HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 3, 1986 MINUTES
"WORLD'S LARGEST RESORT CITY"
Cny COERNCJL
iltAYOR @ AM@ At
VICE MA YaR REM & MMANAN P- A- @k
JOHN A. JTAVM. @ @k
NANCY A. CRFXCH. At @
ROBMT E @, I'@ 8-h @k
@ M. @. @ @A
H. JACK JEAW&M JJL. L@ @A
LOUIS JL JoNrs. D.W@ @A
ROBUT 0. JONES. A, @
J. HEMY M.COY. JR.. K@ @A
M@ E. @RF. At Z-V Ul CRTY MALL BU,%DI.VG
RU7'M HODGES SMTM CMr- cdy Mk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MUNICIPAL @
VLROJNL4 @CH, VIRGINL4 @-OM
427.@
March 3, 1986
Virginia Beach City Council
BRIEFING: Council Chambers - 11 AM
Cost Effectiveness of Restoring Rail Passenger Service in the
Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor:
Presentation by representatives of R. L. Banks
Associates, Inc., and Tidewater Regional Transit.
ITEM I. MEETING OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Conference Room 12 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Harold Heischober
B. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL
C. MOTION TO RFCESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
ITEM II. REGULAR SESSION OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers 2 PM
A. INVOCATION: Reverend John Gimenez
Rock Church
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
C. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
D. CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
1. Review of Consent Agenda
E. MAYOR/COUNCIL - DISCUSSION OF PERTINENT MATTERS
F. PRESENTATIONS
1. Resolution in Recognition;
J. Wylie French - Tidewater Community College Board
G. MINUTES
1. Motion to accept/approve the Minutes of February 24, 1986.
H. PIANNING
1. Application of Sterling W. and Bonnie T. Thacker for a
conditional use permit for a commercial kennel. located on
the north side of Indian River Road, I,OOU feet west of
North Landing River Bridge (Kempsville Borough).
Recommendation: APPROVAL
2. Application of Peggy Davis for a conditional use permit for
a day care center located on the east side of Centerville
Turnpike 295 feet north of Livingston Oak Drive (Kempsville
Borough).
Recommendation: DENIAL
3. Application of George and Willie Held for a change of
zoning from R-6 Residential District to
Business District located on the northeast corner of
Witchduck Road and Ruritan Court (Kempsville Borough).
Recommendation: APPROVAL
4. Application of C.L. and O.V. White for a change of zonina
from 0-1 Office District to I-1 Light Industrial District
located on the west side of Chimney Hill Parkway 116 feet
north of Smokey Chamber Drive (Kempsville Borough).
Recommendation: DENIAL
5. Application of Bruce B. Mills for a change of zonim from
A-1 Apartment District to B-2 Community-Business District
located on the west side of Happy Street 231.31 feet south
of Bonney Road (Kempsville Borough).
Recommendation: DENIAL
6. Application of G. Geoffrey and Linda J. Brockelbank for a
change of zoning from R-6 Residential District to 0-1
@ffice District located on the southeast corner of Bonney
Road and South Fir Avenue (Kempsville Borough).
Recommendation: DENIAL
7. RECONSIDERATION:
Ordinance to AMEND the KASTER STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN dated
December 16, 1974, pertaining to the realigrment of Ferrell
Parkway and Princess Anne Road north of the Municipal
Center, (realigment of Indian River Road and Elbow Road).
I. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance approving the First Supplemental Agreement
between the City of Virginia Beach and CE Maguire, Inc. for
engineering services related to the Lake Gaston Project and
authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute the
same.
J. 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. Resolution in Recognition to J. Wylie French, Tidewater
Community College Board.
2. Ordinance, upon SECOND READING, to appropriate funds in the
amount of $4,480,000 for the acquisition of right-of-way
for the Baxter Road Fly-Over.
3. Ordinance to authorize a temporary encroaebment into a
portion of the right-of-way of Mediterranean Avenue to W.
Cason Barco, his heirs, assigns and successors in title.
4. Ordinance to authorize a temporary encroacbment into
portions of the rights-of-way of North Landing Road and
Princess Anne Road to Paco, Inc., its assigns and
successors in title.
5. Bingo Permit: Green Run Homes Association.
6. Ordinance authorizing tax refunds in the amount of
$1,556.46.
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Constitution Drive/Edwin Drive Fly-Over
Councilman J. Henry McCoy Jr., DDS
L. NEW BUSINESS
M. ADJOURNMENT
8
Item II-G.1
MINUTES ITEM # 25063
Upon motion by Councilwoman Oberndorf, seconded by Councilman Fentress,
City Council APPROVED the Minutes of March 3, 1986, AS CORRECTED:
ITEM # 25037 - Item II-H.2 - Page 7
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF PEGGY DAVIS FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PEELMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER
"Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by
Councilwoman @@Oberndorf, City Council DENIED
an Ordinance upon application of PEGGY DAVIS for a
Conditional Use Permit
Voting: 8-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold Heischober,
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor
Reba S. McClanan and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech, H. Jack Jennings, Jr. and J. Henry McCoy, Jr.,
D.D.S.
March 10, 1986
M I N U T E S
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
B R I E F I N G
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF RESTORING RAIL PASSE14GER SEP.VICE
IN THE NORFOLK-VILRGILNIA BEACH CORRIDOR
3 March 1986
11:15 A.M.
The BRIEFING was called to order by Mayor Harold Heischober in the Council
Chamber on March 3, 1986, at 11:15 A.M.
The City Manager introduced Jack Whitney, Chief of Comprehensive Planning,
who advised the TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION has been
investigating the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of reinstituting
Passenger Rail Service between the Cities of Norfolk and Virgiula Beach.
Recently this study has been completed by the firm of R. L. Banks &
Asasociates, Inc. aud Wilbur Smith & Associates. The results of their
analysis were presented to the Tidewater Transportation District Commission
at their February Meeting. This same presentation will be shared with City
Council.
Mr. Whitney introduced Robert L. Banks, President, R. L. Banks &
Associates, Inc., who in turn made the following introductions: Paul H.
Reistrup, Vice President, R. L. Banks & Associates; Dave Powers,
Transportation Analyst, Wilbur Smith & Associates; John White, Senior
Engineer, Wilbur Smith & Associates; James Echols, Tidewater Transportation
District Commission; Jeff Becker, Tidewater Transportation District
Commission; Jayne Crowder, Tidewater Transportation District Commission.
Robert Banks referenced, before beginning the Study of the Cost
Effectiveness of Restoring Rail Passenger Service In the Norfolk-Virgiula
Beach Corridor-, these main issues were considered:
System Configuration
Travel Patterns
Service Improvements Desired
Capital and Operating Costs
Estimates of the Ridership
Impacts on Environment/Land Use/Economy
System Financing Options
Cost Effectiveness.
Paul H. Reistrup, Vice President, referenced the existing Norfolk/Southern
Line shown on the slide which was the starting point of the study,
restoration of service along this Route (roughly 80% of the total
distance). The initial study concerned:
1. What would the alignments be at each end?
2. What type of vehicle would be utilized?
3. What would be the service perimeters?
B R I E F I N G
(Continued)
Commencing in Norfolk, the following four (4) OPTIONS were utilized:
Brambleton
Main
City Hall Avenue
Waterside
Mr. Reistrup advised that if this service were to be restored it would be
desired to be electrified and have acceleration. Slides of light rail
vehicles were displayed. The rail bus was investigated which was diesel
powered and also a regular rail service with a locomotive haul train.
Inputs from the highway system were depicted on the slides. Different
colors indicated the added lanes in "green" and the hub-lanes in "pink".
The "blue" line at the bottom was a proposed new highway and was also
considered in the analysis. The feeder bus system and the existing bus
system were shown as "green" and "yellow". The proposed light rail line
was in "red".
Sketches of the Station Locations were identified: Norfolk State
University Station, Princess Plaza Station and Oceana Boulevard Station.
Dave Powers, Transportation Analyst, Wilbur Smith & Associates, presented
the Predictions of the Ridership and Revenues from this aforementioned
service. Surveys were conducted to gather additional information concerning
travel charactericts in the CORRIDOR:
Residents
Visitors
Bus Users
Mr. Powers advised in preparing the Patron Forecast, the years 1980 vs 2005
were utilized. Planning Data was forecast for these two years, 1980 from
the Census Data, and the year 2005 from the Planning District Commission
projections.
Within the REGIONAL TRAVEL GROWTH, person trips are increasing from
2,300,000 to slightly over 3 - MILLION. Population, employment and
automobiles are three of the categories illustrated and they increase about
50 to 55% over the 25 years with the exception of automobiles which are
increasing about 70% over that period.
Within the CORRIDOR TRAVEL GROWTH, population, employment and automobiles
are growing at a slightly faster rate than the region as a whole. Trips
from and to the Corridor reflect the Corridor as being a net attractor of
trips.
The AVERAGE OPERATING SPEED of the LRT System was approximately 30 miles an
hour. The system would operate approximately 16 hours a day, Monday
through Thursday, on Friday and Saturday 18 hours a day and then 16 hours a
day on Sunday. The additional hours on the weekend was to allow for
recreational travel.
Concerning the Average Annual LRT Trips by Major Market, approximately 1/2
of the ridership is expected to be derived from the work community.
Vistors will account for 10% of the total patronage. 5,200,000 trips per
year are estimated in 1980 increasing to 1,116,000 trips per year in 2005.
A graphic depicting STATION UTILIZATION was next shown. The Two Downtown
Norfolk Terminal Stations and the Independence Boulevard one reflect the
highest utilization.
John White, Senior Engineer, Wilburn Smith & Associates, displayed by a
slide presentation the use of the existing Norfolk and Southern Rail Line
and the other consideration going over the existing Norfolk & Western Line
and the Old Virginian at Tidewater junction on elevated structures. This
would illustrate the means by which the system would leave the exisiting
Norfolk/Southern in the vicinity of Brambleton Avenue. Another graphic
illustrated possible extension to complete the line as far as the downtown
portion of Norfolk. All of the rail components were indicated. Fourteen
(14) stations were depicted which included two (2) at each end and six (6)
park and ride facilities. A chart indicating the Implementation Schedule
was also depicted.
B R I E F I N G
(Continued)
Mr. White advised the LRT CAPITAL COST:
Line Rehabilitation
New Constructiou
Station (Park & Ride Facilities)
Electrification
Signals and Crossing Protection
Vehicles
TOTAL: $98.33-MILION
Mr. White next reiterated a chart depicting LRT CAPITAL COST COMPARISONS:
San Diego, Calgary, Edmondton, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Sacramento,
Norfolk-Virginia Beach. The City's cost seems to be very much in-line with
the San Diego Facility.
Paul H. Reistrup returned to the Podium and referenced the Annual LRT
Operating Maintenance as well as the feeder buses which accompany same.
Approximately 1/3 of the Total Operating Cost constitutes the actual
operation of tbe trains. One person would be on each vehicle. There is an
honor system proposed with Fare Inspectors. Maintenance Cost would also be
involved on a five-year program. Approximately 1/2 of the maintenance
costs would entail "cleaning". Administrative costs would be under 10%.
Robert Banks introduced the LRT Costs Versus Revenues and Construction Bond
Financing.
Mr. White next illustrated the Revenue Short Fall.
These funds could be derived from the riders. In addition, construction of
this type of system may be aided by grants from outside sources, the chief
of which is UMTA (Urban Mass Transportation Administration). There is also
the possibility of Concession Revenue.
Total Net Benefits $12-MILLION
Net Average Costs $ 7-MILLION
The following recommendations were advised:
Install the LRT System.
Formulate a TASK FORCE to address same.
Refinement/Additional Analysis
Norfolk CBD (Central Business District) Access
Virginia Beach Access
Feeder Bus System
Grade Crossing Operations
Explore Financial Options
Begin Preliminary Engineering and Funding.
