaction itself. This conclusion is based on the fact that you may personally realize a direct or indirect financial benefit or detriment as a result of Council's action. The Attorney General has opined, however, that "an attorney-legislator cannot have a 'personal interest in a transaction' involving a future or prospective client." 1986-1987 Report o/lhe Attorney General at 14 (attached). Therefore, you would not have a "personal interest in a transaction" involving a business or individual which ~, at some point in the future, retain your services; provided the prospect that your services will be retained by such business or individual in the future is speculative. Likewise, you would not have a "personal interest in a transaction" involving a business or individual for which you personally provided representational services in the past, as long as you have not been retained by such business or individual with respect to any current or future matter, and it is not reasonably foreseeable that you will be retained by such business or individual in the future. Pursuant to § 2.1-639.11(A)(l) of the Act, you would be disqualified from participating in any transaction in which you have a "personal interest," unless your client "is a member of a business, profession, occupation, or group the members of which are affected by the transaction...." § 2.1-639.ll(A)(2). D. "Personal Interest in a Contract" Section 2.1-639.7 of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o person elected or appointed as a member of the governing body of a county, city or town shall have a personal interest in..,any contract with his governing body...." However, § 2.1-639.9 of the Act sets forth certain exceptions to this prohibition. If the City of Virginia Beach were to procure the legal services of Willcox & Savage, the following exception would be applicable as long as you are not personally involved in the procurement process: It is my opinion, therefore, based on the definition of "personal interest in a transaction" in § 2.1-639.2 and the specific changes in me language when compared 10 the parallel definition in the 1983 Acl. thaI, under the 1987 Act, you would not have a personal interest ¡n...transaclions whkh may affect...a client of your law firm...as long as you do not personally represent mat.. .[client)." , Councilmember William W. Harrison, Jr. -7- September 9, 1994 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion A. The provisions of §§ 2.1-639.6 through 2.1-639.8 shall not apply to: 4. An officer or employee whose sole personal interest in a contract with the governmental agency is by reason of income from the contracting fmn or governmental agency in excess of $10,000 per year, provided the officer or employee or a member of his immediate family does not participate and has no authority to participate in the procurement or letting of such contract on behalf of the contracting firm and the officer or employee either does not have authority to participate in the procurement or letting of the contract on behalf of his governmental agency or he disqualifies himself as a matter of public record and does not participate on behalf of his governmental agency in negotiating the contract or in approving the contract; E. Disclosure Requirements If you are disqualified from participating in a transaction pursuant to § 2,1- 639. 11 (A)(I) , you must disclose your interest in accordance with § 2.1-639.14(E). If. on the other hand, you are permitted to participate in a transaction pursuant to § 2.1- 639.11(A)(2), you must disclose your interest in accordance with § 2.1-639.14(G) by stating (i) the transaction involved, (ii) the nature of your personal interest affected by the transaction, (ill) that your client is a member of a business, profession, occupation or group, the members of which are affected by the transaction, and (iv) that you are able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. * * * * * * As previously stated, his opinion has addressed, in general terms, your ability (or inability) to participate in transactions of the City Council. With respect to specific transactions in which you may have a personal interest, I encourage you to request an opinion which addresses the facts of a given situation. As a final note, the Conflict of Interest Act deals with the types of influences upon a public officer's judgment which are clearly improper. The law does not, however, protect against all appearance of improper influence. In that regard. the Act places the burden on 'Councilmember William W. Harrison, Jr. -8- September 9, 1994 Re: Conflict of Interests Act Opinion the individual officer to evaluate whether the facts presented create an appearance of impropriety which is unacceptable or which would affect the confidence of the public in the officer's ability to be impartial. Therefore, even if you do not have a personal interest in a transaction and are able to participate in the transaction without restriction, you may nevertheless choose to abstain if you are concerned that your participation may create an appearance of impropriety. In addition, with respect to any transaction in which you have a personal interest, but in which you are pennitted to participate pursuant to § 2.1- 639. II (A)(2) , you may likewise abstain, provided that you first disclose your interest pursuant to § 2.1-639,14(E). Please contact me should you desire any additional infonnation. Very truly yours, ~ City Attorney LLL/RMB/clb Enclosures Seen and Concurred; A'FroRNEY GENER"L !ctlonal Center for Women has been rec- The assistant warden's brother and sister, :l8t facility as a grounds supervisor and a transfer both the brother and sister to id any appearance of impropriety or pos- Act would prohibit the assistant warden's ,circumstances. Your assistant has also It the uslstant warden does not reside In ster. ,d Statutory Provision ~ . Act" prohibitions and restrictions. See es "personal Interest" as "a personal and officer or employee or to such person's e same household." (Emphasis added,) A , ,"a personal Interest which an officer or II &cency, whether due to his being a party t in the firm, corporation, partnership or ntract. " ~ ,Weer or employee of any governmental nal interest In a contract with the govern- Imployee, other lhan his own conlract of 'er the usistant warden would have a per- f her brother and sister with the Depart- t Have "Personal Interest" ,.Is of Brother and Sister ,ntereat" Is established by a personal and ,Ioyee, the employee's spouse, or any other e S 2.1-600. Because the assistant warden ther or sister, she does not, by definition, contracts of her brother or sister. See on In S 2.1,600(A} would not be triggered >r her future appointment as warden. It is prohibit the appointment of the assistant I brother and sister to positions at another 1 on your assessment of what might cause applicable Department personnel policies ,I and Training to ensure that the contem- oie.. 1I8S-lln REPORT OF THE ATI'OIINEY GENERAL II Al)JlUllSTRATlON OF THE GOVERNMENT GENERALLY - COMPREHENSIVE CON- fLICT OF INTERESTS ACT. DISQUALIFICATION FROM LEGISLATIVE TRANSAC- 1'I0N8. MEMBERS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY. February 2, 1987 The Honorable William F. Parkerson, Jr, Member, Senete of Virginia You ask wbether the professional or business activities of certain members of the Stnate of Virginia would establish a conflict of Interests under the Comprehensive Con- nlct of Interests Act, 552.1-599 through 2.1-634 of the Code of VirginIa (the "Act"), If the senators vote on certain proposed tort reform legislation and related tnsurance mat- te.... The bills In question have been Introduced as a result of an Interim legislative study and ere Identified as S.B. Nos. 402, 403, 404, 405, ~06, 407, 408, 409, 411, and H.B. Nos. 1234 and 1235. Due to the nature of your Inquiry, I can only respond generally. I cau- tion, therefore, that more particular, Individual circumstances may alter the legal con- elusions set out below. 