City Council Meeting, 8/25/2026

All chief will be joining us shortly and we're okay to get going.

So, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, the first presentation will be provided by Crystal Pay of our school board. Crystal will give city council an overview of their budget proposals, of their budget resolutions, and their request for additional funding coming through from the state. So, next voice you'll hear will be Crystal P, the chief final financial officer for the schools.

Crystal, the floor is yours.

Welcome.

Thank you. Um, good afternoon, Mayor Dyer, Vice Mayor Wilson, and members of city council, and Mr. Janei. Thank you for this opportunity to present the school division's proposed fiscal year 2026 27 amended budget. This afternoon, I'll provide an overview of the additional state revenue received following the final approval of the state budget and then outline how we recommend using those resources to

address several of our highest priorities.

This slide provides an overview of the school division's revenue sources and shows how we arrive at the proposed fiscal year 202627 budget. The final three columns show the adopted fiscal year 2026-27 budget, the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 amended budget, and the resulting variance. Overall, the proposed amendment provides approximately 13.9 million in additional revenue. Of that amount, approximately

12.8 million comes from the state with an additional approximate 1.1 million from state sales tax. The major changes include approximately 3.5 million in special education add-on funding, a reduction of approximately 654,000 in basic school aid, approximately 6.3 million in compensation supplement funding to support providing an average 4% salary increase for SOQ funded instructional and support positions.

Approximately 3.3 million through the infrastructure and operations per pupil allocation. a reduction of approximately 2.3 million in at risk lottery funding, approximately 2.7 million in at risk standards of quality program funding, and then approximately 1.1 million in state sales tax revenue. These additional resources provide the school division with an opportunity to address several important priorities. As we

developed the recommendations, the focus was on balancing immediate operational needs with strategic investments to directly benefit students, staff, and schools. The recommendations before you are the result of collaboration across division leadership. They are designed to maximize the impact of these additional resources while strengthening ongoing operations.

In particular, the recommendations focus on student safety, special education, employee support, instructional quality, and responsible fiscal stewardship.

Beginning with the approximately $13.9 million, the school division is recommending the following investments.

First, we recommend moving 15 security assistant positions from the operating budget to the school resource officer, school security officer incentive grant.

These positions were originally included in the operating budget because at the time we had not yet received notification that a grant would be awarded for a second year. We received notification of the grant in May and moving these positions to the grant results in an operating budget savings of approximately $536,000.

We also recommend providing approximately $51,000 for the local match associated with the school safety personnel programming grant which was also awarded in May. This grant funds an emergency preparedness planner position and represents the first year of funding for this initiative.

Next, we recommend increasing our PIGO funding by $3 billion. This investment allows the division to continue addressing critical capital needs without additional borrowing. It also demonstrates our continued commitment to the CIP program and to long-term financial management.

We also recommend replacing approximately $3 million in funding that was previously provided through the all-in grant for high impact tutoring and the Virginia Literacy Act. Those grant funds expire June 30th and replacing this funding will allow these important instructional supports to continue.

To further support employee recruitment, retention, and professional growth, we recommend an additional funding of $214,000 for employee professional development reimbursement, commonly referred to as tuition reimbursement. This investment would increase the annual reimbursement maximum from $1,000 to $2,000 and supports tuition, license renewal, advanced certifications, and other professional learning opportunities.

We also recommend adjusting the unified pay scale by increasing salary steps for employees with 1 to 14 years of experience from 1% to 1.25% effective February 1st at a cost of $4.8 million. This recommendation reinforces our commitment to attracting and retaining highquality employees in an increasingly competitive workforce.

This next set of recommendations focuses primarily on sustaining essential positions and strengthening services for students with disabilities and other students with significant needs. First, we recommend transferring positions previously supported through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or the Title 6B grant to the operating budget. The most recent Title 6B grant funding can no longer support

9.5 positions, including 5.5 school social workers, three behavior intervention specialist, and one teacher assistant. Of those positions, 4.1 were moved to the Title 4 grant, and the remaining 5.4 Four positions now require local operating funds at a cost of approximately 563,000.

The remainder of these recommendations focus on strengthening special education services and supporting students with greatest needs. First, we recommend providing approximately 500,000 to address the increasing cost of private day school placements. Recent changes to the state rate cap more cost onto the school division and the Children's Services Act funding cannot cover costs above those rate caps. Next, we

recommend approximately 561,000 to revitalize the behavior and social emotional program, also known as BASE, through additional staffing and instructional resources. In addition, we recommend establishing an additional STEP classroom, including both personnel and instructional resources at a cost of approximately $560,000 to meet the growing student needs. STEPP stands for Supportive Therapeutic

Education Program. We also recommend converting 20 temporary special education teacher assistant positions to full-time positions at a cost of approximately $931,000.

This change will provide greater consistency for students and schools and strengthen continuity of support provided to students. And finally, we recommend providing an additional 291,000 for the special education teacher assistant substitute budget. This funding will help ensure adequate substitute coverage and main continuity of services throughout the school year.

Taken together, these recommendations reflect a focused approach to the additional state revenue. They prioritize student safety, employee support, instructional quality, and expanded services for students with disabilities while maintaining our commitment to responsible fiscal management. Our goal is to make strategic investments that address immediate needs while also strengthening

the school division for the future.

This concludes the presentation. Thank you for consideration of these recommendations and for your continued commitment to our students, employees, and community. We appreciate city council's continued partnership and guidance throughout the budget development process. And I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Any questions at all?

Okay, I don't see any, but thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

And Dr. Robertson, thank you so much for being here, too. You are very much a partner with us.

All right. So, Mr. Mayor, members of council, the next presentation will be a briefing on the stormwater management implementation advisory group draft recommendations. The purpose of this briefing is a get city council guidance as it relates to the items on the recommendations that you'd like us to move forward with.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mayor Dyer, Vice Mayor Wilson, members of city council, manager Duhaney, and city attorney Styles. As the manager mentioned, I'm here today to provide you with an overview and a reminder of this discussion that the storm water management advisory group had and seek your direction on next steps. I'll also be sharing with you the efforts that the staff has undertaken

since the advisory group concluded their meetings.

So, as was mentioned, I'll provide you an overview of the group's discussion, their recommendations and objectives.

Um, a reminder of what was discussed back in November of 2025. I'll provide you an overview of the actions and implementation to date, and then, as I mentioned, seek your direction on next steps. So, as you all recall, city council passed a resolution back in 2024 that established the stormwater management implementation advisory group, and their charge was listed here.

We'll walk through um their task and the specifics of the ordinance as we overview their recommendations.

Here are the members of the task force.

When you heard the presentation back in 2025 that was given by the chair and the vice chair, um we did have representation from the planning commission and the two council liaison to this group were council member Henley and council member Schulman.

So, here's the vision um that the storm water advisory group um talked through and spent extensive time educating themselves with industry experts and members of the staff. They wanted to work towards creating a more efficient, effective, and well understood storm water management program. They wanted to support economic vitality and growth of the city of Virginia Beach while also ensuring that we um protect our

infrastructure and manage storm water effectively. They wanted to reduce the negative impact of storm water and flooding and they wanted to protect and preserve Virginia Beach's future.

So after a very robust discussion um as you heard back in November of 2025, the advisory group did reach unanimous consensus on every recommendation.

So at the crux of their discussion, they recognized that the city of Virginia Beach has very unique storm water challenges. Um very different from other localities in Virginia and therefore our regulations um require uh unique solutions to difficult challenges. The advisory group supported a predictable process that recognized the need to strictly enforce regulations to reduce flooding, protect water quality, but

also um necessary flexibility to support economic vitality.

So the first objective was related to storm water management, land use and redevelopment. There was very robust discussion about regional BMPPS um and to utilize best management practices which the staff is focused on. Um they wanted to make sure that our whatever we came up with did re uh facilitate redevelopment as you've heard mentioned during discussions related to the city's comprehensive plan and that we had a

holistic approach to storm water.

Number two was related to drainage basins land use and zoning characteristics. Uh they wanted no changes to the regional drainage basins.

They didn't feel like that was going to be effective whatsoever. Um they did want us to focus on public and developer education about the stormwater regulations and why they were in place as well as align land use and zoning ordinances.

Number three was related to the stormwater cost share participation program. Um some of you have uh participated in approval of projects that have utilized that program. They wanted us to more formal of to formalize the criteria associated with utilizing that program and I'll provide an overview of that as well.

And then lastly, they wanted us to come up with ways to incent um any city council policy or planning priority as it relates to storm water.