The income gap between expenditures and revenues would average
approximately $5-MILLION a year.
John White advised approximately 6 miles of track would be in Norfolk and
12 miles in Virginia Beach.
The Operating Schedule shown to Council is only a "hypothesis" in order to
demonstrate the "Cost Effectiveness of the System". This schedule could be
adjusted according to the desires of the community.
The $7-MILLION spread between the Costs and Benefits realizes those which
are not incurred by the Transit System itself; i.e, savings in automobile
operating expense (a combination of cash and non-cash) as opposed to the
$5-MILLION.
$725,000 is given to TRT each year in the City's Budget.
City Council wishes staff to determine:
1. Alternative Traffic Pattern concerning the closure of Nineteenth
Street.
2. Altenative methods of apportionment of the SHORTFALL of the
operation.
3. The effect of the cut-backs in Federal Spending on this project.
M I N U T E S
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
March 3, 1986
The Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
was called to order by Mayor Heischober in the Conference Room, City Hall
Building, on Monday, March 3, 1986, at 1:00 P.M.
Council Members Present:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R.
Jones, Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council @lembers Absent:
None
- 2 -
ITEM # 25033
Mayor Heischober entertained a motion to permit Council to conduct its
EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuait to Section 2.1-344, Code of Virginia, as
amended, for the following purposes:
1. PERSONNEL 14ATTERS: Discussion of employment, assignment, appointment,
promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining or
resignation of public officers, appointees or employees.
2. PUBLICLY HELD PROPERTY: Discussion or consideration of the condition,
acquisition or use of real property for public purpose, or of the
disposition of publicly held property, or of plans for the future of
an institution which could affect the value of property owned or
desirable for ownership by such institution.
3. LEGAL KATTERS: Consultation with legal counsel or briefings by staff
members, consultants or attorneys, pertaining to actual or potential
litigation, or other legal matters within the jurisdiction of the
public body.
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Fentress,
City Council voted to proceed into EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R.
Jones, Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
March 3, 1986
- 3 -
R E G U L A R S B S S I 0 N
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
March 3, 1986
2:05 P.M.
Mayor Heischober called to order the Regular Session of the Virginia
Beach City Council in the Council Chambers, City Hall Building, on
Monday, March 3, 1986, at 2:05 P.M.
Council Members Present:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R.
Jones, Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Absent:
None
INVOCATION: Reverend Oscar Rodriquez
Senior Associate Pastor
Rock Church
PLEDGE OF ALIYGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
h 1986
4
Item II-F.1
PRESENTATION ITEM # 25034
Mayor Heischober PRESR= a RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION:
J. WYLIE FRENCH
TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD
This RESOLUTION was read by Councilman McCoy and recognized J. Wylie
French's unselfish service and personal sacrifices in his eight years of
service on the TIDEWATEP COHNGNITY COLLEGE BOARD.
March 3, 1986
5
Item II-G.1
MINUTES ITEM 25035
Upon motion by Councilwoman Oberndorf, seconded by Councilwoman Creech,
City Council APPROVFD the Minutes of February 24, 1986.
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, 11. Jack Jennings, Jr., Robert G.
Jones, Louis R. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
March 3 1986
6
Item II-H.1
PLANNING ITEM 25036
Attorney Glenn Croshaw represented the applicant
Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City
Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of STERLING W. AND BONNIE T.
THACKER for a Conditional Use Permit:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF STERLING W. AND
BONNIE T. THACKER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A COMMERCIAL KENNEL R0386816
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA
Ordinance upon application of Sterling W. and
Bonnie T. Thacker for a Conditonal Use Permit for a
commercial kennel on the north side of Indian River
Road, 1000 feet west of the North Landing River
Bridge. Said parcel is located at 3756 Indian
River Road and contains 21.33 acres. Plats with
more detailed information are available in the
Department of Planning. KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH.
The following conditions shall be required:
1. The applicant has agreed to set the facility back from the road
equal to the setback of the existing barn and to provide adequate
buffering along the frontage on Indian River Road, as well as the
western and eastern boudaries.
2. A 40-foot right-of-way dedication is required along the frontage
on Indian River Road, 55 feet from the centerline of the old
30-foot right-of-way, to provide for an ultimate 110-foot
right-of-way as per the Master Street and Highway Plan.
This Ordinance shall be effective upon the date of adoption.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
Third day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-six.
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R.
Jones, Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S- and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
7
Item II-H.2
PLANNING ITEM 25037
Peggy Davis, the applicant, represented herself and advised of her receipt
of a favorable letter from the President of the Charlestowne Civic
League. Mrs. Davis presented a copy of her site plan. (Said copy is
hereby made a part of the record.
Jack Robertson, Realtor with an office location at 3221 Virginia Beach
Boulevard, also spoke in support of said application.
OPPOSITION:
Attorney David Miller, represented the contiguous property owners as well
as the adjacent neighborhoods and presented a petition and aerial
photographs in OPPOSITION (said photographs and petition are hereby made
a part of the record).
Patrick Tedesco, Vice President, Charlestowne Civic League, reit6rated the
Civic League's OPPOSITION to said application.
Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilwoman Henley, City
Council DENIED an Ordinance upon application of PEGGY DAVIS for a
Conditonal Use Permit as per the following:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF PEGGY DAVIS FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER
Ordinance upon application of Peggy Davis for a
Conditional Use Permit for a day care center on the
east side of Centerville Turnpike, 295 feet north
of Livingston Oak Drive. Said parcel is located at
2100 Centerville Turnpike and contains 1.13 acres.
Plats with more detailed information are available
in the Department of Planning. KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH.
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R.
Jones, Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
March 3, 1986
8
Item II-H.3
PLANNING ITEM 25038
Attorney R. J. Nutter represented the applicant
Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilman Jennings, City
Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of GEORGE AND WILLIE HELD for
a Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF GEORGE AND WILLIE
HELD FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
Z03861069
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA
Ordinance upon application of George and Willie
Held for a Change of Zoning District Classification
from R-6 Residential District to B-2
Community-Business District at the northeast corner
of Witchduck Road and Ruritan Court. Said parcel
is located at 400 and 404 South Witchduck Road and
contains 1.4 acres more or less. Plats with more
detailed information are available in the
Department of Planning. KEMSPVILLE BOROUGH.
The following conditions shall be required:
1. A 10-foot right-of-way dedication is required along the frontage
on Ruritan Court, 25 feet from the centerline of the old 30-foot
right-of-way to provide for a standard 50-foot right-of way.
2. A 2 1/2-foot right-of-way dedication is required along the
frontage on Witchduck Road, 45 feet from the centerline of the
existing 85-foot right-of-way to provide for an ultimate 90-foot
right-of-way as per the Master Street and Highway Plan.
The Staff shall investigate the traffic signal on Ruritan Court, a few
hundred feet from the traffic light at the corner of Witchduck and Princess
Anne, as to whether same needs to be cycled with the other lights and not a
caution light.
This Ordinance shall be effective upon the date of adoption.
Adopted by the Concil of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the
Third day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-six.
Voting: 8-2
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R. Jones, Robert G.
Jones and J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S.
Council Members Voting Nay:
Barbara M. Henley and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Abstaining:
Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan
Council Members Absent:
9
Item II-H.4
PLANNING ITEM 25039
Attorney R. J. Nutter represented the applicant and requested WITHDRAWAL.
Letter of Janaury 21, 1986 from Attorney Grover C. Wright, Jr.,
requesting WITHDRAWAL is hereby made a part of the record.
Lou Pace, registered in OPPOSITION, but did not speak as was not OPPOSED to
the WITHDRAWAL
Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilwoman Henley, City
Council ALLOWED WITHDR.AWAL of an Ordinance upon application of C. L. AND 0.
V. WHITE for a Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF C. L. AND 0. V. WHITE
FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
0-1 TO I-1
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
VIRGINIA
Ordinance upon applicatoin of C. L. and 0. V.
White, a General Partnership, for a Change of
Zoning District Classification from 0-1 Office
District to I-I Light Industrial District on
certain property, located on the west side of
Chimney Hill Parkway beginning at a point 116 feet
north of Smokey Chamber Drive. Said parcel
contains 3.37 acres. Plats with more detailed
information are available in the Department of
Planning. KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH.
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold Heischober,
Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R. Jones, Robert
G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr.,
D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Abstaining:
Nancy A. Creech
Council Members Absent:
None
- 10 -
Item II-H.5.
PLANNING ITEM # 25040
Bruce B. Mills, the applicant, represented himself
Deborah Giddens, a resident, represented the Community, and spoke in
OPPOSITION. Mrs. Giddens distributed a petition in opposition to same as
well as photographs of application. The photographs were returned to
Mrs. Giddens, but the petition is hereby made a part of the record.
Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City
Council DENIED an Ordinance upon application of BRUCE B. MILLS for a Change
of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF BRUCE B. MILLS FOR A
CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
Ordinance upon application of Bruce B. Mills for a
Change of Zoning District Classification from A-1
Apartment District to B-2 Community-Business
District on the west side of Happy Street, 231.31
feet south of Bonney Road on Lots 10-15, Block 11,
East Norfolk. Said parcel contains 15,000 square
feet. KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH.
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R.
Jones, Ro@ert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S* and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
*Verbal Aye
Item II-H.6
PLANNING ITEM 25041
Attorney William, Wahab represented the applicant and presented a packet of
information to City Council; Photographs of the applicant's business
and surrounding commercial activity as well as the old homes and one
abandoned home. An appraisal from Mutual Federal Savings also reiterates
the best use of this property is commercial. (Said information is hereby
made a part of the record.)
The City Clerk referenced letter from W. W. Turner of January 30, 1986, in
OPPOSITION to said application and containing a petition. (Said letter
and petition are hereby made a part of the record).
Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City
Council DENIED an Ordinance upon application of G. GEOFFREY AND LINDA J.
BROCKELBANK for a Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF G. GEOFFREY AND LINDA
J. BROCKELBANK FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISRTRICT
CLASSFICATION FROM R-6 TO 0-1
Ordinance upon application of G. Geoffrey & Linda
J. Brockelbank for a Change of Zoning District
Classification from R-6 Residential District to 0-1
Office District at the southeast corner of Bonney
Road and South Fir Avenue. Said parcel is located
at 4313 Bonney Road and contains 9491.7 square
feet. Plats with more detailed information are
available in the Department of Planning.
KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH.
Voting: 10-1
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Nancy A. Creech, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert G. Jones,
Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and
Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
H. Jack Jennings, Jr.
Council Members Absent:
None
- 12 -
Item II-H.7
PLANNING ITEM # 25042
Director of Planning, Robert Scott, displayed the Two Alternative
AligE=ents to the Master Street and Highway Plan.
Alte-mative fl (Hybrid Alignment) was ADOPTED by
City Council on January 27, 1986. This Alternative
uses the existing alignment of Indian River Road
south of Elbow Road. It provides a new aligriment
north of Elbow Road extending approximately 1600
feet north northwest from existing Indian River at
Elbow Road. Crossing Stumpy Lake Lane between two
existing residential units, this Alternative then
rejoins the existing Indian River Road alignment at
the Rosemont Forest subdivision.
Alternative 12 (Revised Neighborhood Algiment).
This alignment was developed by neighborhood
residents in response to some of the concerns
expressed at the City Council Meeting on January
27, 1986. It provides for a completely new
alignment of Indian River Road through the Stumpy
Lake Area.
The Staff still recommends Altern-tive ifl (Hybrid Alignment). There is an
impact on adjoining development to consider specifically the major
subdivision underway. It would be necessary to realign Elbow Road and Round
Hill Drive, a 66-foot collector very similar in nature to Potters Road or
Bonney Road.