1 have noted those areas of particular concern where Individual elreumstances have a pivotal effect on the conclusions expressed. I. Classes of Lelrislators Whose Professional or Business Activities May Be Affected Your request sets out four classes of legtslators whose professional or business activities may be affected by the proposed legislation: 1, Attorney-senators who primarily represent plaintiffs in personallnjury and re- lated litigation. ' 2. Attorney-senators who primarily represent casualty or other insurance compa- nies In the defense of liability or other litigation or defendants in such litigation. 3. Attorney-senators who primarily represent corporations and officers and direc- tors thereof. 4. Senators who serve as officers or directors of stock or nonstock corporations. You have also supplemented your inquiry by telephone and added the following three classes: 1. Senators who serve on advisory boards of banks or savings and loan associations. 2. Senators who are insurance agents. 3. Senators who are Independent small businessmen. You state that each of the attorney-senators earns more than $10,000 annually from his practice. Some senators earn more than $10,000 annually as officers or direc- tors of corporations. I assume that the senator-Insurance agents and senator- businessmen earn S10,OOO annua11y from their agency or business. A11 of the proposed legtslation Is effective prospectively. 11. Nature and Antlolpated Effect of Proposed Legislation The cumulative effect of the proposed tort reform legislation is intended to In- orease the availability of liability insurance generally and to lower the rates consumers II\d businesses must pay for this ooverage. See S.J. lies. 22, 1986 Va. Aots 2064. The tort reform "package" includes the following bills: 11 1188-1887 REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL I. Senate Bill No, 402 limits the dollar recovery available to litigants for non.,.,o- nomIc dama¡es. This bill Is Intended to aUect Insurance companies and their rate.. as well as the potential recovery by plalntltts. 2. Senate Bill No. 403 would eliminate many of the traditional exemptions from jury duty. This bill Is Intended to broaden the base of available jurors and result In juries which are more representative of the community. 3. Senate Bill No. 404 would limit the liability of corporate officers and dlrecto,", for other than Intentional and willful acts and knowing criminal vIolatIons. This bill would benefit corporations, to an extent, by reducing the cost ot providing officers' and directors' coverage and limiting the potential liability ot perso.. serving In those posi- tlo... 4. Senate Bill No. 405 would reduce the statute of limitations for medical malprac- tIce actions brought on behalf of minors. This bill would benefit those I..urance compa- nies providing medical malpractice covera¡e in Yir¡inia. 5. Senate Bill No. 406 would authorize alternatives to commercial Insurance for pest control license applicants and waste management permit holders. 8. Senate Bill No. 401 would authorize the Imposition of appropriate sanctions or, attorneys andlor parties to litigation based on the fllln¡ of frivolous claims or defenses. The impact of this blU would, tor the most part, be limited to the conduct of attorneys. 1. Senate Bill No. 408 would extend "good samaritan" Immunity for emer¡ency ob- stetrical services rendered by certain pe,",ons in good faith, Tbis bill would benefit cer. taln health care providers and would, to an extent, limit the class of potential defendant, In litigation resultln¡ from such emer¡ency care. 8. Senate BIJI No. 409 would grant limited immunity to members of local govern!n¡ bodies and other local governmental agencies and commissions. 9. Senate BI1\ No, 411 would require courts to order the payment of future damage exceeding USO,OOO in periodic payments unless manifest Injustice would result tram suc' a structured settlement. this blJl would primarily benefit Insurance companies by limit Ing the frequency and reducing the severity of lar¡e lump-sum awards. 10. House Bill Nos. 1234 and 1235 set out standards for an administrative review 0 competItion among I..urance providers, proposals tor rate regulation and insurance com pany reporting, and proposals for notice to insurance purchasers of reductions In "",ver age or rate increases. UI. Applicable Definitions and 5 2.1-810 Section 2.1-810 requires that an "oWeer" of a "governmenta! agency" dlsqua¡¡r hImself from participating in any transaction on behalf of his agency when "(I) he has persona! Interest In the transaction and 01) the transaction has specifIc application to h personal interest." As a member of the General Assembly, each senator Is an "oWeer" of a State "go' ernmenta! agency" and, therefore, subject to the Act's prohibitions and restrictions. 5' 52,1-800, A "personal Interest" is defined In 5 2.1-800 as a persona! and financial benefit or lIablJlty aceruln¡ to an officer or em- ployee or to such person's spouse, or any other relative who resides In the same bousebold. Such Interest shalJ exist by reason of 0) ownership in rea! or persona! property, tangible or Intangible; (II) ownership In a corporation, 3ENERAL ble to litigants for noneco- npanies and their rates, as ,aditlonal exemptions from Ie jura... and result in juries >rate officers and directo... minal violations. This bill .t of providing officers' and rsons serving in those posi- at ions for medical malprac- eflt those insurance compa- 0 commercial insurance for holde!'S. of appropriate sanctions on ~rivolous claims or defenses. . the conduct of attorneys. immunity for emergency ob- This bill would benefit cer- class of potential defendants ) membe!'S of local governing '5. e payment of future damages "stice would result from such "urance companies by limit, '" awards. . an administrative review of egulatlon and Insurance com- asers of reductions in cover- ,610 .rnmental agency" disqualify hb "IIency when "(i) he has a '>as specIfIc application to his 1986-1987 REPORT OF THE ATI'ORNEY GENERAL firm, partnership or other business entity; (ili) personal ilability on behalf of a corporation, firm, partne...hlp or other business entity; however, unless the owne...hlp interest in an entity exceeds 396 of the total equity or such entity, or the liability on behaIr or an entity exceeds 396 or the total assets or such entity, or the annual Income, and/or property or use of such property, from such entity exceeds $10,000 or may reasonably be anticipated to exceed $10,000, such interest shall not constitute a 'personal interest' within the meaning or [the Act]. A "transaction" is defined as "any matter considered by any governmental or advi- sory agency on which otrlcial action is taken or contemplated." Section 2.1-600. A "pe...onal interest in a transaction" is denned as a pe...onal interest of an orncer or employee in any matter considered by his agency. Such personal Interest will be deemed to exist where an orncer or employee or an agency, or the spouse, or other relative or the orncer or em- ployee who resides In the same household, has (a) a personal interest In prop- ertyor in a firm, corporation, ownership or business entity that (i) is the sub- ject of the transaction, or (Ii) will benefit or surter from the action of the agency considering the transaction, or (b) a personal Interest In a rtrm, cor- poration, partnership, or business entity that represents any entity which (I) is the subject or the transaction, or (Ii) will beneW or surter rrom the action or the agency considering that transaction. Section 2.1-600. IV. Application of Certnltlons A. "Personal Intereat" Test A "personal Interest" in a business entity ia estabilshed by annual income rrom an entity In excess of $10,000, the reasonable anticipation or receiving such income, or an ownership interest in an entity exceeding 396 or the entity's equIty. For example, tr a member of the General Assembly earns more than $10,000 annually by practicing law or conducting a business, the member wouid have a "personal interest" in his law practice or business. If an attorney-legislator receives $10,000 In annual income, or reasonably an, tlcipates receiving such income, whether by retainer, hourly ree, or other bil1ing method, the attorney would also have a "personal interest" in the entity that Is the source or that income. Similarly, If a legislator has an ownership Interest exceeding 396 in a law rtrm, insurance agency or business, the legislator would have a "personal interest" in that enti- t7, Applying the dertnitlon of "personal Interest" in S 2.1-600 to the classes of