So this is diving into objective one storm water management land use and redevelopment. Um they wanted us to encourage and increase investment in regional storm water solutions and that is the approach that the city of Virginia Beach is currently undertaking.

Um they wanted us to facilitate redevelopment and you see that reflected in the city of Virginia Beach's recently adopted comprehensive plan.

The request for proposals for the uh rewrite and update to the city zoning ordinance that scope of work has been published and that process is starting.

Um that update will be probably a 18th to 24month process. But as we undertake updates to the zoning ordinance, regulations related to storm water will be a part of that discussion and process. And then lastly with this objective, they wanted us to continue to tell the story of sustainable practices.

Um the city of Virginia Beach is very much pro promoting sustainability um especially as it relates to our flood protection program and has established an outre outreach framework to communicate with both residents and the development community.

Um our communications division does a really wonderful job in highlighting the importance of flood protection and storm water through a variety of social media channels, educational videos and blog posts.

Subjective two was related to drainage basins land use and zoning characteristics. Um and so first they were very adamant to not create additional regional storm water ordinances. Um and so staff's not pursuing that. Um certainly we would uh move forward with council direction as given but they felt like consistency and predictability was important and any change of that nature could be confusing.

Next, um, increase public education on the city's drainage basins and the impact of storm water. Again, as I mentioned, there's robust public outreach related to this topic. Um, and we believe that's being wellreceived.

And then lastly, align land use and zoning ordinances to encourage redevelopment and preservation where appropriate. Um, as I mentioned, this was a constant theme throughout the comprehensive plan and as we move forward towards the zoning ordinance rewrite, this will be uh top of mind.

Objective three, this was related to the stormwater cost share program. Um they the advisory group felt strongly that there should be criteria um established for that program and so they came up with a list that I'll share with you on the next slide. They wanted to ensure that the cost participation program was widely broadcast so that developers across the city would be aware of the

program and could seek to utilize the funding associated with that program.

And so the suggestion is that as we enter into the upcoming budget process that we more formalize um or formally adopt these criteria. And so they felt like it was really important that the projects that utilize this funding source should have a public component and it should enhance or upgrade existing public storm water infrastructure associated with the private development. the projects that

have been approved to date. This is what the purpose of that program was. Um, and then they ranked other items here that they felt would be important. So that it utilizes green storm water infrastructure that's in an area of high flooding that it's in an area with a higher developmental density so that public funds are truly making a significant impact on mitigating storm water issues.

And then lastly, and this was a broad objective, um, no true specifics for this one. However, we'll be keeping the task force's recommendations as a part of discussions as we update various land use ordinances. They wanted us to ensure that whatever council's priorities are as they relate to storm water, that we're weaving that throughout other regulatory areas. And so this will be an

ongoing topic of discussion again as we review various uh city code changes and the uh zoning ordinance rewrite.

So as I mentioned um the advisory group's recommendation to city council was to be proactive in stormwater regulations understanding that we have unique challenges that need creative solutions. Um again though predictability would be important to the development community also while protecting property life and creating a resilient city. Um as I mentioned related to the cost participation program they did recommend

that we formalize that criteria. At this point it's basically just a staff review and we report out to the body. But if we have criteria and broadly promote the program they feel like it could be um widely utilized across the entire city.

Um, and then lastly, work to implement these recommendations again as we update city codes and the zoning ordinance. So, I'm happy to take any questions. Um, there are some additional staff members from the task force here as well.

Okay, Barbara, one of the liaison to this group. I just have to say you did a very good job even though it's been a year of of recapping uh the advice from this advisory group, but I was just so impressed with this advisory group and how firm they were that we needed to do exactly what our recommendation said.

And now we've got these recommendations, we need to use them and and they were very supportive of of how that should be. And I think now that it's passed on to the city council, you know, we've got our plan. We know what we should do. Now we just have to do it. But I just want to say how well I think that advisory group worked and and I think they did a

great job and their recommendations are right on point.

Okay. Thank you, Josh. Mr. Mayor, thank you. And I agree with everything that Councilwoman just said. the uh thank you for um the work to bring this uh summary to us, but also to the I think it was like an eight-month um you know bunch of meetings with 13 people from all sorts of different backgrounds, environmental uh construction, we had nonprofits, we had um you know ordinary citizens,

engineering backgrounds. So and then a full complement of city staff uh as well. And um you know the these these are really just meant to um I I think are you looking for us to actually ask you to accept these into the into kind of what what our overall framework is?

Is that the idea? It would be helpful to have affirmation from council that you would like us to continue to implement the recommendations from the advisory group and then also more specifically as we move through the budget process more uh formalize the um recommendations related on how you use the um cost participation CIP. So those funds are truly impactful.

These are I mean these are a lot of things that we're doing now anyway um especially along the lines of regional BMPs and I mean you know we we're going to have challenges with redevelopment.

We we live in a place that has you know water is our biggest asset and that's also our biggest challenge. So um you know making sure that when redevelopment does happen that um you know it if and if there are support available that the the projects are in line with what the council's policy objectives are. um you know, saving green space, trying to get these these uh shopping malls with huge

parking lots redeveloped into into something that actually treats and holds water better than what they currently do. Um affordable housing and especially if there's cost share uh money available for people to come seek some assistance that it's uh that it's truly serving a public the public benefit and public interest. Um and uh I I appreciate the work. So, I would just ask um you know

all of you if if you need a week to you know we can come back and accept these uh as you consider them but it was really just a great piece of work and I appreciate you.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

You need a verbal affirmation or do you need us?

So, um Vice Mayor, most of these we're already organically working on as well coming out of the um the task force. So it's um basically work that staff is already um doing as part of their their work processes. The one that we will need council affirmation on which can happen in the budget process and that's really the ask is the formalizing the criteria that was offered here by the

task force is the cost participation CIP. As council recalls this is about $2 million that we have each year to help um projects meet the city's enhanced storm water um guidelines. For the past couple years, we haven't had a real solid criteria. One of the goals that Council had with the group was for them the private sector and neighborhoods and um nonprofit groups to give us ideas on

how we could set criteria. Right? This is what they proposed right now. We can work to incorporate that as part of the budget process to make this be the criteria for how we use that fund in the CIP going forward. It seemed pretty good. It had a holistic view from those on the development side, but also the neighborhood side and also the nonprofit side. So, it's a pretty solid recommendation coming out of the task

force. So, this is probably the one that most likely would have a legislative policy impact that the council would cast a vote on and we're recommending we take it up as part of the budget process once you say otherwise.

Okay.

Anybody else? Thank you, Amanda.

Yes, sir.

Moving now.

All right. So, Mr. Mayor, members of council, at this time we'll be joined by the plate department. They'll give city council overview of the pending planning items coming to you at your next uh council meeting.

Thank Good afternoon, mayor, vice mayor, members of council. I'm here this afternoon to go over the planning items on your September 1st and September 15th agendas.

Looking first at September 1st, there's a total of nine items on that agenda for planning. Three of which are ordinance amendments which Hannah, the zoning administrator, will brief um momentarily.

So, the first item is a modification of conditions requests for 5263 Greenwich Road in District 1.

A conditional use permit for a religious use was approved by this body in October of last year. The site is just over one and a half acres and lies east of I264 within the New Town SGAA and just south of the future Virginia Beach Trail. A deviation from the 3acre minimum lot area requirement for relig religious uses was approved as a part of that 2025 approval.

The applicant is requesting a modification to the site layout and building elevations to reflect a slight increase in the building size from um 10,500 ft to approximately 11,300 square ft and then changes to the overall building elevations. The proposed sanctuary will remain at 200 seats and all required parking is met on site.

The overall building elevations, as seen on the slide here, have been updated to a more modern style with a mix of materials and will have a maximum height of 33 feet 4 in, which is less than what was approved with that 2025 approval.

There are no changes proposed to the hours of operation or the anticipated numbers of employees with this request.

We did get one letter of support from an adjacent property owner who noted that development and cleanup of the site would be a positive impact to the area.

We have not received any opposition and the planning commission recommended approval on consent.

Item two is another modification of conditions request. This one for 4121 Charity Neck Road in district 2.

The modification is specific to a subdivision variance that was granted in 1995 which did require an ingress egress easement be platted through the subject parcel for the benefit of 4137 charity neck which is just to the west of the site. The applicant is seeking to remove that ingress east ingress egress condition um as both parcels now have access to charity neck road directly.

The applicant intends to construct an addition to the existing single family dwelling and a portion of that addition would encroach into that easement area which is what has prompted this request.

We have not received any opposition and the planning commission recommended approval on consent.

Item three is a conditional resoning request for 4916 Uklid Road in District 4.

