2400 Washington Avenue

PRESENT: Joe S. Frank (arrived at 4:40 p.m.); William F. Haskins;
Madeline McMillan;Sharon P. Scott; Joseph C. Whitaker; Charles C. Allen;
and Herbert H. Bateman, Jr. -----7

OTHERS PRESENT: Randy W. Hildebrandt; Stuart E. Katz; Mabel V. Washington; Neil Morgan; Alan Archer; Gregg Jones; Butch Blanks; Allen Jackson; Collie Owens; Joe DuRant; Florence Kingston; Rhonda Sturgis; John Kaoudis; William Keeler; Lisa Cipriano; Rhonda Everton; Robyn Rose; Chad Pritchett; Steve Carpenter; Sacil Armstrong; Sabrina Jones; Chief James Fox; Keith Hartman; Lorenzo Shepard; Everett Skipper; Sanford Wanner; Steven Hicks; Reed Fowler; Michael Poplawski; Sheila McAllister; Al Riutort; Chris Morrello; Michael King; Sabine Hirschauer; Lottie Vincent; Cleder Jones; Kim Lee; and Jennifer D. Walker

Mr. Randy W. Hildebrandt, City Manager, stated the Southeast Community of Newport News was designated as a Weed and Seed site in June 2003.   He reported once an area had been designated as a Weed and Seed site, it was eligible to receive funding to reduce crime and enhance human services. He noted that 51% of funds allocated to Newport News for the Weed and Seed program were allocated to law enforcement (Weed) and 49% was allocated to community efforts (Seed). City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. James Fox, Police Chief, Newport News Police Department, to report on the Weed and Seed Program.

Chief Fox stated the Weed and Seed program had a positive affect on Newport News. He introduced Ms. Sacil Armstrong, Coordinator, Weed & Seed Program and Mr. Keith Hartman, Lieutenant, Special Operations Division, Newport News Police Department, to report on the efforts concerning the Weed and Seed Program. 

Lieutenant Hartman reported that the Community Program Division of the Newport News Police Department oversaw a range of programs, i.e. the Accident Team, Marine Patrol, Chaplain Unit, Honor Guard, Tactical Unit, the Weed and Seed Program, etc. He stated the Weed and Seed Program grant was a $1 million grant that was spread over the course of five years. The City was in its third year of grant funding. He recognized Ms. Sacil Armstrong who had been with the Weed and Seed Program since January 2007. He worked in the weed portion of the program and Ms. Armstrong worked in the seed portion. He stated one half of the funds received for the Weed and

Seed Program were allocated to the Police Department and the other half was allocated for revitalization of the community and other projects that were in Downtown Newport News. 

Ms. Armstrong reported, in 1991, the U.S. Department of Justice established Operation Weed and Seed, a community-based multi-agency approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and neighborhood restoration. She stated the goals of Weed and Seed were to: 1) Control violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug related crime in designated high-crime neighborhoods; 2) provide a safe environment free of crime and drug use; and 3) bring together Federal, State, and local crime-fighting agencies, social service providers, representatives of the public and private sectors, prosecutors, business owners, and neighborhood residents. They faced the challenge of weeding out violent crime and drug–related activity; seeding human services and economic revitalization; and sustaining the long-term health of the community. (A copy of the presentation, “Revitalizing Our Southeast Community – Weed and Seed,” is attached to these minutes.)

Ms. Armstrong reported the focus areas of Weed and Seed included: 1) Law Enforcement – using innovative strategies to curb and prevent criminal behavior; 2) Community Assistance – individuals and communities actively participating in crime prevention; 3) Prevention, Intervention and Treatment – improving or alleviating chronic social issues such as underemployment, under-education and domestic violence; and 4) Neighborhood Restoration – improving housing conditions and neighborhood environments.

Ms. Armstrong noted current programs in the Newport News Weed and Seed program included:  1) neighborhood block walks; 2) community clean-ups; 3) Young Marines program; 4) GED training; 5) partnering with the Good Seed Good Ground program; 6) School Gardening/Farmer’s Market program; 7) Summer program at Doris Miller Community Center; 8) Alternative Educational Paths; and 9) Ex-offender Re-entry Program. 

City Manager Hildebrandt inquired about the process for selecting young people for the Young Marines Programs. Ms. Armstrong replied Weed and Seed worked with Newport News Public Schools and received recommendations from teachers and school counselors.

Councilwoman McMillan stated many jobs could not be obtained by Ex-offenders without a picture ID or an up-to-date shot record, particularly in the food service industry. She suggested that the ex-offenders who participated in the Ex-offender Re-entry program be required to obtain an up-to-date picture ID and shot record. Ms.