Howard Everton, President - Stumpy Lake Civic League, spoke in opposition
to the Proposed Realignment of Indian River Road and Elbow Road (ADOPTED by
City Council an January 27, 1986. He advised the Glenwood Development was
moving ahead and the City's options are becoming more limited.
Attorney R. J. Nutter, representing R. G. Moore, advised if Alternative 12
(Revised Neighborhood Alignment) was ADOPTED, dedications of right-of-way
would require CONDEMNATION. R. G. Moore had made a committment of
dedication concerning Alternative #l (Hybrid Al@ent). R. G. Moore has
conveyed a School Site of 25 acres and committed to the construction of the
roads, drainage and sewerage in connection with this facility. He has
agreed to the extension of Independence Road and Round Hill Road.
A MOTION was made by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilman Fentress to
DEFER. for thirty (30) days an Ordinance to @ the MASTER. STREET AND
HIGHWAY PLAN, dated December 16, 1974, pertaining to the realignment of
Ferrell Parkway and Princess Anne Road north of the Municipal Center,
(realigEment of Iudian River Road and Elbow Road).
This MOTION was AMENDED.
Upon motion by Councilman McCoy, seconded by Councilman Fentress, City
Council DEFERRED for three (3) weeks until the City Council Meeting of
March 24, 1986:
Ordinance to @ the MASTER STREET AND HIGHWAY
PLAN dated December 16, 1974, pertaining to the
realignment of Ferrell Parkway and Princess Anne
Road north of the Municipal Center, (realigument of
Indian River Road and Elbow Road).
March 3, 1986
- 13 -
Item II-H.7
PLANNING ITEM # 25042 (Continued)
This Ordinance was DEFERRED to enable the staff to prepare an ACCURATE COST
COMPARISON concerning all the existing homes as well as the Glennwood
Development that would be impacted by either alignment. Accurate costs of
rights-of-way for both Alternatives must be determined.
An INTERIM REPORT concerning these statistics will be presented to City
Council by City Staff.
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold Heischober,
Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor
Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Abstaining:
H. Jack Jennings, Jr.
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
- 14 -
ITEM II-I.1
ORDINANCE ITEM # 25043
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City
Council ADOPTED:
Ordinance approving the First Supplemental Agreement
between the City of Virginia Beach and CE Maguire, Inc.
for engineering services related to the Lake Gaston
Project and authorizing and directing the City Manager
to execute the same.
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S.
McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
March 3, 1986
14a
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIRST
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AND CE MAGUIRE,
INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATEO
TO THE LAKE GASTON PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
WHEREAS, on November 14, 1982, the City Council of
virginia Beach concluded that the Lake Gaston Project was the
most logical and environmentally sound solution to the water
supply problem in Virginia Beach and southeast Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers concluded that the
project would not have significant impacts on the environment and
subsequently issued the necessary construction permits on January
9, 1984; and
.WHEREAS, after a briefing of the results of the Phase
I-Concept Engineering on October 2, 1985, City Council directed
the staff to proceed with the detailed design of the Lake Gaston
Project in accordance with the specifications in the Corps of
Engineer's permit; and
WHEREAS, the staff has prepared a supplemental agreement
for engineering services, including a detailed scope of services
and negotiated fee schedule, for Phase II-Preliminary Design
Engineering and briefed the Council concerning the proposed
agreement on February 18, 1986.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA.
1. That the First Supplemental Agreement between the
City of virginia Beach and CE Maguire, Inc. for Engineering
Services relating to the Lake Gaston Project is approved.
-14b -
2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to execute a certain agreement entitled "First
Supplemental Agreement Between the City of Virginia Beach and CE
Maguire, Inc. for Services Related to the Lake Gaston Water
Supply Project,' dated February 18, 1986, and attached as Exhibit
"A. "
This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its
adoption.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the 3 day of March 1986.
JDB/imh
02/19/86
(ORD/I)
-2-
March 3 1986
FACT SHEET A
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
LAKE GASTON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Agreement Scope: This first Supplemental Agreement for
engineering services related to the Lake Gaston Project
(Agreement) is for Phase II - Preliminary Design Engineering.
Preliminary Design Engineering involves all the engineering
calculations and technical specifications of the project as
opposed to Final Design Engineering which includes preparation of
construction drawings and coatract documents. Field work
including surveys, geotechnical analysis, and archaeological
studies is also included in Preliminary Design Engineering.
Agreement Structure: The Agreement provides for two types
of services--Basic Services and Additional Services.
Basic Services (Section 1 and Attachment A) are those
services directly related to the Preliminary Design of the
project and for which a detailed scope of services and lump sum
compensation has been clearly identified and negotiated.
Additional Services (Section 2 and Attachment A) are those
services for which a detailed scope of services and lump sum
compensation cannot be specifically defined. Examples are
archaeological studies and geotechnical investigations. For
these services, compensation is based on the salary cost of the
employee hours charged to the project times a multiplier to cover
overhead and profit. Upset or "not-to-exceed" limits have been
established.
Phase 11 Product: During Phase II, the Engineer will
perform all the preliminary engineering and preliminary design
for the Lake Gaston Project from the intake structure to the
termination point. The major product is a Preliminary Design
Report which describes the recommended facilities, their
operation, design criteria, and estimated cost. Also included is
the preparation for detailed (final) design which includes the
I
generation of standard technical specifications and details,
establishment of procedures to maintain control and consistency
of drawings and specifications, and the selection of
subconsultants to perform detailed pipeline design.
Additional Services: During Phase II, topographic mapping
using data obtained from the aerial survey completed in Phase I
will be performed. Geotechnical and Structural Investigations,
already underway will be completed. An ongoing Water Quality
Monitoring Program will be continued and Archaeological Level III
investigations will be undertaken for three sites along the
pipeline route which could not be avoided by realignment or other
mitigative measures. Preparation of right-of-way acquisition
plats and preliminary engineering for a booster pumping station
(if necessary) are also provided for.
Cost: The cost of services during Phase II is expected to
be $2,035,000 for the Basic Services and not more than $1,248,000
for the Additional Services. The Basic Services fee is a lump
sum while the Additional Services fees are "not to exceed"
limits. The total monetary obligation of the City pursuant to
this Agreement is a maximum of $3,283,000. The estimated
distribution of these funds is as follows:
OTHER
DESCRIPTION CE TIAGUIRE CONTRACTORS TOTAL
Basic Services
Phase II $875,000 $1,160,000 $2,035,000
Additional
Services 1173,000 $1,075,000 $1,248,000
TOTAL Services
Phase II $1,048,000 $2,235,000 $3,283,000
TML/ba
2/12/86
2
FACT SHEET B
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
LAKE GASTON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Agreement Provisions:
Section 1 - Basic Services of the Engineer: Describes Basic
Services, limitations, and responsibilities of the Engineer.
Section 2 - Additional Services of the Engineer: Describes the
Additional Services of the Engineer.
Section 3 - Responsibilities of the CitY: Describes the
responsibilities and services of the City.
Section 4 - Compensation to Engineer: Describes the amounts and
limits of compensation to the Engineer. This section also
describes the method by which fees for future phases, if any,
shall be negotiated and incorporated into the Agreement.
Section 5 - taanner of Payment: Describes the method of invoicing
and compensation. This section &lso provides for auditing the
Engineer and for monthly status reports.
Section 6 - Time Period for Services: Establishes a time limit
of 13 - 16 months for Phase II.
Section 7 - Changes: Provides for written change orders.
Section 8 - Ownership of Documents: Provides for the City's
ownership of all work product and documents generated at its
expense.
Section 9 - Failure to Construct Said Improvements: Provides for
proration of the Engineer's fee if the project is terminated.
Section 10 - Access to Site: Requires the City to provide entry
for the Engineer on public and private property.
Section 11 - Approvals and Permits: Requires the City to furnish
the necessary approvals and permits.
Section 12 - Insurance: Requires the Engineer to maintain
certain limits of insurance.
Section 13 - Personnel and Facilities: Requires the Engineer to
provide qualified personnel for services rendered and prohibits
any of the Engineer's employees from having employment or other
liontractual relationships with the City.
Section 14 - Conflict of Interest: Requires that no City
employee have a personal or financial interest in the Agreement.
Section 15 - Findings Confidential: Requires that the Engineer
not release any information about the project to anyone other
than the City (or Engineer's subcontractors as necessary).
Section 16 - Responsibility of the Engineer: Requires the
Engineer to correct deficient or neglegent performance and
provides for the Engineer to indemnify and save harmless the City
from all costs and claims arising from deficient or negligent
performance.
Section 17 - Non-Waiver of Rights: Allows the City, at its
discretion, to bypass certain requirements of the Engineer
without establishing a permanent waiver of any such requirements.
2
Section 18 - Construction Cost and Construction Cost Estimates:
Protects the Engineer from liability if construction costs exceed
estimates &s a result of unpredictable fluctuations of intangible
factors beyond the control of the Engineer.
Section 19 - Successors and Assigns: Prevents the City or
Engineer from transferring or assigning rights or
responsibilities in accordance with the Agreement without the
consent of the other party.
Section 20 - Arbitration: Provides for the arbitration of all
disputes pursuant to the Agreement provided the subject of the
dispute has a value less than $100,000.
Section 21 - Termination: Provides for the City to terminate the
Agreement when in the best interest of the City, and for the
Engineer to terminate the Agreement in the event of substantial
failure by the City to meet its responsibilities.
Section 22 - Controlling Law: Provides for the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and of the City of Virginia Beach to
govern this Agreement.
Section 23 - Previous Agreements: Provides for this First
Supplemental Agreement to supersede the previous engineering
agreement, dated August 28, 1984 if any provisions of the two
agreements conflict.
T@IL/ba
2/12/86
3
LAKE GASTON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
ENGINEERING FEE AND WORK PRODUCT SUMMARY
PHASE I
Date Authorized: August 20, 1984
Amount Authorized: $1,027,000
Amount Expended: $1,025,000
Status: Complete
Product:
A. Concept Engineering
1. Pipeline route analysis 4/85.
2. Water supply plan 5/85.
3. Presentation to City Council and
Implementation plan 10/85.
B. Archaelogical Studies
1. Report on 26 sites subjected to a Level 2
archaelogical analysis 10/85.
C. Water Supply Reports
1. Report on Norfolk water contract 6/85.
2. Report on water supply and demand 6/85.
D. Surveying
1. Plats of 10 parcels of the intake site and first 6.1
miles of pipeline route.
2. Slating/selection/contracting for photogrammetric
mapping and surveying services.
3. Aerial photography and indexing of permitted route
(500,000 l.f.).
4. Placement of 449 permanent monuments with 2nd order
horizontal and vertical accuracy. Global positioning
satellite system was used as the basis.
5. Analytical part of the aerotriangulation to generate
supplemental horizontal and vertical control data
(digitized form only at this point).
6. Route survey drawings and photo image with horizontal
and vertical control data for permitted route
(500,000 l.f., 149 drawings) 6/85.
1 of 3
7. Supplemental survey data for the water crossings
including photos, topos, and measurements of the
abandoned bridge structures.
8. Route survey horizontal and vertical control
reference and recovery data (6 volumes, one for each
city/county).
9. Route Survey station data summary in booklet form for
the hydraulic analysis.
E. Geotechnical Analysis
1. Preliminary geotechnical analysis of permitted route
and two alternate routes.
2. Slating/selection/contracting for geotechnical and
strucutral investigations for the permitted routes.
F. Water Quality Monitoring
1. Water quality monitoring report on Lake Gaston water
quality, Phase I, 11/85 including water quality
during transmission, intake considerations, general
water quality, and impact on Norfolk system.
G. Technical Support for Pipeline Litigation
(Water Quality modeling)
INTER114 FUNDING, PHASE Ii
Date Authorized: November 4, 1985
Amount Authorized: $350,000
Amount Expended: $209,000
Status: Ongoing. Balance to be completed pursuant to
First Supplemental Agreement (see III, below).