leglsla- to... you set out, I reach the rollowing conclusions: 1. Attorney-senators would have a personal Interest in their law firm or practice whether based on income or owne!'Shlp. 13 I i 2. Attorney-senators who represent personal injury plaintifrs would have a "per- ; an "officer" of a State "iov- sonal interest" in any current client rrom whom they had received $10,000 in annuaJ in- ibitlons and restrictions. Saa come or reasonably anticipate receiving such income. In my opinion, an attorney- legislator could not, as a matter of dertnltlon, have a "personal interest" In a future cll- ; ant. - 3. Attorney-senators who represent Insurance companies would have a "personal interest" in any company from which they had received $10,000 in annual Income or rea- sonably anticipate receivIn¡ such income, In my opinion, a historical and ongoing rela- tionship between an attorney and an Insurance company resultln¡ in the attorney's rea- sonable anticipation of receivln¡ $10,000 In roes from the company would estabilsh the 14 1988-1981 REPORT OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL attorney-legislAtor's "personal Interest" In the payor eompany. On the other hand, It Is my opinion that an attorney-legislator eould not, as a matter of definition, have a "per- sonallnterest" In an Individual defendant who beeomes a future ellent. A fin, Itl_ction reIDote, or lOry opinio: Honorable 1986. In c eontingent not reaSon8 I result of t 4. Attorney-senators who represent corporltiolU would have a "personal interest" In any eorporation from which they received $10,000 In annual ineome or reasonably an- tieipate receiving sueh income. 5. Senators who serve as offleers or directors of stock or nolUtoek eorporatioos would have a "personal interest" In any eorporatlon from whieh they reeeived $10,000 In annuallneome or reasonably anticipated receiving sueh Ineome. 6. Senators who serve on an advIsory board of a bank or savings and loan IlUtitution would have I "personal interest" in that bank or savings and loan IlUtitution if they re- eelved $10,000 in annual income or reasonably antieipated receiving sueh Income as a result of such service. The fi S2.l-610 is employee's ¡ CoW't state, wholO inter< his interest ~~~ elfle applict snalysis pro Opinions of 1984,1985., 1. Senators who are Insurance agents would generally have a "personal Interelt" In their ageney whether based on IMome or ownership. Abo, such senators would have a "personal interest" In any Insurance eompany from whleh they received $10,000 In annual Ineome or reasonably anticipated the reeeipt of such ineome. 8. Senators who are Independent small businessmen would generally have a "per- sonallnterest" in their business whether based on ineome or ownership, Anum' brOad "speci elreumstanc, and, therefol the followin, B. "Persona] Interest in a Transaetion" Test The seeond element governing the applieatlon of the disquallfleatlon requirement of 52.1-610 is whether an officer or employee has a personal interest In the relevant traos- aetion. In Interpreting the statutory definition of "personal interest in a transaetlon,' the Supreme Court of Virginia has stated: 1. The ..ample, in Notwithstanc the elass afl eifie applic8' the 53-memt tion" test is I If, ~ the time the transaetion !! pending, it is reasonably foreseeable that the publle servant's personal interest eould benefit or suffer from his partle- ipatlon In that transaetion, the eonfliet and the danger it poses to the publie interest arise at the moment the transaetion oecurs. Henee, aeeording the Aet a liberal eonstructlon In aid of its stated purpose, we eonclude that the General Assembly intended the word 'will' (as used in the definition of 'per- sona! interest In a transaction' in 5 2.1-600J to carry the same import as the word'~.' West v. Jon.., 228 Va. 409, 415. 323 S.E.2d 96, 100 (1984)1 (emphasis added). It Is ¡mpo tant to note that the test of reasonable foreseeability is to be applied at the time of the transaction. In applying this test. the Court eoncluded that Mayor West of the City of Richmond, a member of city eouneil and a middle sehoot prlnelpalln the Riehmond public school system, had a personal Interest in the elty eouncll's eolUideration of appolntmenti to the elty sehool board. This eoncluslon was based on two faetors: first, that the ""boo board had the power to alter existing compensation polleles, negotiate salaries on an I dlvldual basis. and alter unilaterally the employment status of prlneipals; and seeo that a change In polieies was reasonably foreseeable In that elty eounell was eonslderl , the appointment of four of the seven sehool board members. See id. at 416, 323 S.E.2d at 100. As noted above, an attorney,legislator eannot, by definition. have a "personal inter- est" in a future ellent. Aecordingly, it is my opinion that an attorney-legislator eanno have a "personal interest in a transaetlon" involving a future or prospeetlve ellent. other hand, It Is ,Ion, have a "per- ,ersonal Interest" 'or re..onably an- tock corporations 'ceived $10,000 In I od loan Institution itutlon if they re- such income as a roonal Intereat" in tors would have a j $10,000 in annual rany have a "per- ion requirement of the relevant trans- in a transaction," ;eeable that " his par tlc- :0 the public ,cording the ude that the tion of 'per- "port as the ldded). It Is Impor- j at the time of the 5t of the City of he Richmond public on of appointmentS ,rst, that the schoOl e salaries on an in- cipals; and second, lcil was consideri'" t 416, 323 S.E.2d at e a "personal Inter- >y-Ie¡¡islator cannol 'ctive client. 1988-1987 REPORT OF THE ATl'ORNEY GENERAL A final factor to be considered In determining whether a "personal Interest In a transaction" exiats is the extent to which the effect of the transaction is speculative, remote, or contingent on factors beyond the attorney-legislator's control, Compare advi- sor¡ opinions to the Honorable S. Vance Wilkins, Member, House of Delegates, and to the Honorable Richard L. Sulaw, Member, Senate of Virginia, both dated September n, 1986. In circumstances where the effect of the transaction Is speculative, remote, or contlll(ent on factors beyond the attorney-legislator's control, it Is my opinion that it Is not reasonably foreseeable that the omcer's "personal Interest" will benefit or suffer as a reault of the pending transaction. C. Factors Governing "Søeclnc Application" Test The nnal element governing the application of the disqualification requirement of S 2,1-610 Is whether the pending transaction h.. "specific application" to the omcer's or employee's personal Interest. In discusslll( the "specific application" test In W...t, the Court stated that "Ia]s we construe the language of the new provision, a public servant whose interest Is 'involved' in a transaction may participate In that transaction only when hlalnterest is one limited to that which he shares In common with other members of the 2!!!!!!£!! !!!:i!." 228 Va. at 417 (emphasis added). The Court's construction of the "spe- clnc application" test severely restricted the application of the group or class based anaIYOÎ> provided In the text of S 2.1-610 and underlying the conclusions reached in past Opinions of the Attorney General. See, e.g., Reports of the Attorney General: 1984-1985 at 51, 1983-1984 at 49; 198Z-1983 at 100. A number of additional factors, however, are relevant In determining whether the brood "specific applicetlon" test In w...t appnes In any given situation or whether the circumstances presented are distinguishable from those considered by the Court in West and, therefore, call for a more narrow "specific application" test. These factors include t~ following: 1. The size of the relevant group or class affected by the pending transaction. For example, In W...t, Mayor West was one of 53 principals employed by the school board. Notwlthstandlll( the Court's sweeping language in W...t, it is my opinion that the size of tbe class affected remains a relevant factor In determining the applicability of the "spe- elfle application" test. In situations where the cia.. affected is slgnincantly larger than tho 53-member elass considered by the Court, the appllcabilfty of the "specific applica- tion" test Is less likely. 