As you may recall, the applicant previously proposed to reszone this 7,700 foot parcel to A18 in order to develop it with a triplex. However, due to concerns about compatibility with the surrounding area, the applicant has revised the request to A8 or A12 and proposes a duplex resulting in an overall density of 11.25 units per acre.

As a reminder, the site is located within the central village district of the Penrook SGA and lies within the Pocahontas Village neighborhood.

While this request is less intense than the previous proposal, there are still several deviations that will be required, including a reduction in the lot area from 10,000 square ft to 7,744 square ft, a reduction in the sideyard setbacks and landscape buffers from 10 ft to 5t, and then an increase in the maximum lot coverage from 30% to 35%.

As with the previous proposal, an 11 foot wide rideway dedication is proposed to accommodate the installation of a 5- foot wide sidewalk and a six foot wide public multi-purpose trail easement to accommodate a future bike lane along Uklid Road. There is also a two-car driveway and a onecar garage proposed for each unit, so it satisfies the parking requirement.

The Sorry, I'll let you.

Okay. The duplex is designed to look like a larger single family dwelling and will have a maximum height of just over 30 feet. A 6 foot tall privacy fence is proposed to enclose the rear yard.

Staff received two letters of opposition noting concerns with incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

However, there were no speakers in attendance at the planning commission hearing. Ultimately, the planning commission found the proposal to be a good compromise between the recommendations of the comp plan and the surrounding development pattern and voted to recommend approval by consent.

Thank you. Um, of course, I remember this application as many of us do. I just can't help but notice if you look at the aerial on page 14 that they're all single family homes and then what's being proposed here is a duplex. I'm not going to characterize this as being in or out of the character of the neighborhood, but I think it's obvious to anyone who's paying attention that you have a single family home, a

single family home, closed duplex, a single family home, single family home. That's different.

One of these things is different than all the rest. So, I guess I'm just curious what the basis you said it's it's in um in cohesion with the comp plan.

What does the comp plant say that indicates that that would be a use that is acceptable or preferred? So, as part of the Pemrook SGAA, and let me see if I can, it's kind of hard to see here, but there are four parcels um that are all single family parcels part of the Pocahontas Village um neighborhood that are included in the Penrook SGA, which does call for looking for a mix of housing

types um and would call for a slightly more intense style of development. Um, so this is kind of a good balance recognizing that Pocahontas Village is still um a single family neighborhood.

This, like I said, it looks more like a larger um two-story single family dwelling um rather than what was initially proposed, which was three units and took on a more multif family look. Um staff felt like this was a good compromise meeting that mix of residential units that's require or that's recommended in the comp plan and a slightly more intense style of development but kind of balancing it

with the existing single family dwellings that are around there.

But to be fair, if you go back to those four, it's just those four are included in the Pemrook est.

Correct. Correct.

And why were those four included?

because you're beginning to approach cuz I mean I you know I guess we're going to see what the community and what what the neighborhood says and and council member Ross Hammond isn't here. Maybe she has more insight into this um from a council perspective, but one of the things that people are expressing concern about is that their their neighborhood that they bought into and and is going to be upzoned. We hear

that a lot. I hear that a lot and I know others do too. Um I guess anyway I'm just trying to understand how I would explain to someone who has an expression that their neighborhood will be upzoned that there are protections in place to prevent upzoning when potentially you're recommending an upzoning. And why those four why why are those four parcels those four parcels may be in the Penrook SJA but the rest

of the Pocahontas neighborhood isn't correct and I can't speak exactly to why they were included initially I will say so if you look up here you've got more commercial development up here that's also included with the SGA and staff's thought process is that these four parcels could allow a more gradual transition to the single family dwellings along Uklid Road um and the Pocahontas Village neighborhood ood

aside from is still part of a type um was it type two type one neighborhood character area within the comp plan. So it still has that protection for the Pocahontas Village neighborhood.

Yes. And if I can just add to that if if I mean it has the protection except for those four houses.

So yes. So that's considered really a transition area where you start transitioning into a little bit of a higher density. We did have outcry from the community when it was a triplex when they came back and they asked her at that community meeting if she would consider going to a duplex in which case she did. One of the reasons I think and we weren't there during the process when

this line was drawn but it's across from a mobile home community. So I think there was that thought process there too that that eventually may transition to a higher density use as well. But in the SGAA plan the way it is right now, those single family neighborhoods are specifically drawn out of the SGAA boundary for protection.

So this is just right on the line. I mean, because people are going to ask that and and I'm going to want to be able to explain if if this moves forward or it doesn't. I would want to be able to explain to people in Windsor Woods or Princess Anne Plaza why this would why this could happen in this neighborhood in this instance, but but wouldn't be applicable in other neighborhoods. And I

think that's an important distinction that we be very transparent and clear about. What we'll we'll evaluate the appropriateness I guess next month about this one, but um I think a very clear explanation needs to be in place if the council decides to move forward.

Okay. Thank you, Michael and Stacy.

Yes. I um Miss Warren addressed what I was going to say is that when this project first came out as a triplex, I was vehemently against it. I just thought that was a horrible look and a horrible, you know, just over overkill.

And I at the time I remember the community was asking and councilwoman Ross Hammond also asked, you know, can you relook at this and downsize it?

maybe a duplex, you know, and so I think the applicant did what she was asked to do and without I I know the comm there was much more community uh opposition to the triplex and it just seems as though it's you know there's one letter in today's world that's overwhelming support.

Anybody else? Okay, move on. All right.

The next item is a conditional use permit for an adult daycare at 408 Investors Place, Sweetite 107 in District 3.

The proposed daycare will operate within an existing suite and will provide care for up to seven clients at a time, all of whom have either an intellectual or developmental disability. There are no building modifications proposed this with this request and the facility will operate Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. Two staff members are proposed to support the use which will

require lensure from the Department of Behavioral Health if the conditional use permit is granted. Adequate parking is provided on site and staff did receive a petition of support with one signature for the request. We have not received any opposition and the planning commission recommended approval on consent.

The next item is another conditional use permit request. This one for a religious use at 230 Clearford Avenue, sweet suite 103 in District 4.

The use currently operates within an existing suite is and is proposing to expand into adjacent suites for a total area of just over 5,300 square ft. The site is located within the Western Campus Overlay District of the Pemrook SGAA. The expansion will allow for additional classroom and office space, but will not impact or increase the size of the existing sanctuary. There are total of five employees proposed to

support the use and the hours of operation are remaining unchanged, which are seen on the slide here.

Adequate parking is available on the site and the applicant has agreed to install a bike rack at the entrance of the facility as recommended by parks and rack. Staff has not received any opposition to this request and the planning commission recommended approval by consent.

Item seven is another cup request. This one for a childare education center at 1543 Amberly Forest Road in District 10.

The site is located within the Green Run Land use plan and a childare center previously operated on this site. Um the current applicant intends to provide care for up to 25 children ranging in age from infant to three years.

All required parking is provided on the site and the applicant intends to use an existing 930 foot fenced in outdoor play area to support the use. We did have one speaker registered in opposition at the planning commission hearing, but they were not online when this item was heard.

Ultimately, the planning commission did vote to recommend approval of the item on consent by a 100 vote with one abstension. I'm going to turn it over to Hannah.

Good afternoon. Hannah Saba, zoning administrator. Uh the next three items are text amendments relating to short-term rentals within the oceanfront resort area. Uh the first is to amend section 2303 of this zoning ordinance pertaining to short-term rental parking.

Uh more specifically, this amendment proposes to prohibit short-term rentals from using public parking within a city-owned parking garage to meet their minimum parking requirements. Uh while there was one speaker registered to speak in opposition via WebEx at the item uh during the planning commission hearing that individuals online when the item was heard and the planning commission did vote to recommend

approval of the item by by a unanimous vote worth. So you finish with this item.

So just a quick question and and comment. So, right now, if a short-term rental comes up for renewal and the current applicant uses a public parking garage stall, uh, are they allowed to use it going forward? Can or does this is this grandfathered or or not? And if not, maybe we should add that under the current writing of the ordinance, if they were to apply for their uh annual renewal, they would not

be able to use the city parking garage, even if they had in the past. And I would ask colleagues if we could amend that to grandfather these because Vice Mayor Wilson and I spoke about this and I don't you want to comment or not but I I would think going forward if we could grandfather the existing STR applicants so that they can keep their STR uh using the stall. It's 44

uh total spaces used to the ocean front garages uh with STRs which is not a big number. So I I would say and it's income for the parking enterprise fund as well.

So I guess what my concern is that these people have got to the business of the STR knowing that they had these spaces which they're required to have.