Product:
A. Author Young and Company Water Resource Recovery Fee
Report
S. Water Quality Monitoring Program (20%)
C. Geotechnical Analysis (40%)
2 of 3
iii. PHASE II, Requested: $3,283,000
Product:
A. Preliminary Design Engineering
1. Preliminary Engineering
2. Preliminary Design: Intake and Pump Station
3. Preliminary Design: Pipeline and Terminus
4 . Preliminary Design Report
5. Preparation for Final Design
B. Topographic Mapping: Pipeline Route
C. Geotechnical and Structural Investigations (60%)
D. Water Quality Monitoring Program (80%)
E. Archaeological Level 3 Investigation of 3 sites
F. Right-of-way Acquisition Plats: Pipeline Route
IV. SU Y OF ENGINEERING COSTS
Interim (Phase II) $ 350,000 Committed
Phase II 3,283,000 Requested
Phase III 3,600,000 Projected
Total I 1000
CIP Estimate $7,500,000
V. TOTAL COST: ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL CIP 5-964 ACTUAL
Preliminary Survoys (COE Permit a Phase I) $ 1,400,000 $1,442,00(
Engineering (Phases II and III) 7,500,000 209,00(
Storage in Kerr Reservoir 2,300,000 2,276,00;
Legal 2,500,000 625,00i
Property Acquisition 2,400,000
Construction Cost $160,000,000
Total $176,100,000 5-ri, 0-0
Includes environmental studies, permit application, Arthur Young
studies, and Phase I - Concept Engineering.
TML/ba
2/2 4/8 6
3 of 3
Engineering Expenditures
Phase I (September 1984 October 1985)
ENGINEER BASIC ADDITIONAL TOTAL
CE Maguire 198,000 167,000 365,000
Malcolm Pirnie 249,000 17,000 266,000
Rouse-Sirine 313,000 313,000
(surveying)
James R. Reed 22,000 22,000
(water quality monitoring)
Russnow-Kane 8,000 8,000
(geotechnical)
MAAR Associates 51,000 51,000
(archaeological
studies)
TOTAL 000 000 $1,025,000
Interim Funding
Phase II (November 1985 - January 1986)
ENGINEER BASIC ADDITIONAL TOTAL
CE Maguire 0 22,000 22,000
Malcolm Pirnie 0 6,000 6,000
James R. Reed 0 10,000 10,000
(water quality monitoring)
Parsons Brinckerhoff 0 -171,000 171,000
(geotechnical)
TOTAL 0 1209,000 000
Interim funding authorized is $350,000; $209,000 has been paid;
the balance of $141,000 has been committed but not yet paid.
2/24/86
TML/ba
EXRIBIT "g'
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
AND
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE
LAKE GASTON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
This FIRST SUPPLEHIENTAL AGREEMENT, hereinafter called the
"AGREEMENT," made this 18th day of , 1986, by and
between the City of Virginia Beach, hereinaft.er called the
"CITY", party of the first part, and CE Maguire, Inc.,
hereinafter called the "ENGINEER", party of the Second part:
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to withdraw and transport water
from Lake Gaston to southeastern Virginia for the purpose of
eliminating a water shortage in southeastern Virginia and in the
CITY; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has previously engaged the services of the
ENGINEER, a qualified professional engineering firm, to supply
design and management services for the Lake Gaston Water Supply
Project which involves the withdrawal and transfer of up to 60
million gallo@s per day of water from the Pea Hill Creek
tributary of Lake Gaston to southeast Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the ENGINEER has completed certain concept
engineering services related to the Lake Gaston Project described
as "PHASE I - CONCEPT ENGINEERING AND PROJECT PLAN" and
referenced in a previous agreement dated August 28, 1984 between
the CITY and the ENGINEER, and
1 of 26
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to proceed with the next phase of
engineering services described &s "PHASE II - PRELI?AINARY DESIGN
ENGINEERING," and
WHEREAS, these services will include preliminary
engineering, surveying, geotechnical analysis, water quality
monitoring, &rchaeological &nalysis &nd other services related to
the preliminary design for the intake StruCture, & number of
water pump stations, 85+/- miles of transmission line, and
interconnections to existing water systems, as well as the
management and coordination of a number of subcontracts with
engineering and other firms during preliminary design, and other
technical and administrative services relating to the PROJECT;
and
WHEREAS, the ENGINEER desires to furnish the &foresaid
professional services in accordance with the conditions specified
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH: That in consid-
eration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained,
the parties hereto do mutually agree each with the other as
follows:
SECTION 1 - BASIC SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER: ENGINEER, on
behalf of the CITY, shall undertake, provide for, or otherwise
furnish the following:
1.1 Professional services and activities related to the
engineering, design, and project management of the Lake Gaston
Water Supply Project, hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT",
set forth in "ATTACHIAENT A: PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING -
2 of 26
PHASE II, SCOPE OF WORK" and identified as "Basic Services."
Attachment A is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this
AGREE.'.IENT.
1. 2 ENGINEER shall also undertake, provide for, or other-
wise furnish all services, personnel conunitments, and other
proposals and commitments set forth in the two documents sub-
mitted by ENGINEER to the Architect and Engineer Selection
Committee. These documents, entitled "Lake GastQa Water Supply
Project: Project Management Services", dated April 20, 1984
hereinafter referred to as "ATTACHMENT B" and "Project Management
Services For Lake Gaston Water Supply Project" dated March 22,
1984 hereinafter referred to as "ATTACHMENT C" are both hereby
incorporated in and made a part of this AGREEIAENT.
1.3 Should a conflict exist between requireinents specified
in this AGREEMENT and those specified in ATTACHMENT A, ATTACHIAENT
B, or ATTACHFAENT C, then the order of preference, in descending
order, shall be as follows: this AGREEKIENT, ATTACHMENT A,
ATTACHMENT B, ATTACHITENT C.
1.4 ENGINEER shall employ Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and other
qualified subconsultants and subcontractors in accordance with
the guidelines, commitments and proposals described in ATTACHIAENT
B and ATTACHMENT C. The selection procedures for subconsultants
and subcontractors, and all subcontracts shall be subject to
prior review and approval by the CITY. The ENGINEER shall not
enter into any subcontracts without the prior written approval of
the CITY.
3 of 26
1.5 All services and work product supplied to the CITY by
the ENGINEER's subconsultants and subcontractors shall be deemed
to be the work product or services of the ENGINEER. The ENGINEER
shall be responsible for the work product, services, and
performance of all subconsultants and subcontractors used to
provide services for the PROJECT and in accordance with this
AGREEMENT. Neither the CITY's review, approval, or acceptance of
any subconsultants, subcontractors, or services rendered thereby,
shall be deemed a waiver by the CITY of the ENGINEER's
responsibility, as specified herein.
1.6 The ENGINEER shall not execute any contractual arrange-
ments, subcontracts, agreements or otherwise enter into any
legally binding arrangements with subconsultants, subcontractors
or any other parties that will in any way diminish or limit the
CITY's rights, expand or increase the CITY's obligations, or
otherwise conflict with the requirements and provisions set forth
in this AGREEMENT.
1.7 Notwithstanding factors beyond the control of the
ENGINEER, the ENGINEER shall not make any substantial changes in
personnel previously proposed in ATTACHWIENT B and ATTACHT@IENT C
without prior review of all such changes with the CITY. All
personnel substitutions by ENGINEER, including those of Wtalcolm
Pirnie, Inc., shall be with employees of similar experience,
expertise, and professional standing.
4 of 26
1.8 Failure by ENGINEER to fulfill the requirements of this
section shall- constitute grounds for immediate termination in
accordance with SECTION 21 of this AGREET.IENT, provided however,
that ENGINEER shall not be entitled to any close out fees.
SECTION 2 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER:
2.1 When directed by the CITY in writing, or when
recommended by the ENGINEER and approved by the CITY, in writing,
the ENGINEER shall undertake, provide for, or otherwise furnish
additional services which may be necessary duriag the development
of the PROJECT, but not included in the basic services described
in SECTION 1 of this AGREE?.IENT. These services shall be limited
to those set forth in ATTACHMENT A and identified as "Additional
Services."
2.2 All provisions, requirements and limitations with
respect to ENGINEER's procurement, engagement and utilization of
subcontractors and subconsultants to provide services for the
PROJECT pursuant to SECTION 1 of this AGREEMENT shall also apply
to this SECTION 2.
SECTION 3 - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY: To the extent
that it is not already provided herein, the CITY shall provide or
furnish, in a timely manner, the following at no cost to the
ENGINEER:
3.1 Criteria and information as to &ny requirements the
CITY may have for the PROJECT in addition to those set forth in
ATTACHhIENT A, including design objectives and constraints, space,
capacity and performance requirements, flexibility and
expandability, budgetary limitations, and any design and
5 of 26
construction standards which CITY may require to be included in
the drawings and specifications.
3.2 Information pertinent to the PROJECT including previous
reports and other data relative to design or construction of the
PROJECT which is in the possession of the CITY.
3.3 A written designation of a person to act as CITY's
representative with respect to the services to be rendered for
the PROJECT and in accordance with this AGREEMENT. Such person
shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive
information, interpret aad define CITY policies, and render
decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements and
systems pertinent to ENGINEER's services.
3.4 Review and comment on work product submitted by
ENGINEER.
3.5 Response to ENGINEER's requests for decisions and
determinations to the extent that such decisions and deter-
minations are not the responsibility of ENGINEER &s outlined in
SECTION I and SECTION 2 of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 4 COMPENSATION TO ENGINEER:
4.1 For services rendered, provided, or otherwise furnished
by the ENGINEER for the PROJECT as stipulated in SECTION 1 of
this AGREEMENT, the CITY shall pay the ENGINEER, according to the
manner prescribed in SECTION 5 of this AGREE?4ENT, the following
amounts:
Basic Services
PHASE II - PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING: $2,035,315
Lump Sum
6 of 26
4.2 Fees for services rendered in future engineering
phases, if any, shall be negotiated and thereafter incorporated
in and made a part of this AGREEGENT by addendum. Negotiations
and the resultant fee determinations shall include a period of
performance with detailed manpower, material, and service
estimates.
4.3 All agreements with respect to ne-.otiated and
renegotiated fees shall be in writing and signed by the CITY and
ENGINEER; and shall be incorporated in and made a part of this
AGREEMENT by addendum. If the ENGINEER and the CITY are unable
to agree upon mutually acceptable fees for future engineering
phases within a reasonable period of time following the
completion of the previous phase, then this AGREEIAENT shall
terminate. The ENGINEER and CITY both agree to negotiate in good
faith and make all reasonable efforts to reach mutually agreeable
fees pursuant to any subsequent negotiations and addenda.
Wherever this AGREEMENT provides for the negotiation or
renegotiation of fees or other kinds of compensation, they shall
be subject to an appropriation of funds by the Council of the
City of Virginia Beach. If such funds &re not appropriated, th.en
this AGREEMENT shall be terminated.
4.4 For services rendered, provided, or otherwise furnished
by the ENGINEER for the PROJECT as stipulated in SECTION 2 of
this AGREEMENT, the CITY shall pay the ENGINEER, according to the
7 of 26
manner prescribed in SECTION 5 of this AGREEMENT, the following
amounts:
SALARY COSTS times a factor of 2.20 to include ENGINEER's
compensation for direct salary cost, overhead, and profit.
QUALIFIED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES limited to normal aad
customary charges.
4.5 SALARY COSTS shall be defined as the cost of wages and
salaries, including sick leave, vacation, and holiday pay
applicable thereto, of principals, engineers, architects,
surveyors, designers, draftsmen, specification writers,
estimators, other technical personnel, steaographers, typists and
clerks, for time directly chargable to the PROJECT; plus
unemployment and other payroll taxes; and contributions for
social security, workmen's compensation insurance, retirement,
medical, and life insurance benefits; as determined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency audit form number 5700-41 and
based on Engineer's 1984 budget plan for the Virginia Beach
office.