2. The presence or absence of the possibility that the oWcer or employee, or the entity In which the oWcer or employee has a personal interest, could be singled out for referential or adverse treatment by those bodies charged with Implementing or enforc- 0 ng new le¡¡islation. Compare Wilkins and Saslaw advisory opinions, supra. In W...t the SChool board had the Immediate power, for example, to unilaterally alter Mayor West's employment status andlor compensation on an individual basis. In the absence of such a P<>osibllity, the applicability of a "specific application" test is less likely. w 3, The nature of the impact of the proposed legislative action on the entity in t hleh an oWcer or employee has a personal interest and the relationship, If any, between I:-~ Impact and the type of services rendered to the entity by the otticer or employee, lþpo!,t. there was a close relationship between the pending legislative act (school board latl ..tments) and Mayor West's employment as a principal. In the absence of such a re- onshlp, the applicability of a broad "specific applleation" test Î> less likely. ofn ~. The extent to which the proposed legislation will affect the entIty in which an lis Cor or employee has a personal interest. For example, it the proposed legislation will 'n;~ a severe Impact on the entity, then, despite the legislation's application to other I, I.., the oWcer or employee is more likely to have an interest in the transaction that .~~ltatlv'IY different from that of the general public. In such circumstances, a broad c flc application" test Is more likely to be applied. 15 18 1888-1887 REPORT 01' THE ATrORNEY GENERAL V. "Personal Interest In a Transaction" and "Specific Application" Tests ... Applied to Cla..es of Senators Considering the "personal interest In a transaction" and "specific application" testa In light of the factors set out in Part IV(A) above, I reach the foUowing conclusions: 1. Senators In all of the seven classes you set out may vote on S.B. Nos. 403, 406, 408 and 409, because none of the classes of senators would have a personal Interest In those transactions. The effect of these proposed bills on the professional and buslne.. activities of the senators, or on entities in which the senators may have a personallnter- est (se. Part IVIA) above) would be speculative, remote and contingent on factors beyond the control of the senators, 2, Attorney-senators who represent personal Injury plaintiffs may vote on the tort reform package's insurance bills (S.B. Nos. 402, 405, 411, and H.B. Nos, 1234, 1235) be- cause of the lack of any personal interest in those transactions. The potential impact of these bills on the attorney's law firm or future clients is speculative, remote and contin- , gent on factors beyond the attorney's control. SlmUarly, an attorney-senator who prac- " tices In this area may also vote on S.B. Nos. 404 and 407 because of a lack of any per- : sonal Interest in those transactions. Any Impact S.B. No. 407 may have on an Individual attorney's practice in the future is speculative and remote. Senate BIlJ No. 404, limiting the liability of officers and directors, has only a tangential relationship with attorneyo who practice in this area and, accordingly, this cia.. of senators may vote on 5.B. , No. 404 as well. 3. Attorney-senators who represent insurance companIes and defendants, notwIth- standIng any personal interest they may have in an insurance company (se. Part IVIA) above) generally may vote on the package's insurance bills (S.B. Nos. 402, 405,411, and H.B. Nos. 1234, 1235) because, In my opinion, those bills do not have specific application to the senator-at torney's persona! interest. This conclusion is based on the absence of any of the aggravating factors set out in Part IVIC) above and the size of the cia.. of In- surance companies affected. If a particular insurance company is affected In a unique manner by one of these bills, however, the bill could easily have specific application to a senator's personal interest In that insurance company. The absence of specific facts pre- vents my rendering a definitive opinion on this point. Also, an attorney-senator who practices in this area may also vote on S.B. Nos, 404 and 407 for the same reasons as are set out In Part V(2) immediately above. 4. Attorney-senators who represent corporations may vote on aU 11 of the bills. Of those 11 bills, only 5.B. No. 404, dealing with the liability of corporate officers and directors, is of any direct relevance to senators in this cl...s, Notwithstanding any per- sonal Interest an attorney-senator may have In a corporation, the impact of this bill 00 any particular corporation is speculative, remote and contingent on factors beyond the attorney's control. - 5. Senators who serve on advisory boards of banks and savings and loan institutions may vote on all 11 bills, notwithstanding any personal Interest they may have In the bank or savings institution by reason of their service. Members of such advisory boards are not covered by the provisions of S.B. No. 404. None of the other ten bills would have any apparent Impact on banks and savings and loan Institutions. 6. Senators who are insurance agents may vote on all 11 bills, notwithstanding ..., personal interest they may have in an insurance agency or a particular Insurance com- pany, because the bills would not, In most circumstances, have any .pecific application to a senator-insurance agent's personal interest. This conclusion is based on the absence 0 any of the aggravating factors set out in Part iV(C) above and the number of insurance companies affected by the proposed legislation. 7. Senators who operate smali, independent businesses may vote on all 11 bills cause of the lack of any personal Interest in those transactions. Any impact the tort re- 198 form package will ha, .,o<1tro1 of the legls!a, 8, A senator,.' .,alpractice coverage elaims, In my oplnior, limitations for certai: Dumber of Insurance c ationship between te. attorney. 9. Senators who intere.t in a given co: """ify except 5.B. ~ close relationship bet legislator as an offic, 5.S, No. 404, it is m' directors of corpora'; son of this service dis' 1 reiterate that Specific circumstancE company or other en' "nator's relationship ceming the speculoth course, yield to a ser, may be more direct' reform package and, IS they have been in alter the conclusions' IThe Court's inter context of the effee; Interests, is signific, Opinions of the Alto pealed Virginia ConI must be a "causal co' effect on the public c ..as triggered. See f 381. The Court's int, persedes the prior Op ADMINISTRATION C ruCT OF IMTERES" ACT SUPERSEDES C< The Honorable John E Commonwealth's Atle Yoy ask whet", 'USBC") is supersed- 55 2.1-599 through Z. IlonclauseofS2.1-5è 1986,1987 REPORT OF THI! ATI'ORNI!Y GI!NI!RAL form package will have on any given small buslne.. Is speculative, remote and beyond the control of the leglslator-buslne..man. .lIcation" tests Iclusions: 8. A senator-attorney who represents Insurance companies who provide medical malpractice coverage in Virginia and whose representation involves derending such claims, in my opinion, may!!£! vote on B.B. No. 405, dealing with a reduced statute of limitations for certain medical malpractice actions. This conclusion is based on limited number of insurance companies presently providing such coverage in Virginia and the re- lationship between the bill's provisions and the type of services provided by the senator- attorney. 