2400 Washington Avenue

PRESENT: William F. Haskins; Madeline McMillan; Sharon P. Scott; Joseph C. Whitaker; Charles C. Allen; Herbert H. Bateman, Jr.; and Joe S. Frank ---7

OTHERS PRESENT: Randy W. Hildebrandt; Stuart E. Katz; Mabel V. Washington; Neil Morgan; Alan Archer; Gregg Jones; Butch Blanks; Allen Jackson; Richard Caplan; Joe DuRant; Police Chief James Fox; Fire Chief Kenneth Jones; Dr. Rosanne Walters; Tim Shockley; Jeffrey Miller; William Keeler; Lisa Cipriano; Rhonda Everton; Robyn Rose; Chad Pritchett; Steve Carpenter; Everett Skipper; Reed Fowler; Michael Poplawski; Sheila McAllister; Al Riutort; Flora Crittenden; Effie Ashe; Karen Wilds; Tom Bennett; Wendell Braxton; Glenn Butler; Cheryl Smith; Steve Kast; Lisha Shannon; Chris Tan; Eileen Leininger; Brian Ramaley; Major Harvey Johnson; Dave Kuzma; Fred Watson; Karen Wilds; John Roberts; Michael King; Sabine Hirschauer; Lottie Vincent; Cleder Jones; Kim Lee; and Jennifer D. Walker

I. “Keeping Our Kids Safe” Progress Report

Mr. Randy W. Hildebrandt, City Manager, reminded City Council passed Resolution No. 11218-06 in July 2006, which endorsed the “Keeping Our Kids Safe” Strategic Action Plan. He stated the Newport News Violence Prevention Network had worked diligently on the objective and the goals of the plan since its endorsement. He introduced Dr. Rosanne Walters to provide a presentation on the progress of the Network over the past year.

Dr. Walters reported the “Keeping Our Kids Safe” Network (Network) members remained committed to the goals presented in the Action plan. She stated the Network worked hard to link programs and services, provide more comprehensive and effective programs and services, and fill gaps as they were identified in the community. She noted some of the new initiatives of the Network included:  1) a new Boys and Girls Club unit at Marshall Courts, due to open in January 2008; 2) the Communities Empowering Youth Initiative, which brought together 22 grass roots organizations for training, technical assistance and support; 3) Crisis Intervention Teams; 4) Protect Our Kids Program; and 5) Community Work Alternative Program. The Network also was expanding mentoring and parent education programs, after school programs and community outreach programs to educate the community about violence and its impact upon children. She thanked City Council and the City Manager for their strong support

of the initiative. (A copy of the “Keeping Our Kids Safe: The Newport News Violence Prevention Network” Annual Report, is attached to these minutes.)

Dr. Walters shared a video which summarized the purpose of the Network, how Network members and the community worked together, and the initiative’s accomplishments over the past year.

Mayor Frank inquired whether the Network measured the number and frequency of youth, parents and families that had been engaged in any of the programs. Dr. Walters replied the Network was measuring the numbers of individuals who had sought assistance through the Network; however, frequency varied depending on the program.  Mayor Frank felt that was important and indicated methods to measure the initiative’s impact would be important as the program matured.   Dr. Walters stated they were looking at baseline data regarding juvenile crime, i.e. incidents in schools. The Network encouraged all providers to look at successful programs used in other places, to use best practices and do their own evaluations.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired about the Systems Mapping Process and whether it was through participation in the program or by neighborhoods. Dr. Walters replied the Systems Mapping Process engaged Preschool Partners to do a systems map of all the programs and services available for preschoolers, 0 to 5 years of age, and the Youth Development folks were collecting the same information for ages 6 – 12. They were looking at all the services provided, where they were provided, how families accessed those services, what the funding streams were and how they were being utilized, as well as gaps in services. The Systems Mapping Process was a complete map of services. Dr. Walters stated a draft report would be available noting statistics on where services were accessed and obtained, and who was obtaining the services.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired about the procedure for distribution of the Federal Community Empowerment Youth Grant, valued at $750,000. Dr. Walters replied the 22 organizations of the Network were the recipients of the $750,000 grant from the federal government. The funds were used for administrative costs by Network organizations. An organization that wished to participate received training, technical assistance, and volunteered on a regular basis, with Network members to obtain skills to become an effective organization.

Councilwoman Scott inquired whether funding was only targeted for disadvantaged families or whether it was for needed services throughout the City. Dr. Walters replied the funding went to grass roots organizations that were committed to Keeping Our Kids Safe, throughout the City.

Councilman Haskins inquired whether the Network had statistics on the number of home visits and how many were required, the number of runaways that had occurred and the number of runaways returned to their homes that were related to the Runaway Prevention Subcommittee. Dr. Walters replied she did not have the statistics on runaways, but would research the information and provide it to the members of City Council.

Mayor Frank noted the Network needed to monitor contributions of the individual players because not all were equal and contributed the same. He stated over time, the Network needed to evaluate who was making a difference and who was not.

Councilwoman Scott inquired whether the Network had to apply for grants each year.   Dr. Walters replied, depending on the grant, they applied annually, or every two to three years.

Councilman Haskins inquired who the grants were received from and the continuity of the funds. Dr. Walters replied grants were received from state and federal organizations. Typically, the funding did not go away, but after grants were received for a number of years one had to re-apply, or apply for different grants. City Manager Hildebrandt replied some of the grants required the City to sustain certain programs, and many times the City received start-up grants.

Councilwoman McMillan felt sustainability was important and suggested when grants were accepted the City needed to springboard the programs to see whether it could be continued so that the initial works were not dropped by the wayside.            