Armstrong stated they were working with the Health Department regarding classes for ex-offenders to obtain certification to work in the food service industry. She stated she would look into the issue regarding the id and shot record.

Councilwoman McMillan felt there were a number of components in the Weed and Seed program that could be used in other parts of the City. City Manager Hildebrandt stated Weed and Seed grants were limited in terms of the area of a City they could be applied. 

Chief Fox stated Weed and Seed was a crime prevention strategy that weeded out and fought crime.  He stated the seeding component pulled the community together to help the Police Department with prevention strategies. One goal of the Police Department was to make the Southeast Community a safer place to live. He stated crime decreased by 5% in Newport News in 2007, and noted the City was making process.   He felt the team approach of Weed and Seed could be used city-wide, without the funding. 

Councilwoman McMillan reminded that a number of years ago the City spent money on the Partners in Neighborhoods (PIN) program, which targeted communities around Jefferson Avenue. She stated there was no follow-through and the program was over within six weeks. Consequently, the program was not successful. She stated unless one had core groups who were willing to continue and participate on a constant team a program could fail. She felt the Weed and Seed program was good, but also felt it tapped resources that were already spread thin.

City Manager Hildebrandt agreed that it would take due diligence and was a research issue that must be addressed over time because of the involvement of the Department of Codes Compliance. He stated for the City to protect its transitional neighborhoods it took this type of program and a commitment of resources. He felt the City needed this type of program city-wide as one of its strategic action goals. 

Vice Mayor Allen stated he was delighted to see the Weed and Seed program moving forward. He recalled as a guest of the National Boys Club, he attended the National Crime Convention Conference in Washington, D.C. in 1999.  After returning to Newport News from the conference, he spoke to the Police Chief and the City Manager about the City pursuing grant funds for the Weed and Seed program. When the Weed and Seed program first began it failed to have an encompassing planning format. He was glad to see that had now changed. He was encouraged that departments within the City were working together as part of the process. He stated the Weed and Seed program was clearly an initiative to help Cities pick up the concept after the funding ran

out. When one looked at the Weed and Seed’s impact one should be able to see the funds as a savings that could be applied after the funding for Weed and Seed had gone. The crux of the commitment was whether the City was committed to Weed and Seed, or whether it just wanted the federal funds. In order to change a community, the community must make a financial commitment beyond what it was currently doing, and that, in fact, was the essence of the program. Vice Mayor Allen stated if the program could survive through 2008 and 2009 and continue its impact in the community, when the last funding came down, then in fact the City had made a commitment, which he would love to see.  

City Manager Hildebrandt complimented Ms. Armstrong, stating she made a difference in the program because of her strong commitment. He believed she was the reason the program had been as successful as it was over the last few years. 

Vice Mayor Allen noted that the business community in Cape Town, South Africa, funded 100% of a successful program similar to the Weed and Seed program. He stated the Cape Town business community had seen the value in such a program, both in terms of safety, and positive business relationships in attracting people into Cape Town’s downtown. He stated the Weed and Seed program required a conscious effort with people focusing on the program.

City Manager Hildebrandt reported the Partnership on Youth Violence Prevention began in 2006 between the schools and law enforcement agencies on the Peninsula. Chief Fox introduced Ms. Sabrina Y. Jones, Regional Manager, Partnership on Youth Violence Prevention, to give an overview of the program.   

Ms. Jones reported the Partnership on Youth Violence Prevention was a coordination between schools and law enforcement agencies on the Peninsula. The partnership jurisdictions included Gloucester, Hampton, James City County, Newport News, Poquoson, Williamsburg, and York County. She reported the board first met in February 2007, and consisted of Police Chiefs and School Superintendents of the above jurisdictions. The board also had representation from the business community, i.e. Ferguson Enterprises. 

Ms. Jones stated the mission of the organization was threefold: 1) collaboration between schools and law enforcement agencies on what could be done to prevent youth violence; 2) linking existing community resources within the business, neighborhood, faith-based, youth-serving and non-profit communities; and 3) accomplishment through a proactive approach concentrated on assessment, goal-setting,

educations and awareness, and implementation of identified best practices. (A copy of the presentation, “The Partnership on Youth Violence Prevention,” is attached to these minutes.)

Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether an assessment had been done of existing programs that were available in order to maximize funding and prevent overlapping. Ms. Jones replied they were using fundamental resources in each locality by referring organizations for youth development; however, overlapping of programs was still a concern that needed attention.