4.6 The ENGINEER shall submit a written statement to the
CITY listing the hourly salary rates for all employees who are to
charge time to the PROJECT pursuant to SECTION 2 and SECTION .4.
This list shall include the salary history of each employee. The
ENGINEER shall also submit an updated list to the CITY reflecting
increases in the hourly rates of employees charging time to the
PROJECT pursuant to SECTION 2 and SECTION 4 as such increases
occur. Except for compliance with provisions of federal, state
or local laws, the CITY shall endeavor to keep all such salary
information confidential.
8 of 26
4. 7 QUALIFIED REITABURSABLE EXPENSES shall be defined as
expenses which are necessary, prudent, and identifiable; and
which are incurred by ENGINEER as a direct consequence of
providing services for the PROJECT in accordance with this
AGREEMENT. QUALIFIED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES shall be limited to
the following:
A. Payments made to subconsultants and. subcontractors
engaged by ENGINEER to render services for the PROJECT.
B. Administrative costs directly attributed to the
invoicing, payment, processing, and accounting of
services rendered by subconsultants and subcontractors,
including the City of Virginia Beach Business Tax on
gross receipts generated thereby, provided that all such
charges are reasonable, customary, strictly
identifiable, and not already provided for as part of
ENGINEER's services and compensation described elsewhere
in this AGREEMENT.
C. Living and traveling expenses of principals and
employees when away from their home office on business
directly related to and specifically for the PROJECT.
D. Identifiable communications expenses, such as long-
distance telephone, telegraph, cable express charges,
and postage, other than for general correspondence.
9 of 26
E Services directly applicable to the PROJECT, such as
special accounting expenses, special computer rental and
programming costs, borings, laboratory charges,
commercial printing and binding, and similar costs that
are not applicable to general overhead.
F. Identifiable drafting supplies and stenographic supplies
and expenses charged to the PROJECT, as distinguished
from such supplies and expenses applicable to two or
more projects.
G. Identifiable reproduction costs applicable to the
PROJECT, e.g., blueprinting, photostating, mimeo-
graphing, and printing.
H. Other directly related and identifiable expenses &s may
be approved, in advance and in writing, by the CITY.
4.8 INDIRECT COSTS, defined as those costs which normal.ly
arise as a consequence of conducting routine business and not
directly attributed to or a direct result of providing services
for the PROJECT in accordance with this AGREEMENT shall not be
included in QUALIFIED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES and shall not be paid
to ENGINEER. INDIRECT COSTS include the following:
A. Provisions of office, light, heat, and similar items for
10 of 26
working space, depreciation allowances or rental for
furniture, drafting equipment and engineering
instruments. Automobile expenses and office &nd
drafting supplies not identifiable to specific projects.
I
B. Taxes, except as otherwise provided herein, and
insurance other than those included as SALARY COST.
C. Library and periodical expenses, and other means of
keeping abreast of advances in engineering, such as
attendance at technical and professional meetings and
continuing education courses.
D. Executive, administrative, accounting, legal, steno-
graphic, and clerical salaries and expenses, other than
identifiable salaries included in SALARY COSTS and
expenses included in QUALIFIED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES;
plus salaries or imputed salaries of partners and
principals to the extent that they perform general
executive a nd administrative services as distinguished
from technical or advisory services directly applicable
to particular projects. These services and expenses,
essential to the conduct of the business, include
preliminary arrangements for new projects or
assignments, and interest on borrowed capital.
11 of 26
E. Business development expenses, including salaries of
principals and employees so engaged.
F. Provision for loss of productive time of technical
I
employees between assignments, and for time of
principals and employees on public interest assignments.
4.9 Under no circumstances shall the total cost of services
provided by ENGINEER pursuant to SECTION 2 of this AGREEMENT
exceed the individual task limits established in ATTACHMENT A,
and as indicated below, without the express written consent of
the CITY.
Additional Services
PHASE II - PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING: $1,248,000 Upset
- Limit
SECTION 5 - MANNER OF PAYMENT: The CITY shall pay the
ENGINEER in the following manner for the amounts specified in
SECTION 4:
5.1 ENGINEER shall submit monthly statements for services
rendered in accordance with SECTION 1 and SECTION 2 of this
AGREEMENT.
5.2 For services pertaining to SECTION 1, the statements
shall be based upon ENGINEER's estimate of the proportion of the
total services actually completed at the time of billing. For
services pertaining to SECTION 2, the statements shall be based
upon actual services rendered and QUALIFIED REIHIBURSABLE EXPENSES
incurred through the billing cycle.
12 of 26
5.3 invoices shall be sufficiently detailed and organized
so that the CITY will be able to determine that all charges are
valid PROJECT charges. The CITY will remit payment to the
ENGINEER within thirty (30) days upon receipt of invoice.
5.4 ENGINEER shall submit with each monthly statement a
status report on the PROJECT. This report shall include sum-
maries of the services provided and the work accomplished during
the billing cycle and to date. It shall also irtelude summaries
of the expenses and charges to the CITY during the billing cycle
and to date. Suitable graphs, charts, and figures shall be
included to relate services provided and work accomplished to
expenses and charges billed. Invoices shall not be considered
complete and the CITY's thirty-day period for payment shall not
begin until the report is received by the CITY.
5.5 In addition to the monthly status report described
above, when expenses and charges billed for services rendered in
accordance with SECTION 2 of this AGREEMENT reach one-third and
two-thirds of the individual task limits provided for in ATTACH-
MENT A, the ENGINEER shall provide the CITY with a written
analysis of the status of the task for which services are being
provided, a projection of remaining services and expenses
necessary to complete the task, and recommendations as to any
necessary adjustments, upward or downward, of the existing
expenditure limit. Invoices submitted for services rendered in
accordance with SECTION 2 shall not be considered complete with-
out the above referenced analysis and the CITY's thirty-day
period for payment shall not begin until the written analysis is
13 of 26
received by the CITY.
5.6 The ENGINEER shall make available books, files, and
other records as necessary for the CITY or its agents to audit
all hours, salaries, and expenses charged to the PROJECT.
SECTION 6 - TIME PERIOD FOR SERVICES:
6.1 The CITY shall provide ENGINEER written authorization
to proceed with services described in this AGREEMENT.
6.2 The provisions of this AGREEMENT and the various rates
of compensation for ENGINEER's services provided have been agreed
to in anticipation of the orderly and continuous progress of the
PROJECT. The projected completion date for PHASE II -
PRELI@AINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING is May 1, 1987. Should the
authorization to proceed not be issued prior to April 1, 1986 or
the services provided in PHASE I - CONCEPT ENGINEERING AND
PROJECT PLAN PHASE II - PRELIIAINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING exceed
fourteen (14 months), through no fault of the ENGINEER, his
subconsultants, or his subcontractors, then ENGINEER shall have
the right to renegotiate that portion of the fees for which the
cost of providing services has increased provided however that a
mutually agreeable extension period has been established.
6.3 ENGINEER's right to renegotiation or to additional
compensation shall be subject to ENGINEER providing the CITY with
thirty (30) days written notice prior to providing any service
for which ENGINEER wishes to claim a right of renegotiation. All
renegotiations shall include detailed substantive documentation
and numerical analysis, supplied by ENGINEER, identifying and
certifying ENGINEER's reasons for delay and increased cost of
14 of 26
providing services. The provisions of paragraph 4.3 shall apply
to any renegotiated fees and the addenda shall be accompanied by
specific time periods for performance.
6.4 Should the ENGINEER be unable to complete PHASE II
within sixteen (16) months from the date the authorization to
proceed is given for reasons or fault solely attributable to the
ENGINEER or his subconsultants or subcontractors, then the CITY
shall have the right, at its discretion, to -terminate this
AGREEMENT in accordance with SECTION 21.
SECTION 7 - CHANGES: The CITY may, by written order, make
changes within the general scope of this AGREE,%TENT in the
services to be performed for the PROJECT. If such changes cause
an increase or decrease in the ENGINEER'S cost of, or time
required for, performance of any services in accordance with this
AGREEMENT, an equitable adjustment shall be made and this
AGREEMENT shall be modified, in writing, accordingly. Any claim
by the ENGINEER for adjustments in accordance with this paragr&ph
must be asserted in writing within thirty (30) days from the date
of receipt by the ENGINEER of the notification of change.
SECTION 8 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS:
8.1 Upon payment by the CITY of compens&tion to which the
ENGINEER is entitled as provided herein, all plans, designs,
surveys, contract documents, reports, field notes, sub-surface
data and any other work product or material generated at the
CITY's expense for the PROJECT and in accordance with this
AGREE?AENT shall become the property of the CITY, whether the
project for which they were made is ever constructed, or not.
15 of 26
S. 2 It is understood that ENGINEER does not intend or
represent th&t any plans, designs, 'surveys, contract documents,
reports, field notes, sub-surface data or any other work product
or material generated for the PROJECT and in accordance with this
AGREE&IENT are suitable for reuse by the CITY or others for
extensions of the PROJECT or any other project. The ENGINEER
shall not be held responsible or liable for the misuse,
misrepresentation, or misinterpretation by others of any of the
aforementioned work products, whether in whole or in part.
However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as a
release or waiver of the ENGINEER's responsibility for the
quality, soundness, and validity of any work product prepared or
submitted for the PROJECT and in accordance with this AGREEMENT;
and ENGINEER's liability with respect to deficient or negligent
performance as described in SECTION 16 of this AGREEMENT shall in
no way be dimiaished.
SECTION 9 - FAILURE TO CONSTRUCT SAID IMPROVEIIENTS: Not-
withstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this AGREEMENT,
should the CITY not proceed with construction of any portion of
the PROJECT, which right is hereby reserved, the ENGINEER shall
not be entitled to any fees not yet earned and due as set forth
in SECTION 4 and SECTION 5.
SECTION 10 - ACCESS TO SITE: The CITY shall make provisions
for the ENGINEER to enter upoa public and private property as
required for the ENGINEER to perform his services in accordance
with this AGREEMENT.
16 of 26
SECTION 11 APPROVALS AND PERMITS: The CITY shall furnish
approvals and permits as may' be necessary for completion of the
PROJECT.
SECTION 12 - INSURANCE:
12.1 The ENGINEER shall purchase and maintain during the
life of this AGREEI&ENT Workmen's Compensation Insurance in the
amounts required by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia for
all of his employees employed on the PROJECT; and in case any
work is sublet, the ENGINEER shall require that subconsultants
and subcontractors similarly provide Workmen's Compensation
Insurance for all of the latters' employees, unless such
employees are covered by the protection afforded by ENGINEER.
12.2 The ENGINEER shall purchase and maintain during the
life of this AGREEMENT Comprehensive General Liability Insurance,
including Contractual Liability Coverage in an amount not less
than $1,000,000 (one million dollars) combined single limit. The
iasurance must be written on an occurrence basis and must provide
for protection against liability arising from the ENGINEER's
operation and operations by his subconsultants and sub-
contractors.
12.3 The ENGINEER shall purchase and maintain during the
life of this AGREEIAENT Automobile Liability Insurance in an
amount not less than $500,000 (five hundred thousand dollars)
combined single limit.
12.4 The ENGINEER shall purchase and maintain in effect
during the entire term of this AGREERAENT, and for a period of not
less than 2 years beyond the completion date of the PROJECT,
17 of 26
Professional Liability Insurance. Such insurance shall protect
the ENGINEER, subconsultants and subcontractors, &s well as the
CITY, and shall be written in an amount not less than $5,000,000
(tive million dollars). Engineer shall also require its
principal subconsultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to purchase similar
Professional Liability Insurance in the amount of $5,000,000
(five million dollars).