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether the 22 community-based organizations that provided quality programs for youth in the Network were part of the Steering Committee or a part of other organizations in the community. Dr. Walters replied the 22 organizations were part of the Steering Committee and were represented by the Community Builders Network. 

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether anyone not part of the Steering Committee could be a part of the 22 organizations. Dr. Walters replied they could not be a part of the 22 organizations if they were not on the list. 

Vice Mayor Allen inquired how the Network reached organizations, in the community, who offered critical resources that were not a part of the Network’s 22 organizations. Dr. Walters replied they had representation on the Steering Committee and the members who represented such organizations made sure they were involved. 

Vice Mayor Allen requested a list of the 22 organizations that received funding from the Network. He was interested in seeing who was included in the 22 as well as those not included.  

Vice Mayor Allen inquired about the location for the new Boys and Girls Club at Marshall Courts. Mr. Steve Kast, Executive Director, Boys and Girls Club of the Virginia Peninsula, replied the new club would be located in the Marshall Courts Recreation Center. Vice Mayor Allen voiced concern that there were no play areas left in Marshall Courts and questioned what open space would support activities for children attending the club. He inquired how an outdoor facility would be addressed with the Boys and Girls Clubs.

Vice Mayor Allen inquired about the Newport News Police Department’s Leadership Program and the fact that ten juveniles were dropped from the program as noted on page 6 of the Annual Report attached to these minutes. He felt the program was unsuccessful if ten juveniles were dropped from the program. He was most concerned for those dropped because it seemed they were the ones who needed the program. Dr. Walters replied they might have been dropped because they did not comply with the Juvenile Court Community Work Alternative Program and Leadership Program. Chief Fox replied the juveniles who were dropped were not meeting the requirements of the program; however the program had been successful. 

Vice Mayor Allen was concerned about the children who were dropped from the program and whether they were referred to alternative programs. Chief Fox replied he would look into the matter and refer back to Vice Mayor Allen. He felt, in most cases, the juveniles had failed to show up for the program, but he would get the information.

Vice Mayor Allen stated the Wickham Avenue Alliance noted 90 youth in attendance per day, but in reality, during the summer months of 2007, they reached 300 or more youth per day. He felt the program was not adequately resourced, although the staff was very creative. He stated the City came out looking good from the program, and felt the program could have been extended had there been more hands-on from above, in terms of looking at what the Alliance was trying to do at Doris Miller Recreation Center, the Downing-Gross Cultural Arts Center, the Pearl Bailey Library and the SCOT Center. Vice Mayor Allen indicated people needed to be more responsive to what actually was going on in a program and its affect. The program did well, but did not get much notice. The City Manager stated the City would look at the resource issues closer during the summer of 2008.

Mayor Frank expressed appreciation and commended the City Manager and all who contributed to the Keeping Our Kids Safe initiative. 

II. Review of Draft Ordinance: Chapter 19 Solid Waste Revisions

City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. Tim Shockley to report on the details of the revised ordinance. He hoped the ordinance could be adopted by City Council at the December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting.

Mr. Shockley noted the five elements of the revised ordinance included in the City Manager’s memo to City Council dated November 21, 2007, along with two attachments. (A copy of the memo is attached and made a part of these minutes.)

Mr. Shockley stated the significant changes to Chapter 19 addressed the following issues: 1) Graduated fines and fee schedule; 2) Revised definition of bulk waste; 3) Revised bulk waste volume allowance; 4) Unlimited amount of vegetative waste allowed at Denbigh drop-off facility; and 5) Relaxed period of vegetative waste set out on curb.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired how the relaxed period of vegetative waste was beneficial to the citizens. Mr. Shockley stated that Friday collection would be shifted to Wednesday.

Councilwoman McMillan voiced concern about the relaxed period of vegetative waste set at the curb and fees for special services when a resident with 12 cubic yards of bulk waste received a fine of $120.   She did not see the relaxed period as an improvement, and inquired how citizens would determine how much bulk equaled 12 cubic yards of debris.   Mr. Shockley stated the information regarding what constituted a cubic feet would be included in the ordinance. He stated one-half cubic feet of debris equaled the size of a 90 gallon cart.

Mayor Frank felt staff came up with a comprehensive plan that made sense, however, it was difficult to understand what constituted a cubic foot of debris. He questioned what would be done to communicate to the citizens exactly how much debris constituted a cubic feet and inquired what could be done, in terms of a brochure and a mailing, to help citizens understand what they could or could not do regarding bulk waste.

Councilman Haskins commended the Solid Waste Division on instituting a cost effective mechanism by eliminating bulk waste on Friday and rescheduling it for Wednesday.

Councilman Bateman suggested the information be put on the City’s web page for citizens to understand the procedure for handling bulk waste. Mr. Shockley replied they would put the information on the web page.

Councilwoman McMillan voiced concern about the period of time the City allowed a resident to remedy a bulk waste violation. She inquired about the time period between the first and second notice of violation, as noted on Attachment 1 attached to these minutes. Mr. Shockley replied the time period between the first and second notice was seven days. Councilwoman McMillan felt having a solid waste violation and bulk waste on the curb, due to a violation, for three weeks was not logical. She felt residents who violated the ordinance should be allotted no more than 48 hours before being fined.

Vice Mayor Allen inquired how a citizen would dispose of bulk waste left by a contractor doing work at their residence, i.e. concrete and rock.  Mr. Shockley replied the waste should be transported to the Denbigh landfill by the citizen. 