Ms. Jones noted the strategic priorities of the Partnership on Youth Violence Prevention were: 1) identifying best practices nationally and locally; 2) facilitating the development of common definitions, enforcement procedures, & date sharing among jurisdictions; 3) convening parents, youth, and frontline educator groups to identify new information regarding gang/violence prevention; 4) conducting media/PR campaigns; and 5) linking community resources.

Ms. Jones reported that the Peninsula had seen a 14% increase in overall juvenile crime from 2004 – 2006 in each of the participating jurisdictions. She stated the majority of crimes included rape, robbery, burglary, larceny/theft, and drug charges.    

Ms. Jones noted bullying was a major concern in Newport News Public Schools (NNPS).   She stated the Partnership had five gang units on Gang Suppression Education in the region whose job included investigation, data collection and education and awareness on signs and symbols related to gang activity. 

Ms. Jones invited all to visit the Partnership on Youth Violence Prevention online at www.preventyouthviolence.org. She stated parents, teachers and others could use this as a resource for services.

III. Overview of Proposed Capital Improvements Plan

City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. Neil Morgan, Assistant City Manager, and Coordinator of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee, to give an overview presentation on the CIP. 

Assistant City Manager Morgan stated the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) recommended major project investments and the means of financing them. He stated the CIP included good faith estimates and not engineered costs, and emphasized figures could change as the CIP process moved along and as bids were received.  He

recognized and thanked the Assistant City Managers, and staff from the Departments of Planning, Public Works, Engineering, Development, Parks, Recreation & Tourism, and Budget and Evaluation, for their work on the CIP Committee. 

Assistant City Manager Morgan reminded of the City’s goals of reducing its debt burden to 3% by FY 2012, increasing cash capital by 1% annually to no less than 20% by FY 2012, and not exceeding debt service of 9.5% of its and the School revenues by 2013. He stated the CIP debt reduction amounted to a reduction of $35 million over the next five years, and in each of the five years, the City would payoff more debt than it incurred.

Councilman Haskins noted from 1997 to 2007 the increase in incomes of citizens did not keep pace with the increased fees, real estate values and tax rates. He stated the City needed resources to pay off its debt and was beginning to put citizens at a disadvantage. Many citizens were not able to sustain their homes due to large increases in fees over the years. He voiced concern that the average middle class and hourly worker in the shipyard and the private sector could not continue to pay the increased costs it took to live in Newport News. He felt a study needed to be done about the City’s ability to do certain projects. Mr. Morgan replied there was no question that fees had significantly increased over the years, and much of the increase was driven by federal laws and regulations that pushed up costs.

Councilman Haskins felt the City needed to cut expenses in order to meet the requirements that it had with its income to support its citizens. The City needed to adjust it wants by noting its resources, just as the average family did.  City Manager Hildebrandt stated he recommended a 25% reduction in Stormwater fees in the CIP, because he felt the City was getting way ahead of what citizens could afford in that area, which would have an impact in some of the projects planned by the City. 

Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether any Waterworks debt was included in the debt burden figures on page 5 of the presentation. City Manager Hildebrandt replied Waterworks debt was not included in the figures.

Vice Mayor Allen stated one of the great illusions in the United States was that the average citizen, through its property taxes, supported its government. He felt the City needed to begin talking about what it paid to provide services to its citizens, i.e. education. There were things the City had no control over, for instance, the City had no control over its energy cost, which were running rampant. If things were costing citizens more, they were costing the City more as well.

Mr. Morgan reported the criteria the Committee considered in developing recommendations from City departments for the CIP included: 1) whether it was required by law; 2) whether the City had a previous commitment; 3) whether the issue was critical to City operations; 4) whether it included a positive return on investment; 5) health and safety impacts; and 6) impact on residents.

Mr. Morgan noted the FY 2009 – FY 2013 CIP recommendations in the following categories: 1) Community Development; 2) Environmental; 3) Community Facilities; 4) Transit; 5) Equipment; 6) Parks and Recreation; 7) Public Buildings; 8) Sewer Extensions; 9) Streets and Bridges; 10) Self-Supporting Funds; and 11) Schools. [A copy of the presentation, “City Manager Recommended Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) FY 2009 – FY 2013,” noting categorical figures and facts is attached and made a part of these minutes.]

Councilwoman McMillan inquired about the title project “Asheton (Enhanced Public Infrastructure)” in Community Development on page 13 of the attached presentation. Assistant City Manager replied “Asheton (Enhanced Public Infrastructure)” was a category that included the amount of the City’s investment in Asheton for transportation improvements around the peripheral of the project, such as improvements at Jefferson Avenue, at Interstate 64, and at Lee Hall that required a public investment as well as a private investment.