What would they do without them? What are their alternatives?

The alternatives would be to find additional spaces on their site. Um or they could lease a space if there was a non city-owned lot um nearby they could lease the space there.

Mr. Mayor, members of council, vice mayor, council member Remick, this is something that we could accommodate if um council wants us to add this condition or change the language to allow for those that were already um approved for SDR to be grandfathered to that effect. That's something that we could accommodate if that's council wants.

Good. Josh, um I hate to be the kind of just lone person, but I I just I don't like the idea of grandfathering and it and it's really just rooted in the you're treating one person different than somebody else kind of, you know. Um and I understand why, but if they do have other options for parking somewhere else, um I think the issue is we don't have enough parking down there, right?

So like I mean I know it's only 40 some odd spots but I just I think philosophically I think what what's good for one that you know should be good for everybody.

Okay Barbara not just on this topic but short-term rentals in general. Uh it was a few years ago when we went through all of that stuff and I think we came to what we have gotten and I think Mr. Remic has had the the brunt of it all, but how are we doing with short-term rentals overall? Have we had any issues? Are they I know particularly uh in I guess Sandbridge which was unique because the

general assembly stepped in and so forth. Has everything been working out or have you been getting complaints or how's it working? We can we um coun we can send we can actually do a separate briefing on that or send council report but it's it's it's a it's an equilibrium right um it's not as bad as it certainly was when I first got here because I remember I think council know we were we're going to

11:00 and midnight sometimes dealing with short-term rentals and the complaints we're getting we still get some complaints um not as much as we used to enforcement has gotten better but we still struggle with some of the um the STRs that were approved in the residential communities and and some folks turn those into party houses every once in a while, but we've got a good um rapport with a lot of the civic leagues.

So, we tend to get notified ahead of time. Like for example, I think we had one probably this weekend, Council Member Hutcherson's district, and we got notified ahead of time and working with the civic league and the police department and zoning, we were able to encourage the owner to reach out to their um tenant to change their practices and luckily nothing happened over the weekend, right? So, we've got a

good cadence now with the civic leagues, the police department, and zoning that when things happen, we can get ahead of it. But sometimes we still get the complaints and sometimes we don't catch issues on on the front end. But it's a lot better than where we were four or five years ago when we first really tried to really wrap this up and get it into a more acceptable um situation for

our residents, but we're we we've still got some things to work on, but we're a much better place.

Okay, Rosemary. So the the space is in the in the parking garage is an actual reserved space or is they have a or they can use a space. Do you know what I'm saying?

Right. They don't have a specifically like this is space 107 for this STR it is that they're when the um garage is accounted for how many available spaces they are there are. They know that there's x number of spaces that are should be set aside for STRs but they don't have a specific reserved space. A lot of times the parking garages are not full anyway and as Councilman Rimik says

it does give us additional revenue. I I I think we should at least grandfather them for now.

We can update that.

I think we may have to have further discussion on this.

So we'll go ahead and proceed with this not and not modify.

Yeah.

Do you I mean at council's direction we can have an alternative version for consideration and you can choose which one you want if that's if if that's the direction of council council on that.

I was the only one who spoke up in the with the other point of view. I'm not you know and I'm I'm certainly appreciative of the you know the points you raised. So um I I don't need to make an issue of it. Josh, could I recommend that we defer to the two council people who are so strong?

So, Mr. Mayor, with that being said, you would like a an alternate version or or one version that amends this market.

So, I think we need to put in the original version because it's been that's what was considered by the planning commission, but we can include just as we did on uh on the Virginia Beach National item a week ago. We can we can include an alternative and then whoever's making the motion to approve can move to approve whichever version uh they they wish and then you'll just follow your normal procedures for

determining what to adopt if that's acceptable to the council.

Is that okay?

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item eight also related to short-term rentals. Um the this item is an ordinance to amend section 241.2 of the city zoning ordinance pertaining to short-term rentals. This item and the next item both relate to a change in the STR overlay um at the oceanfront resort district.

On April uh 21st 2026, city council approved a referral resolution sponsored by Vice Mayor Wilson and council members Remick Schulman and Henley um to amend the STR overlay boundary and also to look at parking for short-term rentals.

The update to the STR overlay map was intended to help with the proliferation of short-term rentals at the oceanfront and then reduce impacts to those neighborhoods.

The STRs, which would be mapped out of the overlay and then become grandfathered, would be permitted to continue their STR use under the conditions of their conditional use permit with the exception that grandfathered STRs can't expand the footprint of that dwelling beyond 25% or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.

And if they are not used as an STR for a period of two years, they'll lose their grandfather designation. Um, so if this ordinance is approved, any STR that is operating illegally or properties which don't currently have a conditional use permit for an STR that are mapped out of the overlay would no longer be able to apply for a CUP. So those that currently have a CUP would be able to continue

under those um regulations as grandfathered. those that don't have a CUP or um don't currently are currently operate STR would not be able to apply for it if they are mapped out.

So, as mentioned, item 9 is also uh referencing the map. So, this is the item that will amend the official zoning map by designation and uh reduction of the property located in the oceanfront resort short-term rental district overlay overlay district.

During the planning commission meeting, an alternative map was uh presented. So the map on the left is the proposed STR map boundary that was presented as part of the resolution. The map on the right is alternative A and that was what was presented during planning commission.

And I will zoom in here to show the difference between the two. Um and I'll also note this map has updated um uh enforcement work on here for violations in the uh within this area and non-compliant STRs within the oceanfront resort uh did go from 107 in December of 2025 to only 16 um as of last month. So our STR team is doing um a lot of great work. So if we toggle between the two,

we have the original map part of the resolution and then we have alternative A, you can see that alternative A keeps a portion of the vibe district within the SDR overlay along with the block to the north of 17th Street and the half block to the south of 17th Street.

So during this process, um we have had a lot of outreach um we have presented to a number of committees and boards um to get feedback from the community. Uh we also that also included a citizen outreach meeting on August uh 4th where we had five uh members of the public in attendance for that and planning commission has recommended approval of this. They recommend approval of alternative A um of that map and staff

also recommends approval.

Any questions on this one?

Any questions?

Okay, Stacy. So we're look are we looking at alternative AI or are we trying to pick one of the two?

Planning commission recommended alternative A as the So I I think to be more clear, council member Cumins is asking is alternative A is going to be the only item coming to council for their vote.

Correct.

Yeah.

Correct. Okay. Okay. Yes. Alternative.

Yeah. Alternative.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Welcome back.

Yes. Moving on to your agenda for September 15th. There are a total of 10 planning items on that agenda.

So, looking first at item one, this is a subdivision variance request for 2540 Entrada Drive. This is within the Lagamar subdivision in district 2.

So, this request is specific to lot width. The parcel outlined in yellow there. Um, the applicant is proposing to subdivide that parcel and create three single family parcels. Um, the site currently contains a single family dwelling and that is proposed to remain on the site after the subdivision. The site is zoned R15 residential district which requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet and a minimum lot

width of 100 ft.

So two of the proposed lots which are shown in green here will meet all of the R15 dimensional standards. However, lot three which is seen in blue will be deficient in terms of lot width and that is the parcel that is proposed to retain that existing single family dwelling. Um instead of the required 100t lot width, it has a lot width of 24.41 ft. This particular parcel was created with the

1968 Lagamar section 1 plat. It was one of three larger parcels that was originally retained by the Aragona family.

Another one of the larger parcels is just north of this site here and it received a subdivision variance in 1990 that allowed for the creation of four single family lots. Staff has received one letter of support and one letter of opposition related to this request and it was recommended for approval by the planning commission by unanimous vote.

The next proposal includes two requests for 1805 Kempsville Road in District 7.

As this item was deferred at your August 11th hearing, I'm going to pre and I previously briefed you on it. I'm going to just kind of click through these slides really quickly unless there are any specific questions. It is my understanding however that conversations are ongoing between the applicant and developer and staff related to the Hawk signal that was discussed at that August 11th hearing.

That's good news.

All right. Item three is a modification of conditions request for 941 Laskin Road in District 6.

So you may recall there was a conditional use permit for an indoor recreational facility approved by this body in February of this year. So this subject modification would amend that conceptual site plan and remove the byite restaurant that was initially shown on that plan and would also reduce the boundary of the conditional use permit to only include the western half of the site.

The proposal will continue to satisfy the previously approved parking study and will accommodate all required parking within the modified bounds of the CUP. This request was presented to the resort advisory commission's planning design review committee in June of this year. We have not received any opposition and planning commission recommended approval by unanimous vote.