Vice Mayor Allen felt the burden was being put on citizens who did minor renovations to their property. He indicated citizens paid taxes for solid waste and was one of the few services residents looked to for support. It might be efficient for the City to do it in that way, but it seemed the City was not providing services to people who were paying for them. City Manager Hildebrandt stated it was cost effective to handle such bulk waste matters in that way. If the City wanted to keep its costs down for everyone, it had to institute rules and regulations and require citizens to remove unusual items, otherwise fees would continue to increase.

Mayor Frank voiced concern that the ordinance did not include a provision that gave the Director of Public Works or his designee discretion to allow a resident to deviate from any requirement due to an unusual circumstance. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the City had to rely on the Public Works Department and supervisors to make the system work and be consistent. He indicated there was no way to write an ordinance that solved every problem. The Solid Waste Division tried to write an ordinance that gave the City general guidance. He asked that City Council depend on the Solid Waste staff to handle situations in a common sense and practical manner, in treating citizens fairly with respect to their particular needs. 

Mayor Frank concurred with Councilwoman McMillan’s point regarding the period of time the City allowed a resident to remedy a bulk waste violation. He felt allowing bulk waste to reside on a street for two weeks or more could cause a major problem. He felt the fine structure was more lenient than it should be if one of the principles of the ordinance was keeping the City’s neighborhoods clean. Mr. Stockley suggested that Solid Waste could pick up the bulk waste at the time it issued its first warning. That would allow the City to have a record of the violation as well as a clean street. Should the resident violate the ordinance again, a second warning would be issued.

Councilman Whitaker noted when he worked in the construction business and had to deal with bulk waste, he called the City to schedule a pick-up. He stated he was usually accommodated and the City would send out the appropriate truck for the type of bulk waste he had. He suggested that citizens work with the City.

Mayor Frank suggested that a hotline be established for citizens with questions or concerns regarding the revised ordinance. Mr. Shockley indicated the Public Works Department currently had a call center for citizens to utilize to obtain answers to questions and concerns regarding bulk waste.

Councilwoman Scott voiced concern that Townhome communities had become sites for illegal dumping. She inquired whether there was a way for the Solid Waste Division to monitor illegal dumping in Townhome communities.   Mr. Shockley replied the Solid Waste Division received a shipment of flash cameras that were scheduled to be installed at various locations throughout the City where noted violations were more rampant. 

After much discussion and critique of the ordinance, there was consensus among City Council to have staff prepare a memorandum that reflected the concerns of City Council regarding the proposed revisions to the Solid Waste ordinance and what the Solid Waste Division proposed to do. City Manager Hildebrandt hoped the ordinance could be adopted by City Council at its December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting. He indicated staff would need two to three months, after adoption of the ordinance, to implement and alert the public about the changes. 

Councilwoman Scott inquired about a solution to ensure bulk waste sites in Townhome communities were gated until the day before its scheduled trash pick-up. She felt there was no way to control the situation otherwise. If trash pick-up was scheduled for Thursday, the site should not be available for dumping until Wednesday. Mayor Frank stated that required new discussion regarding Solid Waste, but felt it was a meaningful issue. Mr. Shockley stated that would be a requirement imposed upon the Townhome Association to keep the site gated until the day before pick-up. He stated he would look into the matter and report back to City Council.

City Manager Hildebrandt reminded City Council considered the Ratifying Ordinance for the Taliaferro Road Sewer Extension project on October 9, 2007. Several residents addressed City Council and expressed concern that they were either not aware of the cost to them for the new sewer system or the costs were too high. As a

result, City Council tabled the ordinance until December 11, 2007, and requested that staff hold an additional public meeting. The public meeting was held on November 7, 2007, at the Lee Hall Fire Station.

City Manager Hildebrandt recommended that City Council move forward with the Ratifying Ordinance at the December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting of City Council unless City Council wanted to move forward with changes to the Sewer ordinance.

Mayor Frank stated the ordinance had been on the books for 30 years. Unless City Council was prepared to change the policy that no longer charged for installation of a sewer, there was no reason to change the policy. He felt it was a sound, fair and reasonable policy. 

Councilwoman Scott indicated she did not believe that City Council should change the policy, but felt a modification should be implemented to extend the payment timeframe from the present 10 years to 20 years to allow flexibility for the residents. She stated the residents did not want a lien applied against their property as they paid for the sewer. Most residents were over 70 years old and were concerned that the lien would roll over to their families in the event of their death.

There was consensus among City Council to leave the policy as it presently was.

IV. Proposed Fund Balance Reserves Expenditures

City Manager Hildebrandt reminded the City completed its FY 2007 with a $19 million surplus. Of the $19 million, $3 million was reserved for the City’s undesignated cash balance, which left $15 million available. Of the $15 million, $1.2 million was planned for the renovation of Rouse Towers and $3.5 million was planned to begin the Sanitary Sewer Compliance Study. The remainder of $10.4 million had not been allocated or committed.

City Manager Hildebrandt noted a list of projects and investments totaling $2.3 million, which were logical for City Council to consider: 1) Fire Station #11 ($600,000); 2) Court and City Hall Area Parking (250,000); 3) Renovation Work at City Hall and the Former CSB Building ($500,000); 4) Parks, Recreation and Tourism Priorities ($400,000); and 5) Citywide Special Event Funding ($550,000).  He stated the remaining 2007 reserve balance totaled $8,134,770. These investments allowed the City to limit pressure on its capital and operating budgets. He introduced Mr. Kenneth Jones,

Fire Chief, Newport News Fire Department, to report on the service needs of the Fire Department in the northern part of the City. (A copy of the presentation, “FY 2007 Fund Balance Recommended High Priority Expenditures,” is attached and made a part of these minutes.)