Councilwoman McMillan preferred that the City use another title rather than Asheton for the Enhanced Public Infrastructure category. She felt this title was misleading. Assistant City Manager Morgan replied the Committee would consider another project title.

Councilman Haskins inquired whether funding for the “Lower Jeff. Av PCB Remediation” under the Environmental category on page 15 of the presentation was for contamination that was a result of the utilization of the area for the ferry that ran across the area years ago. Assistant City Manager Morgan replied the area had a 100 year history of utilization from all kinds of projects, i.e. gas stations, fuel farms, the ferry, the flying school, etc. He stated the contamination was not associated with any current industry. 

Councilman Haskins inquired whether any liability could be traced back to any of the projects. Mr. Morgan believed the answer was no and indicated he would have staff research the matter.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired about the rationale in supporting the “American Theatre” under Community Facilities on page 17 of the presentation,

particularly since the theatre was located in Phoebus. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the City of Hampton supported the Ferguson Performing Arts Center and other facilities in Newport News. Traditionally, Newport News gave funding to Hampton for its projects, i.e. the Air and Space Museum. He stated there was a general sense of cooperation between both Cities.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether federal disaster grant funding or other funding could be provided to the “American Red Cross Chapter Building” under Community Facilities, since they were a mandatory disaster agency. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the $750,000 request was for the Red Cross’ new building. He stated the Red Cross only received funds from the federal government for federal disasters. 

Councilman Bateman inquired whether there were grant opportunities available to help the Red Cross construct their new building. City Manager Hildebrandt did not know of any grants available. He stated the Red Cross wanted to raise $5 million to build a new facility and the City’s share was only a small amount. The Red Cross served Hampton, Isle of Wight and Newport News and had asked all three jurisdictions for a donation. Hampton donated the land for the facility which was assessed at $900,000.

Vice Mayor Allen stated it was interesting that organizations that provided services to the City needed funding to continue their services. He was not sure that the services being provided were worth the amount of funding they were asking for.    He inquired whether the representatives of the Red Cross were on an ego trip when they decided to build a new facility or could they have extended their existing building.  City Manager Hildebrandt replied the Red Cross looked into the option of expanding their current building. He suggested that representatives of the Red Cross, as well as the Peninsula Fine Arts Center, come to an upcoming Work Session of City Council to discuss their proposed projects.   Vice Mayor Allen agreed with the City Manager to have the Red Cross and the Peninsula Fine Arts Center come to a Work Session of City Council to discuss proposed projects.

Councilwoman McMillan recalled that the City recently appropriated funding to the Peninsula Fine Arts Center for a new air conditioning unit. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the City had previously given the Peninsula Fine Arts Center capital grants, in addition to operating grants.

Vice Mayor Allen stated the City helped the American Theatre to be established, and was not sure the City had a continuing obligation to help it grow. He stated Christopher Newport University was a statewide and regional university and was

not in the same category as the American Theatre. He was inclined not to be in agreement with funding the theatre and inquired about an explanation for the funding, other than the fact they were trying to grow in the Phoebus area. He felt the theatre was nice, with a great program, but was not sure it was a public contributed enterprise. City Manager Hildebrandt reminded that was a policy decision on which City Council had to decide.         

Councilman Haskins felt the City needed to consider what Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) could charge its advertisers for the “Citywide Bus Shelter Program” as noted under the Transit category on page 19 of the presentation.   He felt the advertising would more than pay for the shelters.

Vice Mayor Allen stated he was opposed to the advertisers because of what and how the handled advertising.   He stated advertisers wanted to dictate where they wanted the shelters located. For instance, advertisers wanted shelters located on Jefferson Avenue and Warwick Boulevard. The advertisers targeted advertisments to moving traffic, not bus riders.

Councilwoman McMillan felt funding for the “Golf Course Renovation,” under the Parks and Recreation category on page 22 of the presentation was a worthy investment. She felt the golf course had an excellent reputation and provided a place for citizens to play that was moderately priced. The City also attracted many tourists who played at the golf course because it was not overly expensive. She also understood that the youth program had increased over the summer and was well worth the funding being put into the golf course. She suggested that an effort be made to attract more charitable and money generated tournaments to the golf course.

Vice Mayor Allen stated when the City talked about the “Huntington Park Tennis Center Building Replacement” noted under the Parks and Recreation category on page 22 of the presentation, that it considers a building with a center court. He understood the City would gain more interest in tournaments if it had a facility with a center court. Mr. Poplawski replied he had considered the matter.