12.5 The ENGINEER shall furnish Certificates of Insurance
for all insurance required herein, and shall maintain current
Certificates of Insurance on file with the CITY at all times
during the term of this AGREEMENT. These Certificates of
Insurance shall certify that the insurer will provide the CITY
sixty (60) days written notice prior to the effective date of any
m&terial modification, cancellation or nonrenewal of the
insuraace certified thereon.
SECTION 13 - PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES: The ENGINEER war-
rants that he is a duly qualified Professional Engineer and
registered as such under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia
and now has or will secure at his own expense, all personnel and
facilities required to perform the services set forth in this
AGREEMENT within the required completion dates specified
herein. Such personnel are not employees of nor have any
contractual relationship with the CITY. All personnel assigned
by the ENGINEER to provide services for the PROJECT and in
accordance with this AGREEMENT shall be fully qualified.
18 of 26
SECTION 14 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No paid employee of the
CITY shall have ' a personal or financial interest, direct or
indirect, as a contracting party or otherwise, in the performance
of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 15 - FINDINGS CONFIDENTIAL: All of the information,
reports and documents prepared or assembled by the ENGINEER under
this AGREEMENT are the property of the CITY. The ENGINEER agrees
that any such documents shall not be made available to any
individual or organization other than appropriate CITY officials
without prior written approval of the CITY. Nothing contained in
this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the ENGINEER from
making information, reports and documents available to those
individuals or firms directly involved with providing services
for the PROJECT.
SECTION 16 - RESPONSIBILITY OF EMINEER: The ENGINEER
shall, without additional cost or fee to the CITY, correct or
revise any errors or deficiencies in his performance. Neither
the CITY's review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for any
of the services rendered in accordance with this AGREEMENT shall
be deemed a waiver of rights by the CITY, and the ENGINEER shall
remain liable to the CITY for all costs which were incurred by
the CITY as a result of the ENGINEER's breach of this AGREEMENT
and/or ENGINEER's negligent performance of any of the services
furnished under this AGREEMENT. The ENGINEER shall indemnify and
save harmless the CITY from all claims arising from the
ENGINEER's negligent or deficient performance.
19 of 26
SECTION 17 - NON-WAIVER OF RIGHTS: It is agreed that the
CITY's failure to insist upon the strict performance of any
provision of this AGREEMENT, or to exercise any right based upon
a breach thereof, or the acceptance of any performance during
such breach, shall not constitute a waiver of any rights under
this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 18 - CONSTRUCTION COST AND CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIUATES: It is understood that ENGINEER has no control over
the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by
others, construction contractor(s)l method of determining prices,
competitive bidding or other intangibles such as market
conditions, inflation rate, or interest obtained on municipal
bonds and other loans. Therefore, ENGINEER shall not be held
responsible if proposals, bids, or actual PROJECT construction
costs exceed ENGINEER's estimates and opinions; provided that
such excess costs are the result of unusual, unpredictable or
abnormal fluctuations of factors beyond the control of
ENGINEER. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed
as a release or waiver of ENGINEER's responsibility and liability
for providing sound, appropriate, valid, and current estimates of
proposals, bids and actual PROJECT costs including reasonable and
suitable predictions of cost escalators such as inflatioa.
Neither shall anything in this paragraph be construed as a
release or waiver of ENGINEER's responsibility or liability to
properly assess technical and tangible factors affecting
proposals, bids, and actual PROJECT costs or to diminish, in any
way, ENGINEER's responsibilities or liabilities as provided for
20 of 26
and set forth in SECTION 16 of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 19 - SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS:
19.1 CITY and ENGINEER each binds himself and his partners,
successors, executors, administrators, assigns and legal repre-
sentatives to the other party to this AGREEIAENT and to the part-
ners, successors, executors, administrators, assigns and legal
representatives of such other party, in respect to all covenants,
agreements and obligatioas of this AGREEIAENT.
19.2 Neither CITY aor ENGINEER shall assign, sublet or
transfer any rights under or interest in (including, but without
limitation, moneys that may become due or moneys that are due)
this AGREEMENT without the written consent of the other, except
as stated ia paragraph 19.1 and except to the extent that the
effect of this limitation may be restricted by law. Unless
specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an
assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor
from any duty or responsibility under this AGREEMENT. Nothing
contained in this paragraph shall prevent ENGINEER from employing
independent subconsultants and subcontractors pursuant to the
provisions of SECTION 1 in order to provide, render, or otherwise
furnish services in accordance with this AGREEMENT.
19.3 Nothing herein shall be construed to give any rights
or benefits hereunder to anyone other than CITY and ENGINEER.
SECTION 20 - ARBITRATION:
20.1 All claims, counterclaims, disputes and other matters
in question between the parties hereto arising out of or relating
21 of 26
to this AGREEF.IENT or the breach thereof will be decided by
arbitration in ' accordance with the Construction Industry
Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then
obtaining, subject to the limitations and restrictions stated in
paragraphs 20.3 and 20.4 below. This agreement so to arbitrate
and any other agreement or consent to arbitrate entered into in
accordance herewith as provided in this SECTION 20 will be
specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law of
any court having jurisdiction.
20.2 Notice of demand for arbitration shall be filed in
writing with the other parties to this AGREEMENT and with the
American Arbitration Association. The demand must be made within
forty-five (45) days after the claim, dispute or other matter in
question has arisen. In no event may the demand for arbitration
be made after the date that the institution of legal or equitable
proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in
question would have been barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
20.3 All demands for arbitration and all answering
statements thereto which include any monetary claim must contain
a statement that the total sum or value in controversy as alleged
by the party making such demand or answering statement is not
more than $100,000 (exclusive of interest and costs). The
arbitrators will not have jurisdiction, power or authority to
consider, or make findings (except in denial of their own
jurisdiction) concerning, any claim, counterelaim, dispute or
other matter in question where the amount in controversy thereof
22 of 26
is more than $100,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) or to
render a monetary award in response thereto against any party
which totals more than $100,000 (exclusive of interest and
costs).
20.4 No arbitration arising out of, or relating to, this
AGREEMENT may include, by consolidation, joinder or in any other
manner, any person or entity who is not a party to this
AGREEtAENT.
20.5 By written consent signed by all the parties to this
AGREEMENT and containing a specific reference hereto, the
limitations and restrictions contained in paragraphs 20.3 and
20.4 may be waived in whole or in part as to any claim,
counterclaim, dispute or other matter specifically described in
such consent. No consent to arbitration' in respect of a
specifically described claim, counterclaim, dispute or other
matter in question will constitute consent to arbitrate any other
claim, counterclaim, dispute or other matter in question which is
not specifically described in such consent or in which the sum or
value in controversy exceeds $100,000 (exclusive of interest and
costs) or which is with any party not specifically described
therein.
20.6 The award rendered by the arbitrators will be final,
not subject to appeal, and judgment may be entered upon it in any
court having jurisdiction thereof.
23 of 26
SECTION 21 - TERIAINATION:
21.1 The CITY may terminate this AGREEMENT, in whole or in
part, when in the best interest of the CITY, by notifying the
ENGINEER in writing fifteen (15) days prior to the effective date
of termination. In the event that this AGREEIAENT is terminated
by the CITY, the ENGINEER shall be entitled to compensation as
described in SECTION 5 for services provided up to the
termination; plus reasonable close-out fees unles@ this AGREEMENT
is terminated because of a breach thereof by the ENGINEER. The
CITY shall be entitled to all plans, designs, surveys, contract
documents, reports, field notes, sub-surface data and any other
work product or material generated at the CITY's expense under
this AGREE?AENT whether completed or not.
21.2 The ENGINEER may terminate this AGREEMENT by notifying
the CITY in writing forty-five (45) days in advance of the
effective date of termination in the event of substantial failure
by the CITY to perform in accordance with the tems hereof
through no fault of the ENGINEER.
21.3 All notices referred to herein shall be in writing and
shall be deemed to have been given when mailed by certified mail,
return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed (A) if to
CITY at Department of Public Utilities, Municipal Center,
Virginia Beach, Virgini&, 23456, Attention: Mr. Thomas M. Leahy,
P.E. or (B) if to ENGINEER at CE Maguire Inc., Lynnhaven
Corporate Center, 770 Lynnhaven Parkway - Suite 240, Virginia
Beach, Virginia, 23452, Attention: Mr. James B. Richards, P.E.
24 of 26
21.4 The ENGINEER shall require that all contractual
arrangements and sub-agreements between ENGINEER and any
subconsultants, subcontractors, or other parties rendering
services for the PROJECT in accordance with this AGREEMENT
include provisions for termination which do not obligate the CITY
for any compensation other than for services actually rendered up
to the termination of this AGREEPIENT, plus reasonable close-out
fees. The ENGINEER shall bear all responsibi lity and costs
associated with ENGINEER's execution of contractual arrangements
or sub-agreements that are incompatible or in conflict with this
AGREENIENT.
SECTION 22 - CONTROLLING LAW: This AGREETAENT is to be
governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City
of Virginia Beach.
SECTION 23 - PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS: This AGREEMENT supersedes
a previous agreement for engineering services for the PROJECT
dated August 28, 1984, between the CITY and the ENGINEER. If any
conflicts arise between the provisions of this AGREEIAENT and the
provisions of the previous agreement, then the provisions of this
AGREEMENT shall prevail and take precedent.
25 of 26
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and
sealed this AGREENIENT as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
BY: Date
City raanager
ATTEST:
Date
City Clerk
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
BY: Date
Vice President
ATTEST:
Date
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
m - Date: :ZII3186
-Water Resources DivisLon
0- Date: e 00
Department of Public IJYII*ties
APPROVED AS TO FORK:
Date:
City Attoney' S@ fic
CER AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
Date:
Ddpartment of Finance
26 of 26
- 15 -
Item 11-J
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 25044
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Robert Jones, City
Council APPROVED in ONE MOTION Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Councilman Jennings VERBALLY ABSTAINED on Item 3.
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
Louis R. Jones, *Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba
S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
*VERBAL AYE
- 16 -
Item II-J-1
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 25045
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Robert Jones,
City Council ADOPTED:
RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION
J. Wylie French
Tidewater Comunity College Board
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
Louis R. Jones, *Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba
S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
*VERBAL AYE
March 3, 1986
- 16a -
RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION
WHEREAS: The history of America is one of a nation of people
helping other people -- joining together to b,ild , better society --
dedication and commitment;
WHEREAS: Life is so unpredictable! No day comes back! Life is
short at best! That which makes life most worth living is the sure
knowledge that we ourselves have fulfilled our purpose, met our
obligation to our fellow cit:i,es and can be satisfied we have done our
best;
WHEREAS: J. Wylie French served on the TIDEWATER COMMUNITY
COLLEGE BOARD from January h1, 1978 through December 31, 1985.
Throughout these eight years is d,dication and unslfish service have
involved personal sacrifices a,d inconveniences, not only to him but
frequently to the family; and,
WHEREAS: Advisors and Volunteers liave saved the City untold
dollars, but more importa-itly, our successful growth depends upon them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City
Council here assembled this Third day of March, Nineteen Hundred
Eighty-Six, on behalf of the citizens of Virginia Beach, expresses deep
GRATITUDE and RESPECT to:
J. WYLIE FRENCH
Given under my hand and seal,
Mayor
Marhc 3 1
1 7
Item II-J-2
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 25046
Upon motion by Councilnan Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Robert Jones,
City Council ADOPTED upon SECOND READING:
Ordinance to appropriate funds in the amount of
$4,480,000 for the acquisition of right-of-way for the
Baxter Road Fly-Over.