Chief Jones explained the City had been working with the Airport on a design-build interim structure that covered an area that had significant shortfalls. He stated, due to traffic, the Oyster Point Fire Station, the Denbigh Fire Station and Newport News Park Fire Station, experienced difficulty in reaching properties in a reasonable amount of time near Colony Pines, and around McManus Boulevard in the event of an emergency.  

Chief Jones noted response times for fire and emergency equipment to get to various locations throughout the City and details about proposed project.  (A copy of the information is enclosed in the attached presentation.)  He explained the project was a redeployment of existing resources and would not cost the City more than the initial $600,000 that was for the “interim” structure. The Fire Department would relocate equipment from the Deer Park Station, the Hilton Fire Station and the Marshall Avenue Fire Station.  He assured that relocation of equipment would not adversely impact fire response in the City. They were rebalancing and redeploying resources to cover needs in the most cost effective manner possible. Eighteen personnel would be relocated and the City would not have to buy any additional fire and EMS equipment or hire any additional personnel because of reallocation of resources. The expected completion date was July 2008.

Councilman Haskins inquired about the response time at the Hilton Fire Station in light of the fact that equipment was being relocated to the airport. Chief Jones replied the response time was within three to five minutes in the Hilton area. 

Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether the City was required to pay a lease payment to the Airport, as well as the $600,000 for set-up cost. City Manager Hildebrandt replied there was no lease payment. 

Councilwoman McMillan inquired about additional costs to the City’s annual budget to operate the new station. Chief Jones replied he did not have current figures. The Fire Department planned to program funding in the budget for utilities and operating expenditures.                       

City Manager Hildebrandt replied the only costs associated with the station would be to provide utilities to the building. Personnel expenses would be reallocated from the existing budget. 

City Manager Hildebrandt noted visitor parking was in urgent need of expansion and reform in the vicinity of City Hall. Also, renovation work at City Hall and the former Community Services Board (CSB) building was underway. He introduced Mr. Neil Morgan, Assistant City Manager, to report on the court and City Hall area parking and renovation work at City Hall and the former CSB building.

Assistant City Manager Morgan reported a staff working group had made a series of recommendations for expansion of parking due to the opening of the new Federal Courthouse in the spring of 2008. The recommendations included construction of additional visitor spaces across from the Bateman Center on 23^rd Street and the expansion and reconstruction of visitor parking in the 2500 block of Huntington Avenue across 25^th Street from the new Juvenile Services facility. The first phase of the work was estimated to cost $375,000. The Economic Development Authority had offered to contribute $125,000 to match a City investment of $250,000.   Along with employee parking reassignments, these projects consolidated short-term, free visitor parking in the City Hall lot and created long-term paid visitor parking in the new lots.  

Assistant City Manager Morgan stated $500,000 was needed to continue renovation work in City Hall ($250,000) and renovation of the second floor of the former CSB building, now called the Justice Building ($250,000). He explained the City had been modernizing City Hall one department at a time, using City Farm labor, for several years. The Departments of Development, Planning and Fire Administration were in need of renovation. City Farm crews were available immediately to perform the needed work, which was most efficiently done during cold weather months when outdoor City Farm labor requirement was minimal.

Assistant City Manager Morgan reported the CSB had completely vacated its former building. He stated the City-owned structure housed the Commonwealth’s Attorney on the 6^th floor and some of Juvenile Services Administration in renovated space on the 3^rd floor. Over the next two years, the City hoped to replace the roof and elevators and substantially renovate the fifth and sixth floors for the Commonwealth’s Attorney. The Law Library was currently under construction on the 1^st floor. 

Assistant City Manager Morgan stated, in order to reduce costs, the City was using in-house design, City Farm, and small contractors to continue renovation and occupancy for the Sheriff and Juvenile Services on the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th floors. That allowed the Sheriff to move administrative positions to the 2^nd floor. This action reduced the overall occupancy load in the jail, which was one of the City’s highest priorities. The work could be accomplished by the summer of 2008, if funds became available in December.

City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. Michael Poplawski, Director, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, to report on priorities of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, and Citywide Special Event Funding.

Mr. Poplawski stated a total of $400,000 was needed to provide funding for projects deferred from the FY 2008 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) due to diversion of funds for demolition of the Deep Creek Pier and upgrading of the bulkhead at Menchville Marine. The $400,000 would be used to proceed with the noted urgent priorities: 1) Replace the 30-year old wooden outdoor stage at Newport News Park; 2) Replace the deteriorating docks at the Denbigh Park boat ramp; 3) Connect restroom facilities to the new sewage pump station at Newport News Park; 4) Stabilize the severely eroded lakefront shoreline at Newport New Park; and 5) complete construction of the wavescreen fishing pier at King-Lincoln (this item consisted of City funding equal to $90,000 required to match State funding of $440,000).

Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether the pier at Lincoln Park would be lit and open at night. Mr. Poplawski replied the pier would be lit and would be open at night on a trail basis.

City Manager Hildebrandt explained City event funding was generally programmed and advertised on a calendar year basis. Because the City’s budget was on a fiscal year basis (July 1 – June 30), the City had approved funding for the spring of 2008, but had not appropriated funding for the second half of the calendar year, July – December 2008.  He asked City Council to allow him to put funding ($550,000) in a reserve fund that would be a carry over fund that would complete the funding for FY 2008. The appropriation allowed the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism to establish a Revolving Fund for on-going annual expenses to provide better accountability, marketability, and the resources to procure top-rated events and performers. When City Council adopted funding in FY 2009 there would be enough funding to pay for events for calendar year 2009.