The next item is related to 2548 Potter's Road in District 3. It includes two requests. The first a conditional resoning from R10 residential district to conditional I1 light industrial and then a conditional use permit for a bulk storage yard. The site lies within the greater than 75 decel noise zone, the accident potential zone one and the Linhaven strategic growth area.

Barbara, this uh light industrial district business has come back again. We still don't have anything that defines light industrial.

Is that correct?

We have the intent section of the ordinance um that speaks to the intent of both light and heavy industrial and then the different uses that are permitted within the light industrial district. So the I1 district versus the I2 district.

Well, I think that needs some examination. Uh some of the stuff that's out there being called light industrial is anything but light. I mean, it's some pretty heavy usage uh with um traffic impacts and so forth that particularly have come about with some of this development on Princess Anne Road. And I'm getting a lot of complaints and and it's very hard for me to try to explain what is light

industrial and what is heavy industrial.

We don't have a difference and I think we really need to define what we intend.

So, what is the intent? I guess you're coming up with an intent from somebody.

I'll let Hannah speak to that.

This whole thing of bulk storage yards has gotten out of hand.

While Hannah's pulling that up, I don't know if you want me to go ahead and keep going with this item and then she can speak to it towards the end. I have some questions about this item, but go ahead and Okay. The applicant intends to develop the site with 14 fence storage lots will which will be leased for storage individually to store contractors vehicles, equipment, and materials. The

storage lots will range in size from 3200 square ft to 5200 square ft. And while there is a future um storage building proposed, the applicant does not intend to construct that immediately.

The perimeter of the storage yard will be enclosed with a privacy fence with landscaping on the exterior perimeter of that fence. There is a deviation requested to the 25 foot landscape yard along the eastern property line which is adjacent to a residentially zoned parcel due to the site's location within the accident potential zone one. Future development of that parcel would not be

permitted for residential use uh due to incompatibility within that APZ designation.

Therefore, staff and planning commission were supportive of that deviation.

We did get one letter of opposition noting incompatibility with the surrounding area and then incompatibility with the Linhaven SGAA plans. Um, I will note one thing specific to the site. The Linhaven SGAA plan does call for mixeduse development in this area, but it also calls for compatibility with the AKUS ordinance with the way the AKUS ordinance is written. any development of the site for

any mixeduse retail commercial office um form of development would require reszoning which then kicks in compatibility with the AKUS ordinance and none of those uses are compatible.

So it really constricts the ability of this site to be developed in a mixeduse fashion. Um we did not have any speakers in attendance at the planning commission hearing and the planning commission did recommend approval by unanimous vote. I don't know if

So the term light industrial and heavy industrial that is a it's not a defined term. It is the name of the district. So like our um B3 is the central business district. That's the name of that district. We don't have a definition for central business district because that's just the title of it. Um we do have an intent statement. So to answer your question, the intent statement um for the industrial districts, I'll I

apologize, but I'm just going to read this to you. Um in the section 1000 legislative intent, the purpose of the I1 light industrial district is to permit light industrial uses, wholesaling storage packaging distribution, and retailing restricted primarily to operations requiring bulk bulk deliveries by truck or van in locations served by major transportation networks and in areas where employment

centers close to residential concentrations will reduce traffic congestion and add to public convenience by moving places of work closer to places of residence. The purpose of the I2 heavy industrial district is to permit industrial operations, wholesaling warehousing and distribution in area in areas suitable for these functions. Now, I'll note that when we are looking at what uses along,

what uses are permitted in those districts, the intent statement is not where we are looking. The intent statement is what guides us when doing an ordinance amendment or if there's something in the gray area. But the use table is what you would look at to see what uses are permitted in I1 versus I2.

that has each use listed expressly out.

So I don't have to decide is this in light industrial use, is this a heavy industrial use. The ordinance as adopted by council um does that for me in the ordinance already.

Any questions?

I might want to re-examine that.

Thank you, Michael. I have some questions about the application itself and I want to invite the council members to really pay close attention to this application because we're going to hear more about it on the 15th and and I and I really think this discussion is important.

Um you may remember this part. Could you zoom out to slide uh the one with the aerial?

Yeah, there we go. Um, so if you're look if just to orient you for those who may not be familiar, if you're you're looking at this to to your left is the intersection of Potters and Linhaven.

And then uh if you go to the right, you'll intersect with London Bridge Road. So this is that area of Potter's Road that we're all familiar with. You may remember the intense discussions about the um uh people who were living on boats on London Bridge Creek. That's what was occurring there. Uh if you look at that little triangular section to the left in the middle between I64 and and uh 264 and Potter's Road, you'll

remember there was an intensive use of encampments that were in in that uh parcel and the city through great u efforts and tremendous investment was able to both in collaboration with the state as well uh clean up the London Bridge Creek issue um and uh clear that area of the encampments uh At an appropriate time, I'm going to show you pictures of the encampments that were there um and just how um dangerous those

conditions were for the surrounding neighborhood and that persisted for years. Um then you have the other triangle which has part of a parking lot area on it and um that's a city-owned parcel. Um and then you have the property next door.

Now, that property was a home um that was subject to alleged criminal activity. I think that's an ongoing criminal matter in the courts, and I'm not going to comment on that case specifically, but by coincidence, I happened to be attached during a ride along to the SWAT activity that was happening at that house. Just just just so happened that I have happened to be doing one of the ride alongs that day

and was attached to the SWAT activity.

And there were some real there's allegations of very very serious issues going on uh at that at that parcel. All of which was impacting the neighborhood which was just across the street. And if you zoomed out, you would see that that neighborhood doesn't really have any green space or parks.

They don't. Um and the neighborhood has a lot of concerns about this application and therefore on their behalf I do too.

And that's why I really want to take a time to drill down on this. um that was a single family home. Uh it was purchased from the property owner just around the time of the court activity of the police activity. I think um my understanding and you can tell me if this is correct that the owner the property owner at that time would have two years to redevelop that site as a

single family home from the time it was purchased. Is that correct?

It would be um from the time it was vacant. Time it was vacant.

Correct. So, it's our understanding in speaking with the applicant's representative here, the current applicant purchased the property around fall of last year and it's been the house has been vacant for about a year.

So, they'd have around a year left to still be able to go back with a residential dwelling due to the APZ1 limitations.

But they purchased that property knowing full well those were the conditions in place when they made the decision about whether or not to make the investment to acquire that parcel. Correct.

I'm assuming that they would have had to know that.

Um because what I think we're going to be asked next month is that the clock is ticking on the compatibility of this development as a single family home. I think no one would have an issue with the um with whether or not that home that parcel could be redeveloped as a single family home. It's actually a beautiful piece of property right along Bridge Creek. Uh the the the concern though is that we're

sort of shoehorned into a difficult situation where we say when because of the AQ's restrictions, this property can no longer be used for a single family residence even though the property owner knew that when they purchased it and went through the process. And so now the only choice we're left with is industrial. And I just don't know that that's a fair proposition to uh place the uh community that's uh lives

adjacent to this property. I'm going to talk about some of the issues that have existed and persisted there for many years and what they've endured. I'm not sure that's a fair position to put those people in or that it's the right one um in spite of what the staff report or planning commission has said because I know I've been working this for years with the community this very sort of

series of parcels and I I know their concerns very well here. Um and that's really what I want to bring to your attention. I I would further bring to your attention and question um we're being asked to reszone this to industrial. Is there any industrial in this surrounding area? I know there is on London Bridge. So, let's go. We can go down. We can go we can look on London Bridge some industrial. Um I think that

there's some across uh London Bridge Creek across Potter's Road. If you go into like where the Sanjo and some of that stuff is. Um, I think there's some across 264, but in this this area that's directly adjacent to a neighborhood and to a church and I think to the house where the pastor lives and then to the open green space the city has maintained. Is there any industrial even anywhere near that area?

And closest, you have some I1 here and then as you mentioned, you do have some I1 across 26, but it's zoned I1, but that's a city controlled parcel. Yeah.

currently used as passive recreation.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay. I think I've taken enough of your time this afternoon.

Okay. Moving now.

Item five. This is a conditional use permit request for a residential kennel at 1652 Flanigan's Lane in District 2.

The applicant is seeking approval to provide care for up to 12 older or disabled dogs within their single family home. The residence will not be open to the public, nor are any outdoor kennels proposed.

The applicant previously operated a residential kennel at another location with a conditional use permit and staff did look into that previous site and did not have any documented complaints or violations associated with the kennel used there.