9. Senato... who serve as otricers and directors of corporations and have a personal interest in a given corporation by reason of their .ervice may vote on all at the bills you specity except S.B, No. 404. This conclusion concerning S.B. No. 404 Is based on the close relationship between the bill's potential impact and the service. provided by the legislator as an omcer or director, Despite the sIze of the cia.. at persons aUected by S.B. No, 404, it is my opinion tlult 52.1-610 requires senators who serve as omcers or directors at corporations and have a personal Interest in a particular corporation by rea- son of this service disqualify themselves from voting on S.B. No. 404. Nos. 403, 406, )nal interest in al and busine.. personal inter- , ractors beyond vote on the tort 1234, 1235) be- ential impact at 10te and contin- nator who prac- lack of any per- I on an individual '<a. 404, limiting ;> with attorneys ay vote on S.B. VI, CoMlusion I reiterate that the conclusions reached in this Opinion are based on general tacts. Specific circumstances related to the impact a bill may have on a particular insurance company or other entity In which a senator has a personal interest or the details at a senator's relationship with such an entity could alter the results. My conclusions con- cerning the speculative impact various bills may have in various circumstances would, ot ~u..e, yield to a senator's personal knowledge Indicating that the impact or a given bill may be more direct than is readily apparent. Finally, I note that my review of the tort reform package and related insurance matters is limited to the provisions of those bills as they have been introduced. Subsequent amendments may, in certain circumstances, alter the conclusions I have rea.hed with respect to such amended bills. ,ndants, not wlth- y (aee Part IV(A) 02, 405, 411, and <citic application '" the absence at or the class 01 in- <cted In a unique IC application to a ;pecilic facts pre- "ney'senator who ,me reasons as are IThe Court's interpretation at a "personal interest in a transaction" in West, in the context of the errect of an otricia] transaction on an officer's or employee's financial Interests, i. signlficanUy dlUerent from the test applied in similar situations in past Opinions of the Attorney General. Prior Opinions of this Office, interpreting the re- pealed Virginia Connlct of Interests Act, 552.1-347 through 2.1-358, held that there must be a "causal connection" between the orticial transaction and a material tlnancla] effect on the public official's financial Interests before the disqualification requirement Was trinered. See Reports of the Attorney General: 1981-1982 at 421; 1980-1981 at 381. The Court's interpretation at a "personal interest in a transaction," of course, su- persedes the prior Opinions of this Office on that Issue. .¡¡ 11 of the bills. )Orate oW.e.. and hstanding any per- pact of this bill on factors beyond the nd loan institutions .y have in the bank .dvisory boards are ollis would have anY ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMI!NT GI!NI!RALLY - COMFREHI!NSIVI! CON- ~LICT OF INTERESTS ACT. HOUSING - UNIFORM STATI!WIDI! BUILDING CODI!. CT SUPERSEDES CONFLICT OF INTI!RI!STS PROVISION OF USBC. oat withstanding any Jlar insurance com- ecific application to ~d on the absence at 'umber of insurance March 3, 1987 The Honorable John E. Kloch Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Alexandria " Yay ask whether S 102.10 of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (the S~SBC'~ Is superseded by the provisions of the Comprehensive Contlict at Interests Act, i 2.1-599 through 2.1-634 of the Code of Virginia (the "Act"), by virtue or the superses- . on clause of S 2.1-599. 17 ¿c.¡ r;~ l'3,4 )'ijL l¿ '94 1501 ¡:'TTY ';EN, P,2 (¡> H, Lana ~ncd" ':,.,", 0..,', -/10"'", Go""" CO!vlMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA R ,~..,. Ge""" 00,." Ano..,.y GO"a'" OffiCt~ of the A ttorne1 General """',M . NIl"'" .'°"'""" Ú ."'- aa;' sr.r'i"Q ",....all 000"" "to"ay Go"a..: )""..,., All'," O,y:~on July 27, 1987 'I) '3 c.) Walter A. "'eFar,."a ".0." ..",..,0, G.na'.' '..,"".a' -""""","00" C..,.",. Mary Sue Terry "100"." ,,""0'" SI.o.en C. Ro..r,I"a' C.p.." "'Om" G.""a, c."""., ...~ fr,','cama.. O,y",><o James W. Dykl!, Jr., Esquire Hunton lie Williams P.O. Box 192JO Washln¡ton, D,C. 20036 De8.r MI'. Dyke: 0600". L""..Bryo"t E.a.,"". A"""", This is in response to your ¡-"quest for an advisory opinIon pursuant to S 2.1-632 of the Code of Virginia, a portion .:)t the Comprehensive Confl;ct of Interests Act, S§ 2.1-599 thwugh 2.1-634 (th~ "1983 Act"). The conclusIons eXt,ressed In thIs opinion are based on the bets presented In your letter, dated March 26, 1987. It the facts In that letter are ¡Morrect or inOoO1pl~te, you may not rely upon this opl.,ion in the event your conduct is su!:>~:equently challenl!,el3. [, [.acts You are a member of the State Boa:d of Education ("Board") and have served in that <!8.pacíty since March 1985. E:ffeotive Maroh 21, 1987, you bM8.me a partner in the law firm of Hu ~ton l( Williams. The firm provides legal services t,) a looal s.~hool board in the Commo'1wea.lth. You are not involved, and state that yO\; will not oecome in- volved, In your firm's representatic,n of the local school board and will not discuss Board mattel'5 with ¡twye~s providing set'vices to that client. You ask my opinion concerning the application of the 1983 Act to your conduct as a Board meml:¡er, particularly with regard to votln¡t and policy-making issues. II. ~tate and Local Government Conflict of !nteJ'ests Act The curre1t leiìslation in thE'. Commonwealth regulating conflict of ¡ntel~ests is the 1983 Act. Th,~ State and Local GI)vernment Conflict of [ntere:;ts Act, 5S 2,1-639,1 through 2.1-6J~I.24 (the "1987 Act"), effective August 1, 1987, will supersede the 1983 Act. Given t~.e brief interim per!(.j In which the 1983 Act wil! be ;n effect, and for the sake of brevity, I have addressed Yt)ur Inquiry under the 1987 Act. 1 have, how liver, noted those areas where my conclusions wo¡;ld dieter under the two Acts. III. ~)plicable Definitions As a member of the Board, you are an "officer" subject to the prohibitions and restrictions of the 1987 Act. See S 2.1-639.2. - I Öl4 rot> l;jl4 ;UL l¿ '94 13 01 ~TT'¡' ';EN. P.3 James W. Dyk:e, Jr., Esquire July 27, 198'1 P2.ge 2 A "persc.nal Interest" Is defillej In S 2.1-639.2 as a financ'ial be!1efit or liabl!lty accruing to an officer o~ employee or to a member of his immediate family. Such interest shall exist by reason of (i) own'i!I'Shlp In a business if the ownership ir.terest exceeds:hree percant of the total equity of the busine!'s (Ii) annual Income that exce,!ds, or m8:' rea- sonably be anticipated to excE:ed, $10,000 from ownership In real or personal propert~- or a business (iE) salary, other compensation, fringe benefltJJ, or benefits from the use of p:,~perty, or any combination ther(Iof, paid 01' pro- vided b:, a business that e~cEeds, or may reasonably be anticipated to ex- ceed, $:~O,OOO annually; (1'1) "wnershlp of real or personal property If the Interest exc...eðs $10,000 ill 'Value and excluding ownership In a business, ¡ncome, or salary, other compensation, fringe benefits or ht!neflts froln the use of property; or (v) pe~onal liability Incurred or assumed on behalf of a business If tt,e liability exceeds three percent of the asset value of the busi- ness. A "transaction" is defined as "any matter considered by any government&.! 01' advl- sOty agency, whether in a coma¡ittee, subcommittee, or other e~tlty of that agency or before the I\@;eacy itse!f, on which official action Is taken or cc,nterr.plated." Section 2.1-639.2. A "personal i:1terest in a trll,g:iction" is defined in S 2.1.6,~9.~: as a perscnal interest of an officer or emplo~iee In any matt.!r considered by his agency, Such personal interest exists when an officer or employee or a member of his immediate fa¡:nily has a personal interest ¡, property or a business" or represents any iadividual or business and such prJperty, business or represented indiyidua: or business (I) Is the subject of thE' transaction or OJ) ma'J reaJize a reasonab~y foreseeable direct or IndlrMt t,enefit or detri- ment &5 a result of the action of the agency considering the t~ansactlon. A "busbess" Is defined as "8 corporation, partnership, solE! proprietclrship, firm, enterprise, frsnch:se, association. trust or foundation, or any other individual or entity carrying on a business or profession, whether or not for profit." Se~tlon 2,1-639.2. IV. 1981 Act Does Not Restrict AbiJity of La'^, Firm to_Cc)ntract with Local School Soard- Sectior, 2.1-639.6 restricts the ability of officers of State g.)ve~nment to contract with SUIte gnernrn~ntal agencies. The restrictions Imposed by S 2,1-639.6, however, do not apply to sny ?erSpnal inte~est a State officer may have in a contract with a local goyernmentt.l ager,cy. See 1983-1964 AH'y Gen. Ann. Rep. 54 (same conclusion rea~ 1 A "perse,nal Interest In a contract" may be based upon l1li <officer's or employee's being a party to a contract witt, II ¡overr.mental agency or up,~n his personal interest in an entíty which Is a party to such a contract. See S 2.1-639.2 ("personal Interest in a ól" (ób l 'jl" JUl. l2 '94 15 02 ':-TTY I;[N. P.4 Ja'l1ei W. Dyko!, Jr., Esquire July 27,1981 Page 3 under § 2.1-605 of the 1983 Act), It Is my opinion, therefore, th¡¡t S 2.1-639.6 does not restrict the ability oC Hunton & Williams to contract for leg,ù services with the local set.ool board. V. Disqualification Requirement of S 2.1-610 of 1983 Act May Apply to OtCicer's Participation In Board Trans!.ctions Which May Affect ClI...nt Local School Board Under S :tl-600 of the 1983 Act, a "personal Interest in a traNlactlon" may be based on an officer's or employeE"s "personal Interest!!! ! flrl11 . . . that represents any entity which (n Is the subject oC tho>. transaction, or (II) will btne.!lt or suffl!r from the action of the agency considering that transaction." (Emphasis added.) See advisory opin- ion to Vincent J. Mestracco, Jr., Esquire, Member, Vlr¡lnla Small Business Financing Authority, datl~d October 30, 1984 (disqualification requiremel1ts of S 2.1-6:LO apply to officer's participatiol' In transacti,:>n involving member of offlt:er's law firm) (copy en- closed); 1982-1983 Att'y Gen, Ar,n. Rep. 683 (applying disquallfic,ation requirement of § 2,1-352 of re;;>esled 1970 Virginia COIl!lict of Interests Act to officer's participation in transaction wl11m member of orncer's law firm involved). You I18Vt! a "personal interest" in your law firm, which represents a ]ocal school board. It is my opinion, therlJfore, that, und.;!r the 1983 AC!t, your firm's re~,resent8tlon of the client 1.ocal school ~ard woul~ establish your personal interest in Board transactions which may affeot that client. Sec':ion 2.1-610(A) of the 1983 Aot requires an officer or employee to d:squa!ify himself fron "partici~'atini in any transactio~ on behalf of his agency when (i) he has a personal interest in the transaction and (H) the transaction has specific a;>plication to his personal interest," The applkation of the "personal interest in a transactioll" s.nd 'speclfc a;¡plication" tests under § 2.1-610 of the 1983 Act is set out in detail In an advisory opinion to Mr. John R. Pflug, Jr., ex officio menber of the Board oC Directors (If the Vlrg.lnla Small Business Financing Authority, dated December 30, 1986 (copy encIO:led). The ap"licatlon of S 2.1-610, s.s Interpreted In We./:[ v. Jones, 228 Va. 409, 323 S.E.~:d 96 (1984), requires your disqualiflc.!tion from Board transaC'tlons when you have an Interest In the transac- tion that is qulJltatively differellt from tho!! interest of the ¡eneral ¡mbllc at large. It Is my opinion, therefore, that S 2.1-610 of the 1983 Act, which Is In effect through July 31, 1981, requires your disqualification from Board transactions when it 15 reasonably fore- contract"). I 8~sume, for the purp<>se of this opinion, that you have a "personal interest" in Hunton & Williar'ls, whether b~sed on annual income from th,! firm in excess of $10,000 or an ownership interest ir. €xcess of three percent of th€ firm's equity. See S 2.1-639.2 ("pc!'Sor.ai interest"). 21n those circumstances when the effect of a transaction on th! ollent local school board is speculative, remote, or COlltingent on factors beyond your control, however, the benefi: or injury to the cUellt scho<)l toOard woulc;\ not be reasonably roreseeablo>. and you, ther€fo~e, would not have a personal Illterest in those transactions, ;lod the disqualifica- tion requirement of § 2.1-610 of th,~ 1983 Act would not ap\>ly. See ad\'lsory opinIons to the Honorable S. Vance Wilkins and tho>. Honorable Richard L. Sasiaw, Members, House of Delegates, dated September 22, 1986 (c~opies enclosed), I BC'¡ 736 191..4 JI..l- t¿ '94 lò. 03 "TTY ';EN. P.5 James W. D~'ke, Jr., Esquire July 21, 198" Page ~ suable that the client local school boar<! may benefit or suffer as a result of the Board's action, notwl':hstandlnt that other 10081 school Ooards would 81:10 be atfected by the transaction in question. In the absence of a specific (actual sl! uatlon or transaction, however, I can provide you with no more than the general ¡uidatlce set out above. VI. Disqualification and Declaration Requirements of S ~.1-639.11(A) of 1981 Act Do trot Apply to Oftlcer's Partlclpatic,n In Board Transactions Which ~fa'i' Attect Local School Board as Firm CHent Under the 1931 Act, effective August 1, 1981, the ability of ,in ofÎlcer or employee to participate In official transactions which may affect the offiCllr's or employee's per- sonal interest Is restricted by S 2.1-E;39.11(A), which proyldesJ Each officer and employee of any state or local iOVern1\ental or advisory ageMY who has a pe:-sonal In~erest in a transaction: 1. Shall disqualify himself from participating in the transaction if the trans- action h~,s eppJication solel)' to property or a business in whl<!h he has a per- sonal int,~rest or he Is unable to participate pursuant to subdivision 2 or 3 of this subs'~ction. Any dlsqua';ifi,~ation under the provisions of this subdivision shall be I'ecorded in the pubHc records of the offlc'!r's or employee's govern- mental or advisory aienoy. The officer or employee shall disctose his per- sonal interest as required by S 2.1-639.13 C or S 2.1-639,14 G and shall not vote or in any manner act or. behalf of his agency in the tr.inStlctlon; 2. May f,art!cipate in the tl'an:;action if he is a member of II business, pro- fession, ')ccupation, or grout> the members of which are affected by the transac\Ì)n, and he com¡;>IiE's with the declaration requirements of S 2.1-6~9.13 D or S 2.1-639.14 E; or .3. May participate In the tl'snsaction if it aftects the public šenerally, even though his personal Interest, as a member of the public, may also be affected by that transaction. The disq1;alificatlon requirer~eot of S 2.1-639.1l(A)(1) and declaration requirements of :§ 2.1-639.11(A)(2) arise only when an officer or employee has a p'~rsonallnt~rest in the tranS81'.tion In question. The questlo:\ presented, therefore, Is whether you would have a personal InterE'st In Board transactions gffectlng the client tocal !:chool board based on yol.!r firm's represer:tation of that client. ------- 3The definition o( "personal Interest in a transaction" in S 2.1-1139.2 Is limited to an officer's or el1ployee's persona! interest in "property," a "busIness," or representation of a business or Individual. A local sch<1O1 board is a "body corporate" under S 22.1-71. Due to my condusion concerning the l~l\cation of the definition c,f "personal interest In a tra~sactlon" to the representation is!ue below, it Is not necessa~y that I addr~ss whether a ¡oecil school board, in Its corporate ca¡)aclty, is a "business," as ~hat term is defined In S 2.1-639.2, fof' the purposes of S 2.1-U9.11(A). I 804 786 19C4 JI"'-. l¿ '94 1'3 03 "TTY ,;EN. P,6 James W. D:rke, Jr., Esquire July 27,1981 Paß~ 5 In the ~;rcums~anc~s you present, there are two potentill tases for e!òtablishing a "personal Interest in a transaction" under the 1987 Act based ,)n representation of a cli- ent before &n aliency: (1) the ,!..~.2!!!! reQresentation by an officer or employee or a member of ti¡; Immediate family of a business or individual that will be affE'cted by the transaction (h'~re, the local schoo;, board); Or (2) the indirect effect ao agency's action on a transactior. wìll have on a business In which an offîë'ër'Oremploiee or a mE!mber of hIs immediate family has a person~11 interest (here, your law fh'm) and which represents another business or an individual 01ere, the local school board) before the ager,cy, Under the definition of "per~,onal interest In a traosactlor" if S 2.1-600 of the 1983 Act, i~ is clear that your persooll1 interest in the law firm could be the bast! for a per- sor,allnterest in a transaction beroN the Board Involving the s~c~fic client local school bOard or local school boards in g.eneral. See Part V, supra, The languagt of the defini- tion in S 2.1-6.39.2 of the 1987 Act, however, Is significantly d~rre~ent from the parallel definition in the 1983 Act. Und,3r the 1987 Act, a personal Inturest in a transaction based on "~epr'3sentation" Is now :imited to rep~esentation of an individual or business by ~he officer or Ii member of the o1'ficer's immediate family; the lal\1tua¡e of the 1987 Act does not expressly include represE:!