Councilwoman McMillan stated she would like to see the City make more effort to seek out beautification grants. She noted she had sent a number of grants to the Department of Parks and Recreation. She felt applying for grants would take much time and effort and felt that it could be done by an intern. 

Councilman McMillan asked that the “North Community Recreation Center” noted under the Public Buildings category on page 25 of the presentation, be fully funded. She was disappointed that it was moved up. She recalled that the

groundbreaking was originally scheduled for 2005 and then was moved up to 2007. When the City changed the site, she was assured that it would only be a six month delay, and now there was a problem with Denbigh Toyota. She strongly objected to the extension request by Denbigh Toyota. She felt the community center should be fully funded because each year it was delayed increased the cost of the project. 

Councilwoman Scott concurred. She understood there would be a delay, after purchasing the land, but she did not expect a delay of five years. She did not understand why the project was being pushed aside for other projects, such as the jail, etc. She felt the City should be more diligent in encouraging Denbigh Toyota to move on and if they were going to delay the project further, the increased costs should be passed on to them. She recalled talking to the City Manager two years ago to make sure that the environmental impacts had been addressed. She hoped that when the City acquired the property from Denbigh Toyota, they had done all that was necessary to ensure there were no delays. She inquired whether there would be any environmental delays once Denbigh Toyota moved from the site.   Assistant City Manager Morgan replied that City Council included the demolition of the site in its bond authorization funding. He stated the funding would allow the City to begin demolition and clear the site the day that Denbigh Toyota vacated the site. The City could possibly appropriate the construction contract and start work in July 2009. 

Councilwoman McMillan stated 2009 was not the date that was originally given when the property was purchased in FY 2005. Denbigh Toyota was due to be out of the building at the beginning of 2007 and was granted an extension which had been ignored. She emphasized that the aquatic element that was supposed to be funded, as part of the Community Center, was going to be a revenue generator. Without the revenue, she felt, cost wise, the City would be “penny wise” and “pound foolish” if it did not proceed and fund the community center as a whole entity.

Vice Mayor Allen suggested a schedule be composed since FY 2010 was only 19 months away. He felt if the City Manager showed what was going to happen in the next 19 months it was difficult to compress the project due to demolition, site clearance, etc. He inquired whether there was a way to compress the schedule to look at partial funding in order to move forward with the North Community Recreation Center. City Manager Hildebrandt replied it depended on when Denbigh Toyota actually vacated the property.  He stated the Center could possibly be under construction in the spring of 2009 instead of July 2009, which meant City Council could authorize the bonds earlier, which would not have much impact on the project. Vice Mayor Allen stated the City needed to look at whatever could be done to begin construction on the Center.   He stated the other issue was whether the City should look at its relationship with Denbigh Toyota and encourage them, with incentives, to move. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the

lease was due to expire on December 31, 2007 and noted the City could extend the lease on any basis. He stated he and City staff would work on a lease proposal for Council’s consideration that would provide less incentive for Denbigh Toyota to stay on the property any longer than was absolutely necessary.

Councilwoman McMillan felt it was wonderful that the City was building a new South Precinct, but felt the City needed a new North Police Precinct. She stated the present building was too small and parking was non-existent. She requested that some funding be put into the CIP for a new Precinct in the North District. The North district suffered from an increased amount of crime and a Police Precinct needed to be visible. City Manager Hildebrandt stated that was a policy decision that City Council had to make regarding the present site of the North District Police Precinct.

Mr. Morgan noted the cuts and deferred CIP projects included: 1) the North Police Precinct; 2) Fire Station #9; 3) Phase II of the Mariner’s Row Parking Garage; 4) Campbell Road Improvements; and Warwick Boulevard Enhancement/Rivermont Bike Trail. He stated the future challenges included Library facilities and the Deep Creek Pier.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired who would be responsible for the cost of the improvement to the left turn lane on Bland Boulevard, pertaining to the increased traffic from the BECO development project. Mr. Riutort, Director, Department of Planning, replied he spoke to Jeffrey Miller, of BECO Development, who understood that was an improvement that BECO would pay for. 

Mr. Morgan noted the options for the Deep Creek Pier either as a mooring Pier or as a boardwalk. He stated the total cost for the mooring pier amounted to $754,000 to $1.06 million and $87,000 to 268,000 for a boardwalk.

Councilwoman McMillan supported rebuilding the pier even if it was reconstructed as a boardwalk. 