Councilwoman McMillan was confused about what events would be funded with the additional appropriation of $550,000.    Mr. Poplawski replied most of the funding was for programs the City continued to run, such as the Stars in the Sky Fourth of July event.   He explained most of the funding for the Fourth of July event had to be spent before July; however, the funding was not available until the start of the new budget year, July 1. He reported the events that would be funded with the $550,000 included: Stars in the Skies Fourth of July; Family and Films by the Fountain; the King-Lincoln Music Festival; Festival of Folk Life in Newport News Park; Oyster Roast; Great Pumpkin Party; and Hollydazzle.    

Councilwoman McMillan stated the majority of the funding was going for City events that were held at City Center, and the lesser amount was going to fund events in other parts of the community. She stated the ice skating rink that developers were building at City Center would be nice, but questioned why the City was paying $100,000 for benches and infrastructure for the project through the EDA. She felt the funding spent for events was not balanced throughout the community. She reiterated the majority of the $550,000 funding appropriation was going to be used for events at City Center, and felt the funding needed to be spread throughout the community.   

City Manager Hildebrandt explained this appropriation was for advanced funding for events that Parks, Recreation and Tourism would sponsor for the last half of calendar year 2008, July through December. Not all of the events would be held at City Center, i.e. Stars in the Skies Fourth of July, and the Folk Festival. Events were being held at City Center because that was the new central place of the City that had accommodations and facilities to host events. The other part of the funding ($30,000) would continue grants to outside agencies for the neighborhood events.

City Manager Hildebrandt reminded this was a follow-up from the October 23, 2007 Work Session of City Council. He introduced Mr. Jeffery Miller, Director of Development, BECO Construction, to discuss how apartment units may be converted to condominiums, to present a revised market study, and to report on the public meeting that was held on November 13, 2007 at First Baptist Church Denbigh regarding the revised development agreement request.

Mr. Miller explained the process that BECO would take in converting condominiums to apartments should they desire to do so in the future. He also presented data of new condominium sales in Newport News from 2005 to 2007.  He reported 47 condo units sold in 2005, 31 sold in 2006, and 26 sold in 2007.

Councilwoman McMillan inquired about the number of condominiums built in 2007. Mr. Miller did not have data for the number of condos built in 2007. Councilwoman McMillan stated the data was not indicative of the total condominium market. Mr. Miller replied the data was only for new condo sales in Newport News and did not include resale data. He offered to provide additional data if necessary.

Mr. Miller reported advertisements were run four days in advance of the public meeting held at First Baptist Church, and noted he contacted Councilwomen McMillan and Scott to ask whether there were particular groups he needed to invite. He stated he received five contacts from Councilwoman McMillan.

Councilwoman McMillan clarified that she did not voice approval of the revised agreement, as indicated by Mr. Miller, to various contacts she had provided to him.   She stated familiarity was interpreted from the individuals he called. Mr. Miller apologized for the confusion because that was not his intent. 

Mr. Miller estimated 20 – 25 people attended the public meeting with 18 who actually signed in. Of the eighteen who signed in, he noted that ten lived within the Windy Knolls area. He stated many questions were asked and answered.   He noted that Pastor Harris of First Baptist Church Denbigh replied he had no problems with the project.

Councilwoman McMillan hoped Pastor Harris was speaking for himself and stated she received a call from Mr. Milton Cary, Trustee, First Baptist Church Denbigh, who indicated the church was not taking a position either way on the project.   

Councilwoman McMillan noted problems with the development from the start. She noted a prior meeting with Mr. Oder where the marketability of the project was brought up numerous times. Recently, in reviewing the site, the road was blocked off, there was no onsite facility and there was no onsite model. She noted the sales office on Denbigh Boulevard had closed, and felt BECO had given up on selling condos. She felt everything done on the project had blown in the face of best business practices. Homeownership opportunities sold the original project and now BECO was coming back to ask City Council to compromise the vision of the neighborhood.    She had a problem with increased traffic and did not support the revised project. 

Mr. Miller stated an announcement was made at the public meeting on November 13, 2007 that they were relocating their sales office on site. BECO reported they would have models open the weekend after Thanksgiving. 

Councilman Whitaker was concerned about what the neighbors felt about the project.

Councilwoman McMillan recognized Ms. Ruthann Williams who noted she attended the public meeting and was adamantly against the revised project. Ms. Williams noted she had circulated two sets of petitions that were sent down to City Council, in which the petitioners were opposed to changing the project to apartments. She stated they were in total opposition to any change from the proposed condo site plan that was submitted in 2005.

Mayor Frank stated there appeared to be a couple of issues: the property was originally zoned for apartments, and the developer could have built apartments as a matter of right. He reminded the City did not want apartments at the site and the

developer agreed to do a condominium project. Whether BECO marketed the project appropriately or made the appropriate business decisions to move the project forward, the issue before City Council was whether to allow the developer to change the development agreement. Mayor Frank stated the facts were the facts and the question was what did City Council want to do? He did not know who encouraged citizens to come to a meeting when only 18 showed up, and did not know whether 18 broadly reflected the views of the neighborhood. It was his guess that when the City held a public hearing to vote on whether to change the agreement, City Council would find out where the public stood on the issue.

Councilwoman McMillan questioned whether the Mayor was ignoring the signed petitions. Mayor Frank stated he understood the petitions, but guessed City Council would hear from the public at a City Council meeting.

Mayor Frank stated the issue at hand was the City Manager needed instructions from City Council on whether to enter into negotiations to amend the development agreement. If the answer was no, then the developer was stuck with the project originally proposed and could continue to build if they chose to do so. If the answer was yes, the City Manager would renegotiate the development agreement, bring the matter back to City Council and schedule a public hearing. Mayor Frank inquired of City Council’s pleasure regarding instructions to the City Manager.