\tntion by the officer's or employee's "f.!!:!!!.." as did the 1983 Act. CorTIp<Jr<! SS 2.1-600 al1d 'Z.1-639.2 ("persona! interest in a transaction"). The changes in the la:1iruage of the definition of "personal interest in a transaction" in the 1987 Act refle'Jt aI', apparent legislative intent to limit the basis of a "personal Interest in a transacti:)n" to the persona!, rather than the vicarious. repres<mtation of a business or individual by the officer or emplcyee In question. This Otri<!e cannot, by interpreta- tion, extend tte application of this definition beyond the clear 1'3gislative intent evi- den<:ed on the face of the statute. It Is my opinIon, therefore, based on the definition of "personal inter,!st In a transactiOlt" ',n S 2.1-639.2 and the specific changes In the lan- guage when co,npared to the paraael definition in the 1983 A.~t, that, under the 1987 Act, YQU would not have a pe~sonal interest In Board transactions \~hich may affect the local school board which is a client of your law firm or local school boards In general as long as you ¿o not personally repre!ent that local school board. With regard to the second P')tentl:11 basis for establishing a persona! interest In a transa<,tion, I 3:¡SUme you have a "personal interest" in your law fir In. See supra note 2. A law firm is Cl,¡ar:y a "busil'less" a:; dt!fined In S 2.1-639.2 and as used in the definition or "per.sona! Interest :n a transaction." '{'he client Local school bOard hIlS retained your firm to p,<)vide gene ~a\ tega! services and not just for a particular IT,atter before the Board. .1,s a general matter, und...r the fe.'~t~, you present, it is my opinion that any benefit or injury to your .~aw firm which may lnd;rectly result from any transaction before the Board sHeeting the client local school board or local school boards in general is too speculative, ar,d, therefore, not re,uonably foreseeable, to estab:ish a "personal interest in a t¡'ansacticn" under § 2.1.639.~:. This determination, however. must be made on a case-by-case oasis, based upon the relitlonship between the law firæ and the client, For example, if a law firm is retained by a client specifically ror a particular mat:er which comes before al1 agency and a me:nber of the rirm is an officer or er:1ployee of the a1ien,~y, then a personal interest in a transaction involving that matter might be established baH,d on the effect the agency's action may have on the law firm reprESenting thE! ctie",t before the agency, but only If that effact was no longer specula t;ve and was, therefore, reasc,!'\!lbly foreseeable. . ., 7. I 1 '::jeLl :¿l... ,,6 - JI,1- l~ '9-1 1:; 04 ¡:TTY ';EN. P.? James W. DyJC'!, Jr., Esquire July 27,1987 Pa~e 6 VII. Summar'{ and Conclusion To summarize, it Is my opinkm tha.t (1) neithe,r the 1983 Act nor' H.e 1987 Act restricts the ability of your law firm to contract to p~(lvide legal services to the local school board; (2) during the interim period pending the effective dE.te of the !1}87 Act on August 1, 198~', § 2.1-610(A) of the 1983 Act may require y,)ur dlsquallfl(!atlon from Board transactions which artect yow' firm's client schooL board individually or as a mem- ber of a ¡r:oup of school boards affected by such transactions. The applicability of the disqualification requirement to y"ur participation in Board transactions which affect a group of school boards tha.t includes your firm's client would be determined on a case-by- case basis ðe¡){mdin~ on the natur(~ of the tr8!'lsaction and the applic-atlon of the "persona! interest" and "BpeciCic application'" tt,sts se~ out above; and (3) you dc, not, as a matter of definition, have a personal interest if1 BoE,rd transac' tions which may aCfect the local school board that is a client of yollr firm under the 1987 Act. The re3trictions imposed 01 an officer's participation ir- official transactions by §§ 2.1-639.11(A)(1) and 2.1-639.1l(A)(2) would, therefore, not a»pJr to such Board trans- actíof1s and yollr participation is nc>t restricted. Our system of government i:! d-.pendent if1 large part upon it;; citizens maintaining the highest tr~,¡t in their pubLIc oft'icials. The conduct and character of publIc officials is ot particular c,)ncern to State and lc,csl governments, because it hi ctiefly through that conduct and character that the re?utatlon of government is derived. The purpose of the confEct oC intl!re3ts law is to assure the citizens ot the Com mon Health that the judg- ment of public officers and empLoyees will not be compromised or aCtected by inappro- priate conflict;!. To this end, both the 1983 and the 1987 Acts address certain types ot cond~ct which deE-r!y are Imprc,¡>er. The law cannot, however. protect against all appearances of conrlict. It is inCl mtent upon you, therefore, in thE performance of your dut,es, to evaLuate whether you t'!al your activity will present an appearance ot Impro- priety which you fhd unacceptable and which is sufficient to atC('ct the confidence ot the public in your ability to perforlT, your duties Impartially. With kind'!st regards, ( am Sincerely, ~ Mary Sue Terry Attorney General 2:67/54-A26 Enc:osures i!1~"¡ ¡' 00 I l :>l<4 JUl. l¿ '94 1:': 52 >'-TTY ';Õ:N. : ,;- '- '-AMy Sue 1"""1 .,."""" "'" ",," COMI\-lOl"JI,,\'E/\LTB Of' Vl,Rr:lì'IIA Y A C".,. '.M"'" Office of rlt,~ Altoml',! Gcl1cml """:::r:;,:,:~;~;:~~~.::;~:¡~:'...,,,.. " L". Knoo.'" ""'.'Ooool,^,.""..".",.."" ,\pril 19, 1989 +/ ,.." ('Oil SII".ng ......onoll I',."" "°"'., c..".." ,¡"",<",. 'It..", OW"",.. Wi"O' . "'cO.".n. 1'""".., ^,.", ..... ,OA...,^, , """", """n"""""" t",",.nn $Io.n.,. 0, Ro..nl".' 0.""",, ^u.",., Go"""' """""'L'wl"'o,<,""o",r".".",, Mr. Byron E. Waldman Suite 400, 1155 Fifteel!th Street, N. Vl. Washington, D.C:, 20005 0.""'" LO"o.a'v.nl E."",,." .."".". Dear Mr. Waldrnln: This is in respo~se to your request for an advisory opinion punua:'II to § 2.1-639.23 of the Code of 'lirginìa, a portion oJf :he State and Local Govemlf:E'nt Conflict of Inter- ests Act, §§ 2.1"639,1 thro~gh 2.1-639.24 (the "Act"). The conclusions t:<pressed in this opjnj:)n are ba~ed on the facts presented in your letter, dated Apl'ill7, 1989, and in a su:Jsequent telephone conversation ....ith a member of my staff. If the facts in the letter or tele¡;¡hone col\vers~,tion are incorl',~ct or incomplete, you may 110t rely upon this opinion in th,~ event yo'J(' conduct is subseql(~n tly challenged, I.f~ You are the Executive Vice President and a member of the Board of Directors of McNair Group, Inc., a Washington, D,c. gove~nl11ent affairs consu1tì:1g firm. The Mcl'lair Group pays you !In annual salary ex,~eedil,g $10,000. You also are a member of the Com- monwealth Transportation Board ("CTE!"). Robert E. McNair is the President of the McNair Group and Chairman of McNair Law Firm. The McNair G,'oup is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mct/air Law Firm. You state that you have no equity or pa~tllership interest in McNair La'll Firm. Mr. McNair also is a member of the Buard of Dire'~tors of NCNI:! Corp. You state that a ['eal estate trust division of NCNB Corp., which manages a sizeable portfolio of ~eaJ estate and other investments, is a partner in a Go,)chland County, Virginia, r~a¡ estate development named "West Crl~ek." Yo~ further state that Mr. McNair, McNair Law Firm, or McNair Group do not have any financial cr representational interest in West Creek, jut that McN~\r Law Fir.n has represented !'lCNB Corp. in other legal ilnd Î!1vestmer,t matters outside the Cornrnon....ealth. On August 18, 1988, the CTB voted to approve a particular lo('atlon and design for the future cons~ruction of Route 28~., >1 circumferential highway we:¡t of Richmond. The CTB now has be~n petitioned to rE'{:o1sider its original location dEcision and will vote again on this issue at its meetir.g on April 20, 1989, The proposed western alignment for Route 238 will place the road near W....s! Creek. You ask whether the Act re!:tricts you from voting as a member cf the CTfI on the location of Route 28S. 8C'¡ 736 19(4 JUL. l¿ 'S.I E 53 ,:. TTY I;EN, P,3 Mr. Byron £, Watchnan Apri: 19. 198~ Page 2 !:. Applicable Statutes As a merrter of the CTB, you are Ii state "officer" subject to ':he Act's prchibitions and restrictions. See § 2.1-639.2. A "persona.. interest" is define:! i!