IV. Memorandum of Understanding with James City County – Route 60 Project

City Manager Hildebrandt stated the proposed realignment of Route 60, a planned transportation improvement, adopted in the Newport News Comprehensive Transportation Plan, would extend from Fort Eustis Boulevard in Newport News beyond Green Mount Industrial Park in James City County. He introduced Mr. Sanford B. Wanner, County Administrator, James City County.

County Administrator Wanner reported, on September 29, 2006, James City County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) entered into an agreement authorizing James City County to locally administer the Route 60 East Relocation Project within James City County’s jurisdiction limits. The project included the widening and realignment of Route 60 beginning in James City County at Blow Flats Road and ending in the City of Newport News at Route 105, Fort Eustis Boulevard. Approximately 70% of the project was in James City County, beginning at Blow Flats Road and ending at the centerline of Skiffes Creek. The remaining 30% of the project was in Newport News; beginning at the centerline of Skiffes Creek and ending at Route 105, Fort Eustis Boulevard.

County Administrator Wanner stated James City County entered into a Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) initiative and had the opportunity to partner with Newport News to make the relocation of Route 60 a single project that allowed the County to negotiate with the City a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU allowed James City County to administer the project. The PPTA proposal accommodated what Newport News and James City County would do together in making the realignment of Route 60 a reality. He stated James City County was ready to move forward in a cooperative arrangement with the City of Newport News and he looked forward to total endorsement of the proposal by City Council to allow James City County to continue negotiating the MOU to move the project forward.

Councilwoman McMillan stated she understood how this was a win/win situation for James City County, but had reservations as to how the project would affect Newport News financially. The map (attached to these minutes) showed Route 60 extending through Oakland Industrial Park. Councilwoman McMillan was concerned where the road would end up. There was truck traffic coming from Green Run and she felt Route 60 was the whole purpose in developing that industrial area. She stated the area at Fort Eustis Boulevard was problematic, with its exit and entrance lanes.   It was becoming one of the worse intersections at Fort Eustis and Warwick Boulevards, only second to Oyster Point Boulevard. She inquired how the City would handle that and the cost, either in road repairs and road improvements, when Route 60 came through. She saw many benefits for James City County, but did not see many for Newport News.   County Administrator Wanner replied the project had been on their drawing board for 30 years and had nothing to do with the development agreement. 

Councilwoman McMillan recalled the discussions of a bypass road around Lee Hall Village, which was before the City planned to develop a large parcel of property, and before there was increased housing at Fort Eustis Boulevard.   She inquired how the City was going to handle the effect to its property and roadway as a result of

Route 60. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the right-of-way and the alignment had already been approved by both jurisdictions. The real issue was how the Route would look in terms of its connection with Fort Eustis Boulevard. That was part of the design process; the City had to get a design for that. The more important issue was how Route 60 would get funded, since the City had no money for the project. As previously discussed with James City County, the City had other priorities that they would seek funding for before seeking funding for Route 60. Unless the State came up with special purpose funding the City would be hard pressed to find any available funding for the project. The MOU did allow the City to get the design phase done.

Vice Mayor Allen stated the MOU did not commit the City financially.   In review of the MOU, he asked the City Attorney to ensure that the City was not committing financially to the project, provided that City Council was in agreement. 

Councilwoman McMillan voiced concern about the traffic entering Newport News from the construction of Route 60 and whether it would cost the City funding to accommodate the Route.

Vice Mayor Allen stated the MOU simply allowed the process to go forward in the design phase. He assumed the Engineers and the City, in overseeing the design, would address the issue of the route entering Newport News. The City was not making a funding commitment. It was making an agreement with the County to proceed with the design process so that things could be done in complete form and not in some abstract way that did not identify the problems that had been expressed.

Councilwoman McMillan stated she was not in objection to the County moving forward, but reiterated her concerns that the City needed to consider the repercussions of Route 60 and where it was entering Newport News. She was not talking about cost. She was talking about long-range planning. She stressed that while James City County was working on their road, the City needed to look at its area to see what might be necessary.

Councilwoman Scott inquired whether the design included the impact to Newport News and the surrounding area. Vice Mayor Allen replied yes because the road could not be designed unless such problems were addressed.

Councilman Haskins inquired whether there were any traffic counts on Fort Eustis Boulevard South, to Jefferson Avenue, and whether those traffic counts exceeded what the highway was presently designed to handle. He inquired whether the City needed to do anything with the road. Mr. John Kaoudis replied 40,000 vehicles travelled along Fort Eustis Boulevard. The City experienced 17,000 vehicles per day on

Warwick Boulevard where it dropped to two lanes. By the time the City needed to meet the demands of Route 60 the City would be at 26,000 vehicles per day. If the City moved along with the aggressive schedule established by the County, the City needed to be online to upgrade Warwick Boulevard to meet the increased demand. Based on the highway forecast, the interchange was projected to be severely congested.