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
Louis R. Jones, *Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba
S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
*VERBAL AYE
17a
z
z
0
u
0
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,480,000
FOR THE ACQUISITION
> OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE
0 BAXTER ROAD FLY-OVER
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to eliminate traffic congestion at
the intersection of Baxter Road and Independence Boulevard by constructing a fly-
over from the Virginia Beach Expressway to Baxter Road, and
WHEREAS, to consumate the project will require the City to purchase land
on the southeast corner of the intersection with an estimated value of $4,480,000,
and
WHEREAS, funds have not been appropriated for this purpose and it is
recommended that those appropriations be provided from the Undesignated General
Fund Balance on the condition that the account be reinstated to the amount
required by the Fund Balance Retention Policy at the close of the City's books on
June 30, 1986.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA that funds in the amount of $4,480,000 be appropriated from the
Undesignated General Fund Balance for the purchase of right-of-way for the Baxter
Road fly-over, and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Undesignated General Fund Balance be
reinstated to the amount required by the Fund Balance RetenLion Policy at the
close of the City's books for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986.
This ordinance shall be in effect from the date of its adoption.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the
March
Third day of 1986.
First Reading: February 24, 1986
Second Reading: March 3, 1986
- 18 -
ITEM II-J-3
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 25047
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Robert Jones,
City Council ADOPTED:
Ordinance to authorize a teinporary encroachment into a
portion of the right-of-way of Mediterranean Avenue to
W. Cason Barco, his heirs, assigns and successors in
title.
This encroachment shall be subject to:
1. The owner agrees to remove the encroachment when
notified by the City, at no expense to the City.
2. The owner agrees to keep and hold the City free and
harmless of any liability as a result of the
encroachment.
3. The owner agrees to maintain said encroacbment so
as not to become u,.isightly or a hazard.
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Reischober, Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, *Robert
G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy,
Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
Council Members Abstaining
H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
*VERBAL AYE
- 18a -
Requested By Department of Public works
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY
ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE
TO W. CASON BARCO, HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS
AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to the authority and to the extent
thereof contained in Section 15.1-893, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, W. Cason Barco, his heirs, assigns and successors in
title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary
encroachment into the right-of-way of Mediterranean Avenue.
That the temporary encroachment herein authorized is
for the purpose of constructing and maintaining an existing
on-premise advertizing sign to extend 1 1/21 into the unimproved
right-of-way, and that said encroachment shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the City of Virginia Beach Public
Works Department's specifications as to size, alignment and
location, and further that such temporary encroachment is more
particularly described as follows:
An area of encroachment into a portion of
the City's right-of-way known as
Mediterranean Avenue, on the certain plat
entitled: "MEDITERRANEAN AVENUE (50,),,'
a copy of which is on file in the
Department of Public Works and to which
reference is made for a more particular
description.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the temporary encroachment
herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of
Virginia Beach to W. Cason Barco, his heirs, assigns and
successors in title and that within thirty 30 days after such
notice is given, said encroachment shall be removed from the
City's right-of-way of Mediterranean Avenue and that W. Cason
Barco, his heirs, assigns and successors in title shall bear all
costs and expenses of such removal.
AND, PROVIDED FURTHER, that it is expressly understood
and agreed that W. Cason Barco, his heirs, assigns and successors
in title shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia
Beach, its agents and employees from and against all claims,
damages, losses, and expenses including reasonable attorney's
fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action
arising out of the location or existence of such encroachment.
AND, PROVIDED FURTHER, that this ordinance shall not be
in effect until such time that W. Cason Barco executes an
agreement with the City of Virginia Beach encompassing the
afore-mentioned provisions.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the 3rd day of March 19 86
CLL/rab
12/3/85
(29)
L'L.@ @@L Slili,Ci@NCY
-2-
March 3 1986
1?5c -
S 0 7@ JC)' E
E X. C Li,@
C4 EX. D43L
TREE
oc
ui
@-EX. 30' CutiC. E,VTHANCE
-A. AST-HALT
C)
cc
LU EX, C t,C. FIOAT
QQ
RA 41 P i-iA ILWA Y
LQ
EX.SGivf-
cc
12.2' N 0 7' OOR-W
ik
CROACHJW@NT OF SJGN OIVTO
DITEHHANEAN AVii. RIW
TOPOF BANJ( APPROX.
EDGE Oiz WATER
-MEDIT EAN AVENUE (5 O' RIW)
SIGN ENctT(.)ACHMENT PLAN
MEDITERRANEAN A VE.
VIRGINIA BEACH BOROU6)i, VIRSINIA SEACH,VIRGIVIA
FOR
RUDEES RESTAURANT $ INLET STATION
LOTS 1,2 0 112 OF 3. BLOCK /BP SHADOW I-AWN HA
MB 7 p 14
ROBIN L. BAREFIEL[), P.E.
SCALE l" - 20' C 0 NS UL TA N TS FE BU,4 Ry12, 19t%6
- 18d -
- I
I
.0 I ;,,
0- - I i @ --
I
'i[
I
I I a -
!IM
- 19 -
ITEM ii-J-4
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 25048
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Robert Jones,
City Council ADOPTED:
Ordinance to authorize a temporary encroachment into
portions of the rights-of-way of North Landing Road and
Princess Anne Road to Paco, Inc., its assigns and
successors in title.
This encroachment shall be subject to:
1. The owrier agrees to remove the encroachment when
notified by the City, at no expense to the City.
2. The owner agrees to keep and hold the City free and
harmless of any liability as a result Of the
encroachment.
3. The owner agrees to maintain said encroachment so
as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
4. The owner must submit, and have approved, a traffic
control plan before commencing work within the
City's right-of-way.
5. A highway permit must be obtained and a bond
posted prior to commencing work within the City's
right-of-way.
6. No open cut of a public roadway shall be allowed
except under extreme circumstances, such
exceptions shall be submitted to the Highway
Division for final approval.
Voting; 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
Louis R. Jones, *Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S.
McClanan and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
*VERBAL AYE
Requested by: Department of Public Works
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY
ENCROACHMENT INTO PORTIONS OF THE
RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF NORTH LANDING ROAD AND
PRINCESS ANNE ROAD TO PACO, INC., ITS
ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to the authority and to the extent
thereof contained in Section 15.1-893, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, the Paco, Inc., its assigns and successors in title
are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment
into portions of the City's rights-of-way of North Landing Road
and Princess Anne Road.
That the temporary encroachment herein authorized is
for the purpose of a private sanitary sewer force main and that
said encroachment shall be constructed in accordance with the
City of Virginia Beach Public Works Department's specifications
as to size, alignment and location, and further that such
temporary encroachment is more particularly described as
follows:
An area of encroachment into portions of
the City's rights-of-way known as North
Landing Road and Princess Anne Road, as
shown on that certain plat entitled:
"PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED PRIVATE FORCEMAIN
ENCROACHMENT FOR PACO, INC. SCALE 1,,=100,
8 NOV. 1985,11 a copy of which is on file
in the Virginia Beach Department of
Public Works and to which reference is
made for a more particular
description.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the temporary encroachment
herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City of
Virginia Beach to any officer of Paco, Inc., its assigns and
successors in title and within thirty (30) days after such notice
is given, said encroachment shall be removed from the City's
rights-of-way of North Landing Road and Princess Anne Road by the
Paco, Inc., and that the Paco, Inc., its assigns and successors
shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal.
And PROVIDED FURTHER, that it is expressly understood
and agreed that the Paco, Inc., its assigns and successors in
March 3, 1986
- 19b -
title shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Virginia
Beach, its agents and employees from and against all claims,
damages, losses, and expenses including reasonable attorney's
fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action
arising out of the location or existence of such encroachment;
and
PROVIDED FURTHER, this ordinance shall not be in effect
until such time that the Paco, Inc., executes an agreement with
the City of Virginia Beach encompassing the afore-mentioned
provisions and other provisions deemed appropriate by the City
Attorney.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
3rd March 86
Virginia, on the day of 19
CLL/rab
1 2/2 3/8 5
(29D)
APPROI;.:,
-2-
19C
AA
Y Of VIRGINIA BEAC@
PLAT SHOWING
PROPOSED. PRIVATE FORCEMAIN ENCROACHMENT
FOR
PACO , INC.
SCALE l' a 100I a NOV. 1965
Gallup Surwayort & Engineers, Ltd.
325 First COlonial Road
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23454
- 20 -
Item II-J-5
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 25049
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Robert Jones,
City Council APPROVED:
BINGO PERMIT
Green Run Homes Association
Voting: 10-0
CouTicil Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Pentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
Louis R. Jones, *Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba
S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
*VERBAL AYE
March 3, 1986
- 21 -
Item II-J-6
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 25050
Upon motion by Councilman Louis Jones, seconded by Councilman Robert Jones,
City Council APPROVED:
Ordinance authorizing tax refunds in the amount of
$1,556.46 upon application of certain persons and upon
certification of the City Treasurer for payment.
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold
Heischober, Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr.,
Louis R. Jones, *Robert G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba
S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S. and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
*VERBAL AYE
March 3, 1986
21a - 21 14/8b L.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TAX REFUNDS
UPON APPLICA-FION OF CERTAIN PERSONS
AND UPON CERTIFICATION OF THE TREASURER
FOR PAYMENT
bf- IT C)iiDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
Thi,t ttie tollovying applications for tax refunds upon certification of the Treasurer are hereby approved:
NAME Tax Type Ticket Exojiera- Date Petialty lnt. Total
Year of Tax Nuniber tion No. Paid
Gene K & I)idfie G barner 85 pp 8759-3 47289 8/29/85 115.77
Raymond P & Susan Reiser 85 pp 209233-2 47293 12/5/85 81.00
Georye G & Yolanda Sanipaga 85 pp 137941-9 47223 1/30/86 215.10
Christint.- Watt 85 pp 216282-7 1/16/86 24.09
Christopher D Mackey 85 pp 99413-0 47280 9/5/85 209.94
Winston [Zose 85 pp 135482-8 47196 6/5/85 6.00
Jaiiies E Duililao 85 pp 189437-0 47218 12/5/85 111.78
Melvin Nobles 85 pp 116675-5 47255 5/21/85 31.20
Stuart W Onst@ud 85 pp 118949-1 47214 5/23/85 28.20
Barbard J Boyce 85 pp 182443-7 47256 12/3/85 27.78
Lee Matishik 85 pp 201583-5 1/29/86 10.66
Bryan N Bdirit2s 85 pp 7154-6 47149 6/5/85 65.28
Peter F & Marion E Gale 85 pp 57287-1 1/15/86 224.72
Prestori S & Mdry G Justis 85 pp 85442-4 47084 6/5/85 269.52
Sharon S Moler 85 pp 110519-8 47122 5/29/85 46.50
Lonnie L Davis Jr 85 pp 39617-0 1/24/86 25.00
Gerald W Barriard 84 pp 213842-9 47185 1/15/86 31.53
Daisey M Spruill 84 pp 144270-7 47191 1/31/85 18.39
Natalie F Ulrey 86 Dog V21178 2/6/86 7.00
Natalie F Ulrey 86 Dog V21179 2/6/86 7.00
Total 1,556.46
This ordiiiatice shall be eftective froin date of adoption.
Ttie above abatemerit(s) totaling Certified as to payment;
- -1 - -- - vwere approved by
ttif, Couiicil of the City of Virginia
Be ch Dii the day of
Jotin T. Atkinson, r@ea
Approv"s to f m
Rutn Hodges Sniith
City Clerk 6,ty
- 22 -
Item II-K.a.
APPOI s ITEM # 25051
ADD-ON
Upon motion by Councilman LoUiS Jones, seconded by Councilman Fentress,
City Council ESTABLISHED the following representation of Council Members to
the STANDING COMMITTEES of the VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE:
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT Councilman Robert E. Fentress
EDUCATION Mayor Harold Heischober
EFFECTIVE GO Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan
EKVT.RONMWAL QUALITY Councilwoman Meyera E. Oberndorf
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Councilman Robert G. Jones
PUBLIC SAFETY Councilwoman Barbara M. Henley
TRANSPORTATION Councilman J. Henry McCoy, Jr., D.D.S.