Councilman Bateman inquired about the pitfalls if the City did not renegotiate the contract. City Manager Hildebrandt stated more of the condominiums would be rented as opposed to sold and the project would not be completed. The project would sit for a number of years with a couple of buildings and a few amenities, and the remainder of the site would sit vacant. In taxable real estate, the City would have only the tax on what BECO was able to sell.   

Mayor Frank stated there was a legal issue that had not been addressed. He sensed the developer could build the units as condominiums and then rent them out. Why they had to be converted to apartments was a legal issue that he was not clear about. Mr. Al Riutort, Director, Department of Planning, replied there was no law in Virginia that limited the percentage of condominium units that could be rented as apartments. Mayor Frank stated that limitations were listed in condominiums owner/organization documents so the condominium association, itself, could limit the number of units that could be leased at any one time. He was not aware of a state law that stated developers could not build all units as condominiums and rent them if they could not sell them. He felt the developer could do what they wanted as a matter of right, as opposed to City Council having to take any action at all.

Mr. Miller stated once the condos started to rent, they all rented. BECO made a good faith effort by coming to the City upfront when they had a problem, instead of just saying the “hell” with the agreement and renting the condos because they could not sell them. BECO came to City Council, “with their hats in their hands,” to let them know they had a problem, with the hope of working something out. Mr. Miller further stated the end result was not whether BECO had a successful development or not, but whether the City and BECO ended up with a cohesive full community. Stretching the project out for six or seven years was not going to give the City a cohesive community, especially if it turned out to be all rental property. The condos and rentals would work together and offset each other.

Councilwoman Scott inquired whether the resale value of the condominiums would be affected, once the developer built the 168 apartments, as proposed. Mr. Miller replied the apartments would not affect the resale value of the condominiums.

Mayor Frank disagreed with Mr. Miller and stated the chances of one reselling their condominium, depending on who was living in the apartments, would impact the resale value of the condominium unit.

Mr. Miller stated the project was similar to what was at Town Center, Stoney Run and Port Warwick, where there were apartments and condominiums.

Councilman Haskins suggested that a public hearing be scheduled at an upcoming City Council meeting to allow the neighborhood to voice their opinion regarding the project. In the meantime, he had no problem with the City Manager working out an agreement with the developer, and noted he reserved his vote until after the public hearing.

Councilwoman Scott inquired    why BECO had only advertised four days in advance of the public meeting. Mr. Miller replied they advertised four days in the newspaper, not four days in advance of the meeting.

Councilwoman Scott inquired how many days in advance of the meeting did BECO advertise. Mr. Miller replied they advertised one week prior to the meeting.  

Mayor Frank inquired whether everyone was in agreement with Councilman Haskins’ point of view.

Councilman Whitaker concurred with Councilman Haskins.

Mayor Frank understood Councilwoman McMillan did not agree with Councilman Haskins and wanted to leave the agreement as is. Councilwoman McMillan did not agree with Councilman Haskins and wanted the City Manager to address the traffic impact, which had not been mentioned.

Councilman Bateman stated he did not want to move forward with an agreement.

Councilwoman Scott wanted to hear more about the traffic impact and agreed with Councilman Haskins to reserve her vote until after receiving comments from the citizens who were actually affected by the development. She did not see a problem with the project, but was concerned about what the people who lived in the area felt about the project.

Mayor Frank understood Councilwoman Scott to mean she was ready to let the City Manager move forward to work out an amended agreement to bring to City Council and then have a public hearing. Councilwoman Scott agreed with working out an amended agreement, without obligating herself before the public hearing.

Vice Mayor Allen agreed with the majority.

There was consensus among City Council to have the City Manager move forward with an amended agreement with the understanding there was no commitment among City Council to move forward with the project. City Council would reserve their opinion until the conclusion of the public hearing scheduled for the January 22, 2008 Regular Meeting of City Council. Mayor Frank stated this provided BECO the opportunity to work out an amended development agreement with the City Manager and work with the residents who would be impacted by the project. 

Miscellaneous Matter: Deep Creek Pier and J. Clyde Morris Boulevard

Mayor Frank reminded he had asked the City Manager to report back to City Council with information about various alternatives and costs concerning rebuilding the Deep Creek Pier. He further recalled City Council had made an intellectual commitment to improve the forth corner of the intersection of J. Clyde Morris and Warwick Boulevards, with a mini-park or wall, and asked the City Manager to report on a plan and cost estimates for the project.  City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. Poplawski to report on the above concerns voiced by Mayor Frank.

Mr. Poplawski stated the City had not commenced work on the property at J. Clyde Morris and Warwick Boulevards for the above project. He indicated Parks was waiting on the Engineering Department and it would take a few days to come up with a basic landscaping plan. Mayor Frank requested information on what the Mariner’s Museum and Christopher Newport University planned for the park, with something from the City to complement the project.

Mr. Poplawski reported reconstructing Deep Creek Pier as a mooring pier was estimated to exceed $1 million. Another option was to replace the pier with a non-mooring structure, such as the Hilton Pier or the pier at King-Lincoln Park. He noted a cost breakdown for a 300’ Pedestrian Pier at Deep Creek totaled $229,425. (A copy of the cost estimates for a 300’ Pedestrian Pier at Deep Creek is attached and made a part of these minutes.)  

Mayor Frank inquired about the cost of reconstructing Deep Creek Pier as a mooring pier. Assistant City Manager Morgan replied it was estimated to cost the City $750,000 to $1.6 million because the City did not know about the cost for property acquisition.