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether the numbers included the projection of the increase in manpower at Fort Eustis Boulevard from TRADOC. Mr. Kaoudis replied the above numbers did not include TRADOC moving to Fort Eustis.

Councilman Haskins voiced concern that the City would face a tremendous problem once Route 60 was extended into Newport News between Jefferson Avenue and Fort Eustis Boulevard. He inquired who would be responsible for the cost of increasing the roadway.

Vice Mayor Allen stated the City had to design the road to accommodate the increase in traffic from Fort Eustis due to the relocation of TRADOC. Also, the City was already experiencing an overload of traffic.

City Manager Hildebrandt stated the City needed to research the impacts the City would experience once Route 60 reached Fort Eustis Boulevard, and whether it needed to extend the improvements all the way to Jefferson Avenue and Fort Eustis Boulevard as part of the process.

Vice Mayor Allen inquired what the MOU covered. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the MOU covered what the City needed to do now.  He stated no construction would take place until the road was designed and funding was allocated. 

Mr. Steven Hicks, County General Services Manager, James City County, clarified that the MOU allowed James City County to go through design, and start right-of-way acquisition in James City County and Newport News. He stated the construction had not been clearly identified, although it allowed James City County to start negotiations to determine costs for construction, which would not be determined until they reviewed the overall corridor as well as other intersections.

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether Mr. Hicks was telling City Council that the City was obligated to buy right-of-way. City Attorney Katz replied yes. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the City had already set aside the funds and allowed for the right-of-way in Oakland Industrial Park that the City already owned. He stated there was no right-of-way that the City had to acquire as a result of the MOU. City Attorney Katz replied although there was no right-of-way that the City had to acquire in Oakland Industrial Park, the MOU did obligate the City.

Vice Mayor Allen stated the City did not know whether it had to buy a right-of-way until the design of the intersection was completed, just as Councilwoman McMillan previously voiced. City Attorney Katz stated the MOU did contractually obligate the City to have the right-of-way acquired.

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether the City would be obligated to buy an additional right-of-way once the intersection was designed to address the problems that Route 60 may pose. Mr. Joe DuRant, Assistant City Attorney, replied he understood the funding for the acquisition was part of the overall project’s expense; however if there was any acquisition that was going to be acquired through eminent domain, the City would be obligated.

Vice Mayor Allen stated staff had vindicated Councilwoman McMillan because that was what she had been saying throughout the discussion. He sincerely apologized to Councilwoman McMillan. He stated he had previously inquired whether the MOU obligated the City, beyond giving James City County permission to design the road, and received no answer. Now, he was being told that the City was obligated to buy right-of-way even though the right-of-way may not be allocated for, which was nothing compared to the impact and cost of straightening out the intersection. The MOU was saying that the City was obligated to buy land that an expanded intersection might create. City Manager Hildebrandt stated unless the funding was available, the City had no local obligation to pay for right-of-way acquisition. The only obligation the City made was to use their condemnation or negotiation powers, if funding became available in the budget, for the project.  Nothing was in the agreement that required the City to spend funding on the project that was not coming from federal and state funds.

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether City Attorney Katz agreed with the City Manager and whether City Council felt comfortable in proceeding with the MOU. City Attorney Katz was in agreement. Councilwoman McMillan felt the project would end up costing the City.

Councilman Haskins inquired about the City’s benefit in accepting the proposal. City Manager Hildebrandt replied, originally, the idea was that the project would take traffic off of Route 60, which was a two-lane road that was heavily impacted by truck traffic, and relocate the traffic to a four-lane road connected directly to Fort Eustis Boulevard. This had benefitted Hilton Village by relocating traffic around rather than through Hilton Village.

Councilman Haskins felt the project would work better if the City extended Pocahontas Trail to the interstate. County Administrator Wanner indicated that

proposal was considered years ago and failed; however, James City County had been encouraged to look at that alternative as they worked through the design phase of the project. He assured Councilman Haskins that alternative would be researched.

There was consensus among City Council to proceed with the MOU. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the matter would be addressed at the November 27, 2007 Regular Meeting of City Council.

V. Framework for the Future Update

City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. Al Riutort, Director, Department of Planning, to report on the Framework for the Future Update. Mr. Riutort stated the law required the City to review its comprehensive plan every five years. He stated the Framework for the Future was a comprehensive plan that was last adopted in 2001. The City began work on the plan in the fall of 2005, and should be completed and ready for review and adoption by Council by July 2008. He introduced Mr. Michael King, AICP, Manager of Community Planning, Department of Planning, to provide the Framework for the Future 2030 Update progress report. (A copy of the presentation, “Framework for the Future 2030 Update,” is attached to these minutes.)