Staff did receive three letters of support. A petition of support with 10 signatures and one letter of opposition related to this request. The letter of opposition noted concerns with noise, odor, um traffic, and then commercial use within a residential area. Um again, I just want to make a distinction that the the dogs that are proposed to be provided care for here are the applicant's personal dogs. It's not

intended to operate as a commercial kennel with members of the public bringing their animals here. Ultimately, the planning commission did recommend approval of the item on their consent agenda.

The next item is related to the Virginia Pilot Association located at 3329 Shore Drive in District 8. The proposal involves two conditional use permit requests. One for a commercial marina and then another for a dormatory for marine pilots. The site lies within the Shore Drive corridor overlay district and is accessed by way of Cape Henry Drive.

The Virginia Pilot Association has operated on this site since 1986. They are seeking to demolish the existing aging facility and replace it with a new and modernized operations center that will consolidate their marine maintenance, administrative offices, dispatch functions, training space, and then dormitories for pilots on call during on call rotations.

The proposed building is just over 14,500 square feet and they're proposing to do the development within two phases which is detailed on the slide here and that's just in order to maintain operations on the site. The entire construction period is anticipated to take approximately 18 months.

The images on the slide here show renderings of the proposed facilities which will have a maximum height of just under 56 feet. The design and materials are consistent with the shore drive corridor guidelines and this project did receive unanimous support from the Bayfront Advisory Commission.

Due to the site's location within the AE flood zone as well as within the limit of moderate wave action, compliance with the city's flood plane ordinance will be required. Additionally, there will be an administrative flood plane variance needed specific to the marine shop.

Since that is a water dependent use, it is unable to meet the um elevation requirements for structures within that flood zone.

A deviation is requested with this to allow for a zero foot front yard setback. Um even with that deviation, the building does maintain over about 75 ft from the edge of the Lesnar Bridge.

Um, there is an existing encroachment agreement between the city and the pilots association for certain improvements that are within Cape Henry Drive rightway and then an additional encroachment agreement will be required specific to this request for additional improvements proposed. Staff has not received any opposition and the planning commission recommended approval on consent.

The last several items on the agenda are CU requests for short-term rentals. The first is at 30428 street, unit 105 in district 6. This request is for a one-bedroom STR within the Plyana condominiums and one parking space is required and provided on site.

There are no prior zoning complaints, violations advertisements or documented stays associated with this unit. Staff is unaware of any opposition and the planning commission recommended approval on consent.

Item eight is another cup request. This one for 516 22nd Street, unit 100.

Again, in district 6, the applicant is requesting approval for a four-bedroom short-term rental. Four parking spaces are required to support the use. The site itself has two assigned parking spaces. And then the applicant has submitted an intent to lease two off streetet or off-site spaces within the 25th Street parking garage. Staff did advise the applicant of the proposed changes to the parking requirements,

letting them know that depending on the outcome of September 1st, use of the municipal parking garage may not be permitted.

No prior zoning complaints, violations, advertisements, or documented stays. No known opposition and planning commission recommended approval on consent.

This is for a one-bedroom short-term rental. The one required parking space is provided on site. No prior complaints violations advertisements or documented stays. Staff is unaware of any opposition. Um, and the planning commission did recommend approval on consent. I will say this is one that is proposed to be mapped out of the district. So, staff has made the applicant aware of the proposed changes

and potential impacts to this request.

Final item is a request for 415 20th Street. Again, in district 6, this is for a three-bedroom unit um which would require three parking spaces. There are two on site within an existing driveway.

And then the applicant has submitted an intent to lease off-site parking agreement with the Circa Delmare parking lot, which is immediately adjacent to the site. There was a previous zoning complaint for operation of an SDR without a cup. That was resolved when the listing was changed to a home share.

Um staff has not received any opposition to this request and again the planning commission recommended approval. Um this is another one that is proposed to be mapped out if the boundary change is amended and we have made the applicant aware of that.

That concludes my briefing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for all the fine work you do.

Made me busy.

Oh yeah.

Okay, colleagues, uh, with your indulgence, I'd like to start off, you know, have some comments today.

And, you know, as mayor, I am in a very unique position.

Yes, we I'm part of the mayor week system.

Um, I am the last of the atlarge people representing everyone in the city.

I am also the man with the gap.

And part of my duties as the man with the gavl is to ensure orderly meetings, whether they be in this room or out in out in the gallery, but it also to make sure that people are safe, whether they be council members, whether they be speakers, staff, people in the gallery. That is the mission that we have.

And then over the, you know, past month or so, uh, we've been subject to some criticism and misinformation on a very controversial subject.

And I really think I have the duty to explain a number of the positions at least from my perspective, you know, that kind of justifies the actions we had going forward.

And the thing is I think uh once again we can have a lot of these perceptions lingering and erode the trust of the people.

So what I'd like to do is I will be submitting uh for publication an op-ed and the title uh will be along the line of courage of conviction confronts housing crisis and uh you know once again you know this is an attempt to explain to the public some of the rationale that we used with going for this Now, this is a very rough copy. It's uh it's a little over the

word limit and it's going to be subject to, you know, some editing to conform with what's going on. But if you'll indulge me, I would like to at least read it to you in full disclosure and also to the public of what we're trying to do.

Courage and conviction is a fundamental requirement of all elected officials, especially these days.

We live in a time where politics is a blood sport, not for the faint of heart.

Nationally, nationally, anger mounts as trust in government reaches an all-time low.

The public has the right to know the rationale and process that goes into every vote cast.

Let's all agree that the topic of housing is a national crisis that affects many individuals and municipalities like Virginia Beach.

But the challenge is how does Virginia Beach confront the crisis knowing that the solutions can raise eye some members of the community.

At a night a council retreat in 2023, city council members deemed the housing crisis to become our fourth highest priority following storm water mitigation, public safety, and schools.

We heard the clarion call for our public to react, citing the need for attainable housing for public workers, military, and raising families in general.

We heard complaints that the cost of housing in Virginia Beach was unattainable.

This was due to high demand from people wanting to move to Virginia Beach with not enough housing inventory to meet the demand.

Several years ago, I went to the Pentagon and met with Department of Defense representatives from all branches. The common theme was the priority of housing and daycare necessary for military readiness for recruitment and retention.

Another factor is that attainable housing is a strong economic driver that not only attracts businesses but provides significant revenue streams to address our f our financial needs. The cost of government is rising. Our bond referendum of $567 million in 21 2021 now costs $1.6 billion. Since I became mayor in 2018, the cost of building materials went up 99%.

With aging infrastructure and storm water regulations resulting from Hurricane Matthew, we anticipate billions of dollars of future obligations.

Our council has the obligation to find the necessary funding mechanisms.

Our council made a commitment to the 4 54,000 residents that we will have the courage of conviction to address this.

Some folks may not like that we are representative form of government. While we take concerns both pro and con, the ultimate decision should be what's in the best interest for all of Virginia Beach in the long term.

Now comes the difficult part. Every development project brought forward since the 2023 council retreat naturally brings out the denters. Public meetings are often emotional and confrontational as we have seen in recent meetings.

People imply we do not listen but in fact we take into consideration multiple factors and views in our decision process. The ultimate outcome should be for the greater good of the entire city.

You forgive me. I know it's a little lengthy but I think it's important. Now for the touchy part with the allegations that the council is in the pockets of the developer and contributions influence our decisions. With this council, nothing could be farther from the truth. My ele my two and 204 re-election was the first after our 2023 commitment to housing as a top priority.

During the mayoral forums, my integrity was attacked as being corrupt and demonstrated callous disregard for the public. Needless to say, the public public overwhelming rejected these allegations, and I was reelected.

Now, it's time to correct the misinformation, the misinformation that dominated the recent TPC vote.

Throughout my 20 plus years on council, we have voted on literally thousands of items using the same processes and procedures that we use today. Be sure there is a stark difference between public versus private sector procedures.

Local governments are encumbered by numerous laws, rules, regulations that chart the way that we conduct business.

We constantly are subject to internal and external audits and there as well as scrutiny from the media and the population at large.

It's a routine practice of all levels of government to meet with and discuss opportunities doing business in this case Virginia Beach. Whether it be a builder or a business owner, economic development is key to sustainability and growth.

Yes, all cities in fact meet in closed sessions that are guided by strict rules and regulations.

Once multiple considerations are worked out, public presentations are made and people have the opportunities for public for input at public meetings and the evening of the vote.

During my tenure, I not did not feel it was necessary to impose strict rules of conduct. other cities already have in place. But regrettably, that's no longer the case. Unfortunately, we had a controversial come up during an election cycle. During the meeting, the incivility and ranker rose to an unacceptable level that demanded corrective action. As the guy with the gavl, I have the duty to maintain order

and provide safety to all speakers.