~ § 2.1-639,2 as a financial beMfit or liabiEty accr\Jirg to an officer or ~m~ loyec Or to a member 0: his Immediate fanily. Such interest shall exist by reason of (ì) owners!'I'p in a business if the ownership interest exceeds thoee percent of the total .~quity of the busine!;s; ~ìi) ann'Jal income that exceeds, or may I'ea- sonably be anticipated to e;(c~,,!d, $IO,COO from ownership in rEal or persona! property,)" a business; (Hi) sala,'y, other compensation, fdnse benefits. or b,.nefi\s from tl1e use of property, or any combination the~eor, paid or pro- vided ")y ¡¡ business that exce{,ds. or may reasonably be fnticipated to exceed, $1'),000 annually! (iv) ')wnership of real or personal property if the interest Exceeds $10,000 in 'vaLle and excluding ownerstip in a business, inc:>me, or saJary, other compensation, fringe benefits or ben,.fits from the use of ¡¡reoçerty; or (v) ¡¡ersona. liability incurred or assum,¡d on behalf of a business i1' the liability exceecls three percent cf the asset value of the busi- ness. A "transaction" is defined as "my matter considered by any I..>vernmental or advi- sory agency, wh,~ther in a committt:e, subcommittee, or other entity of that agency or before the agen'~y itself, on which official action is taken or ,!orr:emprated." Section 2.1 -63t'.2. A "personal Interest in a transliction" is defined in § 2.1-639.2 ea 8 personalnterest of an offic~r or employee in any matter ccrsidered by his agency. Silch personal inter~st exists when an officer cr emp:oyee or a member cf his immediate fa.l1Iilý has a personal interest in property or a business, or represents any inéivi:1llal or nusiness and such pro~erty, business or repres~nted :ndividual or bLsil1ess (i) is the subject of t~e ':ransaction or (ii) may rMlize a reasonably breseeable direct or indirect blmefit or det- riment as a result of the action of the agency considering- the t,'ansaction. A "busines;¡" is defined as "a corporatIon, partnership, sole )roprietorship, firm, enter¡;¡rise, franchise, association, t1'U~;t or foundation, or any other Individual or entity carryin& on a business or profession, whether or not for profit." Section 2,1-63\1.2. The abmty of an officer to pu~ticipate in an official transaction before a govern- mental agency, when the officer t'.as a personal interest in the tJ'an! action, is limited by S 2.1-63S,11(A), which provIdes: Each o~£icer and employee of allY state or focal governm~nt:iI or advj~:ory agency who has a personal Interest in a transaction: 8C'¡ 7:36 19C4 JUL. 1¿ 's"¡ E 54 fOTTY /;EN. P.4 Mr, 8ymn E. Wsltjman April 19, 19H Page 3 1. Shall disquali:'y himself frolI' ~articipating in the transactior if the trans- action hss application solely to property or a business in which he has a p'~r'- sonal ¡nt"-rest or he Is unable te participate pursuant to subdivision 2 or 3 of this subsection. Any disqualification under the provisions of this subdlvislon shall be rec,)rded in the public I'e,~ords of the oCncer's or employee's ¡ovem- me!\tal or advisory a¡e!\cy. T:1e office~ or emploY(ij shall disdose his p'3r- sonal Intere:!t as required by S 2.1-639.13 C [now EJ or § 2,1-E39.14 C [now E] and shall not vote or in any manner 'sct on behalf of his !lgency in the transaction; 2. May participate in the transac,tic,n if he is a member of a business, pro- Cession, oc'cupation, or group tM members of which are aff!cted by the transaction, and he compii'3s with the declaration req~lrements of § 2.1-639.13 D [now F] or § 2.1-539.14 E ¡now OJ; or 3. May padicipate in the trans'3ctlon if It affects the pubJj() generally, even though his parsonal interest, as :! member of the public, may als.) be affected ,y that transaction. III. R,~lation5hip Among McNair Law Firm, Mr. McNaIr ard tiCNB Do~s Not Establish Orf~~er's Personal Interest In CTB TI'ansaction The transaction in the facts y"u present is the vote of the CT:3 on the location of Route 288. Your ¡nce.me interest in lV.cNalr Group estabUshes y:)ur personal interest In that business, I assume, for purposes o~ this Opinion, that you do not receive allY income from the McNair Law Firm or from NCNB. [also assume that you do not pNvide any services to NCNB in your work with the McNair Group, A personal interest In a transa.~tion can be based upon an oC:icer's personal interest in a business that may be affected by the transaction or the repr'~sel1tation of a business that nay be aff.~(~ted by the transactio1'\. See § 2.1-639.2. In this instance, it Is my opin- ion tbat it is ref~onably foreseeable :hat both West Creek and N::::NB may realize a direct or indirect benefit or detriment as a result of the CTB's <:Iec sion concE'rning the 10catiJn of Route 288. The question ¡¡resented by your Inquiry, therefore, is whether you have .1 personal interest in the pen'ðin:f transaction based on MI'. YcNair's relationship with NCNB or the McNair Law Firm's mpresentation of NCNB. A personal interest In a subsidiary corporation (such as the McNair Group) generally does not establish an of'ficer's persoaal interest in the parent c,)rporation (such as the McNair Law Finn). See C,O.I. Adv. Op.. No. 8,A18 (1988) (copy enclo:;ed). !n tha abSel1Ce of additi<Jnal façts concerning the rBlationship between the McKair Group and the McNair Law Firrr" I cannot determi~e definitively whether your ;le:,;onal inter,ast in the ------- ISection 2.1-5:19.13(C) and (01 and § 2.1-639.14(CI and (E) WE,re redesignated by the 1988 SessIon of t'1e General Assemt'¡y as § 2.1-639.13(E) and (F) and § 2.1-639.14(E) and (0). See Ch. 849, 1988 Va, Acts 110t¡-O'3, 804 7:36 19C4 '. JUL l¿ '94 E 54 ~TTY ';C:tl. P.5 Mr. Byron E. W¡ddmar, April 19, 1989 Page 4 McNair GrolCp 'N~utd estajlish your pE'rsonal interest In the McNai~ Law Firm. In this instance, howeve~, such Ii determination is not required. The definition or "persona! interest" in S 2.1-639,2 does not eslablîsh ~!: personal interest in NCliB based upon Mr. McNair's service on the NCNB B,)ard of Directors or the McNair Law Firm's representati,)n of NCNB. See C.O,!. Adv. Op. No. 6-A35 (1987) (attorney does rlet have vicarious persona] inte"est in a client or the .1Horney's firm when that attorney do!!s not represent t~1<! c:.ient) (copy enclosed), Sirnilal'ly, the deCinition of "persona! interest in a transaction," \"hen such an interest is based on !:~sentation, requires that thE' officer personaJJ'lprovld~ the representatioM! services. See C.O.l. Adv. Op, No. 6..A26 (1987) (copy endcsed). The McNair Law Firm's "epresentatlon of NCNB, therefore, does not establish y,)ur personal ir:terest in matt!!rS affecting NCNB. It also is my opinion that Mr. McNair's service with the NCNB 30ard of Directors does not establish YOll!' personal ;nterest in NCNB. Based on the a:,ove, it is my o?inion that you do not have a pel'sonal inte~est in the CTB's decision <::>ncerning the location of Route 288, The Act, therefore, does not pro- hibit or restrict you {rom participating in the discussion or vote 011 that issue. Our syster~ of gover'1ment is .;1e¡;endent in large part upon its citizens maintaining the highest trus: in thair p'Jblic oHidals. The conduc! and character of public of!iciaJs is ot pa"ticu!ar concern to state end ¡clcal governments, because it is chiefly thJ~ough that conduct and characte" that the government's ~eputation is derived. The purpose of the conflict of interests Jaw is to assu~~ the citizens of the Commo)nwe~lth that the judg- ment of public ~:'ficers and employ,<es will not be compromised or~ffected by inappro- priate conflicts. To this end, the Act defines certain standards or types of conduct which clearly are impr~'pe~, The law canrot, however, protect against aU appearances of con- flict. It is incumbent u¡>on you, theJ'dore, to evaluate wtlether your vote 8S a member or the CTB on the Route 288 Issue will ?r~sent an appearance of impro~,riety which you find unacceptable ar.d whict, will affect the confidence of the public in yOU!' ability to per- form your duties with the CTB impa.,ti~llly. With kindes': regards, I am Sincerely, lj~,.ç Mary Sue Terry Attorney General 2:71/297-A1O En<Jlosures ------- 2This requirel'".lent fer ~ersonal representation, rather than repre¡entatlon by another member of a firm o~ business, t.as been the construction given to the de:;lnition of "persctnal interes':" since the adoptbn of the Act. The Genera] As!embly, of course, Is . "", ""M"'r'-";"~ ,"" """r'_'T":';L~?,J,;~193_t."..'!"'1~ !"2.i,~ef\nitiO:'l more