Councilman Haskins noted a 1959 resolution of City Council where the Army Corps of Engineers required the City to maintain the Deep Creek Pier forever and inquired about the City’s legal requirement should the citizens bring suit against the City for not complying with the requirements of the resolution. City Attorney Katz noted he would look into the matter further and report back to City Council. 

Councilman Bateman expressed his desire that the public be welcome to use the pier on the Menchville side of Deep Creek Harbor once the bulkhead was upgraded. He did not believe the pier should be exclusively used by watermen. 

Vice Mayor Allen voiced concern regarding the right-of-way from the road to the Deep Creek pier and whether the City was crossing private land. City Attorney Katz replied the right-of-way ended at the end of the land at the low water point. 

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether the City had aligned the pier to the end of the right-of-way.   City Attorney Katz felt the City had.

Vice Mayor Allen did not feel an obligation to buy parcels for parking spaces. He saw no obligation to go through a legal battle with the marina owners to condemn property for parking. City Manager Hildebrandt hoped an agreement could be worked out to accommodate four or six parking spaces.

Vice Mayor Allen felt the concept of the mooring pier was outdated and felt the City should look at the relationship with the vendor on the Menchville side and how he controlled the property. That was one of the problems in dealing with the vendors who were licensed on the Menchville side.        Vice Mayor Allen felt the City needed assurance that people landing products would not have to go through Mr. Perok of Menchville Marine Supply Corporation.

Mayor Frank felt regulations needed to be implemented for the Menchville side of the Deep Creek Harbor regarding fees as noted by Vice Mayor Allen. The City needed rules and regulations. 

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether there was a state law that prohibited the City from requiring watermen to obtain a business license. City Attorney Katz replied he would research the law. Vice Mayor indicated, if people expected to have decent commercial facilities supplied by the City, they needed to help with the costs to maintaining the facility.

There was consensus among City Council to have the City Manager move forward and take a look at the pedestrian pier, specifically the version that was presented by the staff of Parks, Recreation and Tourism that was estimated to cost $229,425.00, without condemnation of additional property. Mayor Frank stated once the City Manager composed a visual plan with cost estimates, he should schedule and conduct a neighborhood meeting to include the watermen and tenants and owner on the Menchville side to receive their input. Also, the City needed to implement rules and regulations. 

VI. Proposed Water Agreement with James City County

City Manager Hildebrandt stated Waterworks staff had been working toward a final agreement with James City County and hoped for its adoption and approval at the December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting of City Council. He introduced Ms. Eileen Leininger, Assistant Director, Department of Public Utilities, to report on the water agreement with James City County. 

Ms. Leininger reported the main components of the agreement with James City Service Authority (JCSA) were as follows: 1) JCSA would receive 4 million gallons a day (MGD) or 20% of the yield of the King William Reservoir; 2) the JCSA’s financial contribution was based on $250 million cost of the project but did not include a contingency or an inflationary factor through construction; 3) cost of JCSA for

guaranteed 4 MGD was $12.5 million/MGD or $50 million; 4) the 4 MGD committed to JCSA would be reduced when we were in Tier 2 mandatory conservation (or higher) in accordance with the City’s Emergency Water Conservation Ordinance, and conversely may be temporarily increased if requested by JCSA if the City, at its sole discretion, determines that water supplies were adequate to meet this additional need; 5) JCSA had agreed to a $25 million upfront payment by January 1, 2009 with the second $25 million payment deferred until no later than June 30, 2018, when the King William Reservoir was expected to be operational. The $25 million payment to be deferred would be adjusted upward in accord with the Consumer Price Index changes between January 1, 2008 and actual payment date; 6) Second payment must be made no later than June 30, 2018. Should the second payment not be made by that time, the amount of water available to JCSA would be reduced to the 2 MGD it had already purchased; 7) Newport News Waterworks would charge JCSA for treatment of the water, at the City’s costs, and this price would escalate annually based on actual cost changes. Initial treatment cost, including delivery to an existing metered connection, was set at $0.70/1000 gallons; 8) JCSA would pay 20% of variable and fixed operational and maintenance costs for operation of the King William Reservoir; and 9) In order to provide JCSA its desired long-term commitment of water, the delivery was not dependent on completion of the King William Reservoir Project. (A copy of the draft agreement is attached and made a part of these minutes.)

Councilman Haskins inquired whether JCSA could wait until 2018 to pay the $25 million. Ms. Leininger replied they could wait until 2018, but the funding escalated based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). If money escalated as it did previously it would cost them about $34 million.

Councilman Haskins felt the CPI was the wrong index to use and inquired why Waterworks was using the CPI. Ms. Leininger replied it was used to look at the cost of the inflation of money, but would look at another index, per Councilman Haskins’ request. 

Councilman Haskins stated the cost of money itself would be higher than the CPI. He stated Waterworks should charge the cost of money rather than the CPI. Ms. Leininger stated that was what they talked about with James City County, but they would look into coming up with a different plan.

Ms. Leininger reported Waterworks staff believed the Project Development Agreement was fair to both jurisdictions. She stated Waterworks had the capacity now and in the future to support the 4 MGD commitment to JCSA. Given the progress the City was making on the development of the King William Reservoir Project, Waterworks saw very little risk with the guarantee of water for JCSA. 

VII. Salvation Army Proposal – Emergency Homeless Shelter Services

City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. Alan Archer to report on the Salvation Army proposal for emergency homeless shelter services.

Assistant City Manager Archer reported the City collaborated with the Newport News Redevelopment & Housing Authority (NNRHA) to identify a strategy to resume emergency homeless shelter operations at 1600 25^th Street. He reminded no services had been provided at the 50 bed emergency shelter since Friends of the Homeless (FOTH) closed the shelter on August 3, 2007. Prior to closure, the City developed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Salvation Army to expand its hotel/motel voucher program to homeless individuals and families through a State shelter grant award in the amount of $51,538. The grant award also identified an additional $26,250 to hire a Child Services Coordinator.