Uh, another representation was that I was limiting the rights of speakers. Not true. Speakers had the right to express their message but not be intimidated, heckled, booked, or threatened by members in the gallery.

I am saddened by the fact that two former council members, both my opponents in the last mayor election and their advocates are willing are willing to tarnish the reputation of the elected body they seek to serve.

In fact, they perceived if in fact if they perceived corruption, fraud and cronyism, did they have the responsibility to work collaboratively with other council members when they were in office to correct the perception?

The first criteria of a voter does a person uh have a track record of working with other council members to achieve positive results.

Virginia Beach is not certainly not immune from criticism and like all municipalities, we have our challenges.

The fact is there is much to be thankful for. We live in a city that's known for a high quality of life, safety, and schools. We are we live in a city where millions of people come to visit, but we enjoy living here. The strength of Virginia Beach is the city who live, work, and play here. We are a city of heroes with our military public safety personnel. We indeed have much to be thankful for.

Rosemary, well said and and well done and thank you for sharing that with us and we'll look forward to reading it when it gets printed. Um, we spent a lot, Bobby and I spent a lot of time talking with Mark Styles when this whole new rules for listening to the public. Um, when we talked about them and and and Mark may want to chime in on this, but very much

of a concern is the the First Amendment.

what people have to say is really important and we don't want to hinder anyone's first amendment. But that also means that everyone has a right to a first amendment. So person that people don't want to agree with, they still have the right to get up and make their case and have their three minutes without being booed, without being heckled, without being intimidated, without being threatened.

And everyone has the right to get up and do their three minutes. And it's not it's infringing on their First Amendment rights when they're not allowed to do that. And the last thing I think any of us want is for people to come be afraid to come and speak to us because they are treated like that and threatened and intimidated. No one I mean there's a lot of people who may have certain thoughts

about things and they would like to come and speak, but they're going to be treated like that. they're going to say why should I bother and also they're seen and then later on in public they're treated I mean our own staff members were treated very badly when they went out to VBA national to do some assessments they were treated very badly by some of the people there so we everyone has the right to a first

amendment and that needs to be protected and it's not fair to each and every person for that right to be taken way.

So, you know, Mark may want to participate um in our discussions on that, but we we talked about it at length and I think a lot of people are viewing that because they booed and and all the noise that they made that their rights are being infringed on. they were taking the right away from the person speaking but also for the other people in the audience who wanted to hear what they had to say

because their time was shortened and we had a hard time hearing what they had to say. So, uh, thank you for writing that.

And I don't know, Mark, do you want to say anything about the first amendment that we talked about?

No, I actually I think you said it very well. Um um the people who are recognized to speak and have the floor are the ones whose rights the new rules are protecting and those are the people who um you know the heckler's veto is essentially what they were facing and I don't believe the first amendment protects that. I think it protects the right of the person who's been recognized by the chair.

Stacy, again, well said, but there is a group in this city um I don't know their numbers, but they're small.

They're very vocal and they hate every person that sits at this table.

No one's immune from them.

They will lie. They will give out misinformation. They will call you names. They will dis they'll take photographs and distort them and mischaracterize anything they can to make this council look in bad favor.

And you that's that's okay. I mean we we sign up for that and we understand that's part of the job. There's not a not a day in my life that goes by that someone says to me, "Thank you for what you're doing. I wouldn't do what you're doing for all the money in the world.

And that unfortunately that same group of people that are out to destroy this council have now taken it to the next level.

They're looking at our citizen committees and they're attacking the people on those committees, especially this Bayfront Advisory Committee. They come, they take movies, they take photographs, they distort them, they put them on uh Facebook, they give out misinformation about what what occurred at these meetings and they're attack they're starting to attack the people, the citizens that

give of their time. You know, we all got elected. We all asked for the job. These citizens uh that serve on these commissions do so of their own free will. They have no compensation. They don't even get food.

And now they're being attacked. And it's not going to be uh it's not going to be long before people are just going to say, "I don't need that aggravation either."

So, we're los we're going to lose good people from citizens on these advisory committees and commissions because of the conduct of a very small number of people and they're out of control. And I don't, you know, I don't know what we do about it, but we need to protect the citizens that serve on these advisory committees from that type of from the action of those people that are out to destroy

everything, any bit of civility in the city.

So, I just wanted to bring I was going to bring that up before you spoke, but that's It's out of control and it's gone to the next level. It's gone to our st. They attack our staff for doing their job.

They attack, you know, us all every day, all day, every day. But now they're attacking the citizens that are trying to do good for the city. And you know, it's intolerable.

You know, Stacy, you know, I've had a number of people come up to me and you know, in my role, I am out and about quite a bit. I am told that since I got elected, I've done over 2500 ribbon cutings, groundbreings, and that doesn't mean the events. And I'm talking all over the city.

And you know, the point is we got to realize that we are a representative government.

And you know sometimes the folks come in, they're angry and they may have a gallery of a couple hundred but you know that's doesn't necessarily represent the entire you know 455 or thereabouts thousand people that are here and I I can honestly say that you know we get high kudos from so many people. I remember a couple of years ago I was on the USS Ewima and uh for a change of command for a

threear marine general coming in Bobby Shay. She was phenomenal and Admiral Codle was there who is now the chief of naval operations.

He introduced me to the comet of the Marine Corps and for a Marine Corp back in the 60s and 70s that's a big deal.

And what Admiral Kell told the common that of the Marine Corps that the the mayor has a city that has one of the highest quality of life for Navy personnel and it's the number one requested duty station in the entire Navy. And that was also confirmed by the new uh commanding officer at Oceanana.

pilots are requ, you know, West Coast, uh, they're paying incentive pay to fly out there. We have a waiting list at Oceanana. And another one that I'll bring up because when I say with the military, that is my prime mover for taking the actions we're doing with the housing. Um, you know, I have a I have a thing where yeah, there's NATO in Norolk, but a lot of folks short live

out in Virginia Beach. And when I met the Supreme Commander, he says, "Yes, you have a quality of life. You have the schools. You have a place where people want to live."

And at the last change of command at Oceanana, we had nine former CEOs of Oceanana still live in Virginia Beach.

Anybody else want to make a comment?

Yes, mayor. I think that um we are grateful uh to our citizens. We love our citizens. Um there is so much that happens before the vote and if anything I can say to them is that we're committed to them not just on this dis not just on the day of the vote that's what I'm trying to get across to them that it's meetings after meetings and visits after visits we care and

if you disagree with my vote it doesn't mean that I don't care judge us by what we do not just on one vote And so my reasoning to help the residents that I'm in, District 7, is to tell them that it's much more than just one day. It's all that leads up to that one day. And so I'm thankful to be a part of Virginia Beach. I'm thankful to be a part to represent

those who don't have a voice. and I will continue to represent and I'm grateful.

There's always going to be people that are going to disagree with anybody, but you know, it just seems since co, you know, our entire nation is in a national state of anger, hatred, and things.

We're not immune from that. And we appreciate that. We appreciate dissent, you know. We we appreciate constructive criticism. It we do that among oursel to make ourselves better. You know, Jennifer and I are college professors.

We get criticism from our peers and our students and okay.

No, but I'm just saying constructive criticism is a good thing, but when people just in general on social media get destructive and get into character assassination, you know, but I I tell you one thing uh you know, I will stand for the count this council having the integrity that what we we are doing is for the right reason. And I just appreciate uh the opportunity to you know discuss this and

uh you know the discussions we're going to be uh on because you know even Michael said a couple weeks ago you know that we have the obligation to maybe do a better job explaining to people exactly what we're doing and I think that's the way we will be doing things going forward. We love our public.

Virginia Beach is great. And you know, somehow someway in all this chaos and morass, the New York Times said we're one of the top 53 destinations to visit in the entire world and we're the safest city in the country. That ain't so bad.

Okay, thank you all. Anybody else? Now, Barbara, uh well, two things very quickly. First, uh, my district forum is this Thursday night and because of our regulations of being a candidate, I'm restricted to using and maybe Mark can make it the right thing. It has to be rooms that are available to regular citizens in a regular fashion, which would be libraries or rec centers. So, my forum

this Thursday will be at the Princess Anne Rec Center rather than building 19.

And I'm trying to get that word out to my folks because for 30 years we've been at one place and now it's got to be another for this. But anyway, that's what this regulation will allow. So that's what I will be doing.