Mr. King reported the kick-off for the update process began in October 2005 with a day of specialized training for citizens. He stated, in an effort to ensure wide participation, the City was successful in attracting approximately 100 citizens to serve on the update process. Citizen volunteers were divided up into five task forces, and four planning districts. Over one hundred meetings were held and two Task Force Congresses. The Congress was an opportunity for the task forces to convene together to discuss city-wide issues.

Mr. King noted the chapters of the Framework for the Future that the Task Force discussed included: 1) Economic Development; 2) Land Use; 3) Transportation; 4) Public Education; 5) Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; 6) Housing; 7) Public Safety; 8) Historic Preservation; 9) Human Services; 10) Culture; 11) Environment; 12) Urban Services; and 3) District Land Use Plan and Map.  

Mr. King stated the Task Force anticipated having a draft of the Framework for the Future 2030 Update completed for citizen review by April 2008. The Task Force planned two public hearings for May 2008 (one in the southern part of the City for Planning Districts One and Two and one in the northern part of the City for Planning Districts Three and Four). The Task Force anticipated adoption of the

2030 Update and were looking forward to the adoption process.

City Manager Hildebrandt noted two additional items for discussion: recommendations on fee proposal by the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority; and whether or not the City should pursue authority for the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to participate in a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). He explained the reason behind proposing the LLC was due to the Southeast Waterfront Development. 

Mayor Frank explained the LLC allowed a property owner to put their property, at an assigned value, into an LLC and own an interest in the LLC. The more property owners from a certain area who joined the LLC, the least amount of funds a developer had to come up with, upfront, to acquire the properties as a whole, rather than purchasing each property separately.   Once the developer brought property from the LLC, for the combined cost of the land, each property owner received their share of the funds as part of the distribution. The LLC was a vehicle for conveniently assembling land, without having as much money as you might otherwise need upfront to pay for land separately. 

Councilwoman McMillan inquired about the “similar entities” that could be included in the LLC. She was concerned that an LLC was a taxable authority. Mayor Frank replied it depended on the LLC whether it was taxable or not. 

Councilwoman McMillan inquired why an owner would want to put appreciable property into an LLC when it was going to be taxed. Mayor Frank replied the tax actually was not paid by the LLC. The LLC would issue a schedule K-1, which would go to the individual owners. Taxes would be attributable to the owners who put their properties into the LLC. 

Councilwoman McMillan did not see an incentive for a property owner to join an LLC. Mayor Frank replied they would have to pay taxes either way. 

Councilwoman McMillan inquired who would be the managing member of the LLC. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the members of the LLC would vote for a managing member. Mayor Frank replied the LLC did not have to have a managing member; all of the members could manage the LLC; that was the choice between the LLC.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired who was responsible should the LLC issue tax credits to a developer and the developer defaulted. Mayor Frank was not certain, but believed it was allocated among the partners for their share of ownership.

City Manager Hildebrandt stated the Newport News Redevelopment & Housing Authority (NNRHA) already had the authority to enter into an LLC.  He stated they formed an LLC to do Great Oaks Apartments. 

Councilwoman McMillan felt it was a slippery slope. 

Mayor Frank stated the City was only asking the legislature to give them the authority. Then if there was a transaction where the EDA believed it might be useful, they would come to City Council and explain what it was and why they were proposing a certain project.

Vice Mayor Allen replied the EDA was not required to receive approval from City Council as the Industrial Development Authority (IDA).  He suggested that the City request the authority of an LLC to go to the IDA rather than the EDA. The EDA could do basically what they wanted.

Mayor Frank felt the City needed to research the issue to see whether the City should give permission to the EDA or the IDA. There was consensus to move forward with the matter.

Mayor Frank inquire whether City Council should take a formal position on changes and/or modifications to the HRTA’s legislation regarding fees.  He personally was not in favor of another public hearing. Councilman Haskins stated he favored a public hearing. Mayor Frank stated public hearings were held on both sides of the water. Vice Mayor Allen stated he favored another public hearing. After a short discussion, there was consensus among City Council to hold a public hearing for citizen comments regarding changes and/or modifications to the HRTA legislation.

Mayor Frank suggested that a public hearing be scheduled in support of eliminating smoking in restaurants, and noted it required a charter change. There was consensus among City Council to have the City Manager schedule a public hearing.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS,

ON MOTION, COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M.