Assistant City Manager Archer stated in order to resume emergency homeless shelter operations, the Salvation Army requested a continuation of the $51,538 State Shelter Grant and the $26,250 designated grant for a Child Services Coordinator. Additionally, the Salvation Army requested that the City, the United Way and the business community contribute $100,000 toward annual operating expenses. Of this dollar amount the Salvation Army asked the City for a $50,000 community support contribution. The total proposed annual operation budget for the Salvation Army was $353,842. In addition, the NNRHA requested a one time appropriation of $100,000 to pay-off the lien of the FOTH shelter and $90,000 to make improvements to the structure.  (A copy of the Salvation Army proposed budget for 2007 – 2008 is attached to these minutes.)   

Councilwoman McMillan did not have a problem with the Salvation Army running a homeless shelter. She was confident in their work and did not have a problem with the agreement on the purchase price. However, she did have a problem with the cash outlet. She suggested that the faith community step up and pledge the $100,000. She believed there were over 200 churches in the community and if each donated $500.00, the NNRHA would have the $100,000 needed for the purchase and improvements of the homeless shelter. If all the churches tithed $200 a year the Salvation Army would have its $50,000. This was a community need and she felt the community should step forward and offer support.

Mayor Frank voiced concern that the building needed a great amount of work that exceeded the $90,000. He did not have a problem giving the building to the Salvation Army for a five-year term, provided they continued to use it as a homeless shelter. However, he felt the City would have a constant requirement to maintain and

repair the building because he did not believe the Salvation Army would be able to raise the necessary funding to keep the building running and serve the population simultaneously.  He felt the City should look at alternatives to providing transitional housing without investing in a building. He felt the building was a “bottomless pit” in terms of keeping and maintaining it. He felt the City needed to address the issue and provide the service, but did not want to provide it in a risky building.

Councilwoman Scott agreed with Councilwoman McMillan to get the faith-based community involved in the process. She agreed with Mayor Frank and felt the building was in disrepair. 

Ms. Karen Wilds, Director, NNRHA, stated although the building was built in 1956 it was believed the building could be adequately restored with $90,000 in repairs and replacements. However, the building would need ongoing repairs, which was some that the Salvation Army, along with donations, would have to deal with.

Mayor Frank voiced concern that when the Salvation Army did not receive donations, they would return to the City for funding. He was concerned about long-term costs and whether there were alternatives that got the service to the people who needed it without incurring the service of perpetuating, updating and maintaining the FOTH building.

Ms. Wilds stated NNRHA had negotiated the lien that was against the building by RBC Centura Bank from $155,000 down to $10,000.

Mayor Frank felt the City should look into a contractual relationship with the Salvation Army where the NNRHA kept the building and the City did the necessary repairs on an interim basis through the winter months. That gave the City a chance to look at alternatives over a period of time that would allow the City to transition out of the shelter business.

City Manager Hildebrandt suggested that the City appropriate $10,000 to NNRHA to acquire the building from the bank. This would give the City an opportunity to look at different alternatives that did not require a shelter to serve the population.

Vice Mayor Allen noted members of the Office of Human Affairs Board of Directors were present and inquired whether they were linked to the Salvation Army proposal. City Manager Hildebrandt replied they were present because they wanted to be considered as an alternative to the Salvation Army to run the facility if the City decided to put it back in place. 

Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether OHA had submitted a proposal. Ms. Wilds replied OHA had submitted a proposal, along with other organizations in the community, i.e. Salvation Army, Link of Hampton Roads and the National Coalition for Youth and Families.

Vice Mayor Allen recalled the Old Whitaker Hospital that was run by the Salvation Army and voiced concerns about the Salvation Army running the FOTH shelter. He recalled the City rezoned the property for them specifically, and the question raised by him at that time was what financial commitment, was the Salvation Army bringing to the proposal. The Salvation Army brought none and the building became a neighborhood eyesore. He did not see a Salvation Army resource in the proposal. If he was going to resource something he was going to resource something in his community. He requested the City Manager provide him with a copy of OHA’s proposal and a comparison between the Salvation Army and OHA.

City Manager Hildebrandt stated the Salvation Army had a community fund raising effort that they were involved in and was an agency that was always in the community raising funding. He stated OHA had not been in that kind of situation.

Vice Mayor Allen stated OHA had a record of pursuing and achieving grants, in excess of $15 million per year, in addition to funding from the City.

Ms. Wilds stated the committee also looked at the experience of the Salvation Army, over the others, in providing shelter and budgets submitted as well as the overall packages. Based on what the Committee saw, the Salvation Army had the stronger capacity.

Mayor Frank felt City Council needed to see other alternatives, particularly one that did not include the City taking on the building and its continued maintenance. 

There was consensus among City Council to appropriate $10,000 out of reserves to the NNRHA so that they could clear the lien on the building and have the City Manager evaluate the options of having the Salvation Army or OHA operate the building, with proposals, and look at a non-facility way to provide transitional services for emergency shelter.

Miscellaneous Matter: Donation to Eastern Virginia Health Center Agency

City Manager stated the Eastern Virginia Health Center Agency had asked the City for $9,000 to fund their program for the rest of the fiscal year. He recommended that the Eastern Virginia Health Center Agency resolve the matter with the State.

There was consensus among City Council not to support the request of $9,000 for the Eastern Virginia Health Center Agency.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION, COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 6:43 P.M.