Uh the other issue uh has to do with something that was in our agenda package which gives me a lot of concern. It's this transmitt of correspondence regarding police department recruitment and retention challenges which we got in our agenda packet with uh letters from the Virginia Beach Police Benevolent Association and the Virginia Beach Organization of Police Supervisors. And in it, they talked about the

difficulties that they're having with training and retention and recruitment, which I think is one of our top priorities. I know it's been a top concern of mine to know that our police department is having trouble retaining people and I think actually I got a question about that at my last forum and so this uh correspondence that we got from them when they set out some proposed initiatives aimed at as they said

stabilizing staffing levels and things that they recommended that we might be able to do. Uh it it's really important to me and I think this should be one of our top levels of attention, but I I have to disagree with Mr. Duhaney a little bit. He's this this was a letter sent to Patrick Duhaney which he forwarded to us for city council information and he says that the next steps will be for his staff to continue

to uh recommend or look at these recommendations. I think it needs to be the city council that does that. And the writers of the letter clearly uh intended this to be for city council as they wrote, "We appreciate those discussions and offer the following summary of the problem supporting background and actions we believe warrant prompt consideration by you, meaning the city manager and the city

council." So, I'm asking that the city council be involved in looking at these recommendations and not just staff. I mean, it's not that's not their job. It's our job. And I think the public also needs to be very much a part of this because in looking at these proposed uh things that can improve their situation and and make them more likely to be willing to uh be retained. It's going to take funding and

I think in order to do that we're going to have to have support from the public.

So I really think the public needs to have input in this too. So I hope hope we can look at this. I know Mr. Dhaney said that his recommendation said no action is required at this time. This report is provide for council's awareness. I think we need to be more than just aware. I think we need to be a part of working this out and and if you're looking for somebody to uh

volunteer to work with this, I certainly will and I hope others will as well to be liaison or whatnot because I think this situation I mean we we have to be able to continue to say we're the safest city our size. I think there's not another priority that can top public safety. And when we get something like this from our police department members, not the department, but the members saying this is this is what you

could do to help us be willing to stay on. I think we need to look at it very seriously, and I hope we will. Uh, and as I said, looking at these things, it's going to cost some money. And that's where I think the public really needs to be a part of this because I've always found out if the public understands what we're doing, they tend to be supportive.

But if we wait until the very last minute and say, "Hey, we need to raise your taxes to do this." They're not going to be quite as understanding. So, I think we all need to be a part of this. And I hope we will going forward.

And I really appreciate these organizations taking the time to send their recommendations and what we can do for them. And I I look forward to working with them and and making it something that they do want to do and and they will do for us because it's important that they they they do uh we we can recruit and we can retain and we we just cannot continue to have the

vacant positions that we have uh in our police department. So I hope this is going to be something that we're going to work on and and I certainly volunteer to do whatever I can.

Okay. Rosemary. Um, I was going to speak to that as well. U, Miss Henley, I thought it was an excellent there was some excellent suggestions on there. Um, but we do need our staff to figure out the funding and and how we implement some of the different things that they they have. So, I was planning on bringing it up as well if we could sort of get working on um some of their

excellent ideas and what it would take because we we have a problem. We everyone at this table knows that we have a problem. We we're one precinct short.

That's pretty bad. And there seems to be there's more and more demands of our police especially and it said it so eloquently in the letter. We're we're not just a regular city. We we're a resort city. We have all of these events and all these demands and there's a whole lot of things and thank goodness they have coupled with sheriff's department to really help meet those needs and it's

been a really wonderful partnership. So anyway, I agree. We need to get working on it and u I think they had some excellent suggestions.

Yeah.

You know, but you know, before I get to Amelia, you know, the ugly um reality is that many many many cities are having far worse problems than we are. And you know, some locally.

you know a number of years ago there was a movement to defund the police and take away self uh you know uh immunity um it's uh you know it's a national once again there's a lot of national crisises that were involved with Amelia then say yes I was um looking at the same area especially when they mentioned that we have 18 large events annually and we're at a point now that we're not using so

much the salt shoulder season but we're including that. So we definitely need to and there are some that they did mention that we already are helping which was good which was fair.

So yes, I would be interested in that.

Someone mentioned how you're doing for the safe community city as well and it's gone from just the ocean front all the way across the whole city across the whole city. So um this is important and definitely will be a part.

Well, I think in looking at what happened just this year, we can't start another season with the events that we had this year and we've got to be ready and I think we have to really work on it. And I think they mentioned in here, of course, they're still recovering from the loss of two of their Yes.

teammates.

And um they they've got a they've got a real situation and I'm glad they brought it to us and I hope we can work with them. Yeah, I am too, Stacy.

Yeah.

Um, I'll kind of split the difference here that I think the the letter brought some forth some excellent suggestions, very proactive. I I love the fact that they care enough and concerned enough to offer um viable suggestions to the city manager. But I do feel as though it's the city manager's with the staff job to evaluate and come to us with suggestions. I don't know that I don't think we should be mingling

or interfering with that process, but I would like to say that I do think the the concerns or the suggestions here deserve some um consideration consider and and in a timely manner.

Yes, sir. that I', you know, I'd like to see us move forward and at least if if we're not able to do some of these things, which they they, you know, the letter states that maybe we can't do them all and some of them going to be a more of a long term, but there are some things that we can look at and and I would ask that we would really focus on

that and give real consideration.

We actually have to start, you're right, Stacy, looking forward to next year, summer season now.

Yes. And that's what Barbara and yours and the city manager knows. I I think we all support our place. We all support them and we've given every resource we can give. So u but we need some we need some progress in that area.

So Mr. Mayor, my intent was to really share the letter as soon as I got it from the police department so you all can have it. my team has been sitting down with them to kind of figure out what the ask is, working with the police department and the sheriff's department as well to identify what the resource impacts would with of those um requests and what they would be. And we intend to

communicate that to you all with a recommendation and a timeline of which we can do that and then from there we'll seek your direction as it relates to moving forward as well. And as council knows, um we're seeing a lot of requests for extra um demands and services of our police department as well, right? So, and there's also similar requests that we're getting from our fire department

as well, including the 48 hour staffing as well, not to intermingle the matters as well. And those things we um suspect are going to be key budget conversations that we're going to need to have as we enter into the next budget season.

Barbara, but but I think we certainly can't wait until next year's budget. Yeah, until July, Miss We got to be ready for next year's season.

That's coming up on us probably faster than we do.

Yeah. And Miss H, to clarify, I don't intend to wait till the budget to address some of those things. I think some of those things you're going to need to address probably ahead of the budget and some will have to be addressed in the budget. But I I fully understand what you're saying, Miss Henley.

We agree. You know, this is another one of those, you know, public safety is our second highest priority.

Then we got to pay attention to the priorities.

Anybody else at this time? Stacy, just one quick thing. Um, the other day at the Bayfront Advisory, somebody brought up uh a suggestion request suggestion that um trying to communicate the shore drive phase 3 project to the community is difficult. Now, we have a great website, but you know, there are a lot of people that just even just trying to tell them to go to a website isn't difficult. We've had a

number of town hall meetings just but the request was for maybe a 4 by8 um uh board that will show what's planned, what's coming and we could locate it where the public could you know it just be easy readily accessible so they can come and see you know what the end project's going to look like. That that would alleviate a lot of the anxiety that people have. Good idea.

Yeah, that's a good couple of them.

Yeah.

Okay. Anybody else?

Okay. One quick thing. the task force for safer Virginia. Uh, we got to think that Monica Crusty about a week ago went to jail and they took a couple of the members with them. and a little junkularity, but but actually took members of the task force to interview people that were incarcerated to get to really the root of what some of the problem societal problems, you know, that we're confronting. So, I want

to applaud you. Um, and once again, the recommendation came from a member and that they're going to externalize and actually go to events at maybe the amphitheater really externalize and really go to the source because there was an initial uh criticism that youth were not included. Be assured they were being included. Thank you for what you do. Anybody else?

All right.

Okay, we're going to Okay, the chair will entertain a motion to recess into a closed session pursuant to the exemption from open meetings allowed by section 2.2 3711A code of Virginia as amended for the following purposes.

uh personal matters, discussions, considerations or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment appointment promotion performance demotion salaries disciplining or resignation of specific public officers, employees or employees as any public uh body pursuant to section 2.23711A1.

That's council appointees for boards, commissions committees authorities agencies, and appointees. Do I have a motion?

So move. Second.

Okay.

Council.

Hi.

Cummings. Hi.

Council.

Hi.

Council Hutcherson.

Hi.

Jackson.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

I we're

I have a motion to my whole life.

He's one of the ones in the talk.

Immig.

Okay. Thank you all. We are recess.