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold Heischober,
Barbara M. Henley, H. Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R. Jones, Robert
G. Jones, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan, J. Henry McCoy, Jr.,
D.D.S. and Meyera E. Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech
23 -
ITEM # 25052
t4lSllED BUS-INESS
;TT,TTJTION DRIVE
4,N DPIVE FL-Y-OVER
tu
r
y spousored a discussion of
14CCII S concernea th t
ncilman ame b,aS
,e Fl-lv-Ov-' ters uPOn t"@S ing
@a. This concern c- .De necess'ty
e. There might
,in DriV tne Master Sl
resee the consultant Of reiterated their
me. he Larkspur Civ,@ League and. ever designed tO
R. Winiker represented this FLY-OVER Edwin Drive was
,Iicerns ill O;Position to his
a thorough-far@.
sented the La@ W of
artin L- Waraucb, repr d of
Lipport Of the indepel sted
lieve
raffic axter
is OPPOE
ringing
.he traf ugli Edwin. SITION,
-ather t F,, p,,, Civic League, al ested a
t
'arole Widmer, P@esiden- same itution
d Councilman f '-c ow they
so@
,nd had req re 14 to s'o a'
e: of th cost uto the
i.? tr
cCoy
ed re
e dmer
i
m 14
of
e g. I v
3tudy b- ad ble de-i - @.@OW- e ard
Drive Fly@er and tne POssif Jdia. Lakes
tbe cut-through 0
would gel- raM-
Captal Improvements Prog coustitul
City is not cO-i tted to the Boulevard
The 14a, pendence fic effic
Drive the traf te the
necessita
this er.
Baxter ot continue to
the Cc f we d, and will
jiman McCoy advised we are imP c alternative but will
counc tigate constituti"" Drive as a, a miuimuml
inves rt all effort to keep traffic
suppo ti 9 Constitutiot
not support elimina n
NO ACTION was taken by CitY council.
March 3, 1986
- 24 -
Item II-K.2
LEGISLATIVE CHARTER CHANGES ITEM # 25053
ADD-ON
Councilman Robert Jones referenced Resolution to amend City Charter Section
6.05.2 for Supplemental Authority to Issue Bonds up to $8 MILLION for
Roads, Highways and Bridges. This Resoltuion was ADOPTED by City Council
on February 10, 1986.
Councilman Robert Jones referenced intimations by the Newspaper that the
Council had VIOLATED the City Charter. Council, in formulating the
Legislative Package,had gone on record of requesting the Legislature to
adjust the City's Bonding Authority to include changes in the consumer
price index since 1974. On November 8, and November 13, 1986, a PUBLIC
NOTICE, appeared in the VIRGINIAN - PILOT and THE VIRGINIA BEACH SUN which
notified of a PUBLIC HEARING concerning:
LEGISLATIVE CRARTER CHANGES
a. Change in General Obligation Bonding
Authority.
b. Special Tax on Real Property.
C. Amortization of Non-Conforming Signs.
d. Tree Protection.
On November 18, 1986, the City Council, by a Vote of 6-5, ADOPTED a
Resolution requesting the Virginia General Assembly increase the City of
Virginia Beach's CRARTER BOND LIMIT. At the Legislative Dinner in
February, Senator Holland advised this Proposal would not be acceptable to
the General Assembly, but believed the problems with roads and same should
be responded. It was his suggestion to MODIFY the Proposal to reiterate the
request to raise the Charter Bond Limitation to $8-MILLION for ten years
with the understanding that all funds raised would be addressed only to
road needs.
The City Attorney advised in 1974, the General Assembly AUTHORIZED the City
to increase its indebtedness of $10 MILLION but placed a limitation on same
whereby the City could not be further indebted unless same was submitted to
the voters pursuant to a REFERENDUM. The Attorney General issued an
opinion on January Twenty-third advising that taken at face value the above
quoted provisions prevents any charter amendment to increase the $10
MILLION annual limitation in Section 6.05: without a REFERENDUM on the
question having first occurred submitted. However, the General Assembly
has the continuing power to AMEND Section 6.05:1 or any other provision of
the Virginia Beach Charter on its own initive or at the request of any
interested party i.e, City Council. The City Attorney also advised this
question had been posed to the City's Bond Counselor in Richmond and he
stated regardless of the validity of the proported limitation on the
AMENDED procedure an Amendment of Section 6.05:1 enacted by the General
Assembly would be valid in any event under Virginia Code Section 15.1-836
which provides:
"The passage of any legislation granting or
amending any charter of Municipal Corporations
shall ipso facto be conclusive evidence that the
requirements of this Chapter has been complied
with."
- 23 -
Item II-K.I.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 25052
CONSTITUTION DRIVE
EDWIN DRIVE FLY-OVER
Councilman McCoy spousored a discussion of the Constitution Drive/Edwin
Drive Fly@er. Same has concerned the Larkspur/Fox Run/Bellamy Manor
Area. This concern centers upon this fly-over emptying into the foot of
Edwin Drive. There might be a necessity of widening Edwin Drive but do not
foresee the Consultant of the Master Street and Highway Plan suggesting
same.
D. R. Winiker, represented the Larkspur Civic League and reiterated their
concerns in opposition to this FLY-OVER. Edwin Drive was never designed to
be a thorough-fare.
Martin L. Waranch, represented the Larkspur Civic League, referenced his
support of the Independence Fly-Over which would assist in the flow of
traffic and his assumption that the road would be widened. He advised of
his OPPOSITION to the Constitution Drive/Edwin Drive Fly @ er and suggested
bringing this FLY-OVER down onto Southern Boulevard. This would relieve
the traffic flow and allow the Pembroke area traffic to go down Baxter
rather than coming through Edwin.
Carole Widmer, President Fox Run Civic League, also spoke in OPPOSITION,
and had requested Councilman McCoy to sponsor same. Mrs. Widmer requested a
study be made of the cost of redirecting traffic from that Constitution
Drive Fly-Over and the possible design. Mrs. Widmer inquired as to how they
would get the cut-through of Indian Lakes Boulevard to Providence into the
Captal Improvements Program.
The Mayor advised the City is not committed to the Coustitutiou Drive/Fdwin
Drive Fly-Over. If the widening of Independence Boulevard, a priority of
this Fly-Over, is 8-laned and will move the traffic efficiently with the
Baxter Road Fly-Over, then this would not necessitate the establishment of
the Constitution Drive/Edwin Drive Fly-Over.
Councilman McCoy advised we are impeding progress if we do not continue to
investigate Constitution Drive as a viable traffic alternative and will
support all effort to keep traffic on Edwin Drive at a minimum, but will
not support eliminating Constitution Drive entirely.
NO ACTION was taken by City Council.
h
- 24 -
Item II-K.2
LEGISLATIVE CHARTEll CMANGES ITEM 0 25053
ADD-ON
Councilman Robert Jones referenced Resolution to amend City Charter Section
6.05.2 for Supplemental Authority to Issue Bonds up to $8 MILLION for
Roads, Highways and Bridges. This Resoltuion was ADOPTED by City Council
on February 10, 1986.
Councilman Robert Jones referenced intimations by the Newspaper that the
Council had VIOLATED the City Charter. Council, in formulating the
Legislative Package,had gone on record of requesting tbe Legislature to
adjust the City's Bonding Authority to include changes in the consumer
price index since 1974. On November 8, and November 13, 1986, a PUBLIC
NOTICE, appeared in the VIRGINIAN - PILOT and THE VIRGINIA BEACH SUN which
notified of a PUBLIC HEARING concerning:
LEGISLATIVE CHARTER CHANGES
a. Change in General Obligation Bonding
Authority.
b. Special Tax on Real Property.
C. Amortization of Non-Conforming Signs.
d. Tree Protection.
On November 18, 1986, the City Council, by a Vote of 6-5, ADOPTED a
Resolution requesting the Virginia General Assembly increase the City of
Virginia Beach's CHARTER BOND LIMIT. At the Legislative Dinner in
February, Senator Holland advised this Proposal would not be acceptable to
the General Assembly, but believed the problems with roads and same should
be responded. It was his suggestion to MODIFY the Proposal to reiterate the
request to raise the Charter Bond Limitation to $8-MILLION for ten years
with the understanding that all funds raised would be addressed only to
road needs.
The City Attorney advised in 1974, the General Assembly AUTHORIZED the City
to increase its indebtedness of $10 MILLION but placed a limitation on same
whereby the City could not be further indebted unless same was submitted to
the voters pursuant to a REFERENDUM. The Attorney General issued an
opinion on January Twenty-third advising that taken at face value the above
quoted provisions prevents any charter amendment to increase the $10
MILLION annual limitation in Section 6.05: without a REFERENDUM on the
question having first occurred submitted. However, the General Assembly
has the continuing power to AMEND Section 6.05:1 or any other provision of
the Virginia Beach Charter on its own initive or at the request of any
interested party i.e, City Council. The City Attorney also advised this
question had been posed to the City's Bond Counselor in Richmond and he
stated regardless of the validity of the proported limitation on the
AMENDED procedure an Amendment of Section 6.05:1 enacted by the General
Assembly would be valid in any event under Virginia Code Section 15.1-836
which provides:
"The passage of any legislation granting or
amending any charter of Municipal Corporations
shall ipso facto be conclusive evidence that the
requirements of this Chapter has been complied
with."
- 25 -
Item II-K.2
LEGISLATIVE CHARTER CHANGES ITEM # 25053 (Continued)
ADD-ON
The Bond Counselor would have no difficulty in approving the issuance of
bonds under such an amended Section 6.05:1 because Section 15.1-836 makes
it clear that no one can go behind the Charter Amendment. Therefore, he
would not have any problem issuing a Bond opinion if the Legislation passes
the General Assembly.
Vice Mayor McClanan disagreed. The General Assembly has the power to do
whatever they wish. If you find a friendly legislature to sponsor same,
the City might take any section they desire and remove same. When the
County and the City merged, the citizens were given assurance that certain
provisions would be maintained. The Vice Mayor referenced a Public Hearing
on January 7, 1974, concerning the Resolution requesting Section 6.03, 6.04
and 6.05 of the Charter of the City of Virginia Beach be repealed and
amended by the General Assembly.
Councilwoman Henley expressed concern about the determination of the $8
MILLION figure. There had also been discussion on February Tenth
concerning matching funds from the State. Councilwoman Henley referenced
an additional concern involving the use of 20% of the Charter Bonds for
roads and the result of this Amendment. Councilwoman Henley requested a
BRIEFING concerning how the aforementioned AMENDMENT commits the City, its
affect upon the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, and the other portion of BILL
42 concerning replacement of trees.
- 26 -
Item II-K.3
UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 25054
ADD-ON
Vice Mayor McClanan referenced the status of the CONFLICT OF INTEREST
ORDINANCE.
The Committee composed of Vice Mayor McClanan and Councilman Fentess will
present a revised CONFLICT OF INTEREST ORDINANCE and CODE OF ETHICS for
City Council's Review on March 10, 1986.
- 27 -
Item II-K.4
UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM # 25055
ADD-ON
A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Oberndorf, seconded by Councilwoman
Henley, to RECONSIDEEL the selection of the LANDSTOWN ROAD SITE as the
TRANSFER STATION and the BENDIX ROAD SITE which had been REMOVED from
consideration as the TRANSFER STATION.
Voting: 3-7 (Motion LOST to a Negative Vote)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Reba S. McClanan and Meyera E.
Oberndorf
Council Members Voting Nay:
John A. Baum, Robert E. Fentress, Mayor Harold Heischober, H.
Jack Jennings, Jr., Louis R. Jones, Robert G. Jones and J. Henry
McCoy, Jr., D.D.S.
Council Members Absent:
Nancy A. Creech