OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR

							OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MANASSAS PARK GOVERNING BODY MEETING HELD ON
TUESDAY JULY 18, 2006 AT 7:00 PM AT CITY HALL, ONE PARK CENTER COURT,
MANASSAS PARK, VIRGINIA

1. Roll Call: Frank Jones, Mayor
              Bryan Polk, Vice Mayor
              Cynde Gardner
              Fran Kassinger
              Adam Larson

Absent:        Vonna L. Privett
               Michael Bunner

Staff Present: Lana A. Conner, City Clerk
               Mercury T. Payton, City Manager
               Dean Crowhurst, City Attorney

* Councilmember Bunner had to work and Councilmember Privett is out of town.

2.      Approval of Amended Agenda:

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to approve with following amendments:
Move Item 7c from Consent Agenda and address it as 9e under New Business along with the Letter to
Senator Colgan and approval of Resolution.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE: Unanimously passed

3.      Moment of Silence

4.      Pledge of Allegiance: Councilmember Kassinger

5.     Public Hearing:
5a.    Charter Change: Moving May General Elections to November:
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 pm.
The Governing Body of the City of Manassas Park will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 18,
2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, One Park Center Court.
This public hearing will be held to receive citizen comments on proposed changes to the City Charter
and a proposed City ordinance to move elections for Mayor and City Councilmembers from May to
November.
Information concerning this public hearing is available for review in the Office of City Clerk, City
Hall, One Park Center Court, Manassas Park, VA, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday - Friday.
Public Access: The public hearing is being held in a public facility believed to be accessible to
persons with disabilities. Any person with questions on the accessibility of the facility should
contact Lana Conner, the City Clerk, at 703-335-8808 or lconner@cityofmanassasspark.us.
Communications Access: To request a sign language interpreter for the meeting, call 703-335-8815
at least FIVE working days prior to the hearing to ensure availability. For the Hispanic speaking
population, the City has a bilingual translator at City Hall, 703-335-8800. The City will provide
translator at meeting if requested by 4:00 pm two days before the meeting.
Publish Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Citizens Wishing to Address Public Hearing:
1. Frances Embrey, 9615 Manassas Drive:
She is here tonight to favor the moving of elections. She brought this issue up about twelve years
ago according to the Mayor. She thanked Vice Mayor Polk for bringing it back to the table. She has
been in favor of this for many years. It has always been sore spot to her that people come out in
flocks to vote for the President but don’t bother to vote for the group that actually controls their day
to day living. Who sets the tax rate on your home, who determines if your schools are being operated
properly and cost effective? Who decides how much your water bill is? Who decides to fix your
street or give you sidewalks? It is not the President of the United States. It is you people that do this.
The statement has been made that citizens come out to vote in city elections and asked what they
were voting for. If they don’t know what they are voting for in May they will be just as ignorant in
November when they come out and vote in November.
19817
Page Two Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006
2. Len Tabacchi, 9253 Matthew Drive:
He is here tonight to speak in favor of the moving of May elections to November. He sees you did
much the same research that he did in pulling this together. The numbers are astounding. There were
just fewer than 5,400 registered voters in City of Manassas Park, Virginia in 2004. The Mayor
elections in 2004 had 568 people voting. That is a little over ten percent. But in November 2004
that same year we had 3332 people turn out to vote. That is about sixty-two percent of the vote.
Some have argued that local issues will get lost in national elections. He does not agree and doesn’t
think that is necessarily true because in that election in 2006 the Washington Post made a point of
saying voter turnout in our local election was driven in part by off track betting referendum in the
City. That doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. It is a matter of what the passions of the
candidates are and the issues. That is what turns people out and gets them to vote. He agrees with
Ms. Embrey the more the turnout the better. If they choose to vote or not in the local they have the
opportunity.
He does not support moving to odd years. He noticed the proposal is to move to even years which he
agrees. Only about 600 turned out to vote for local state delegate. If he is going to get the maximum
turnout to vote then move to November even numbered years.
3.   Bill Treuting, 9337 S. Whitt Drive:
He is here tonight to support moving of May elections to November. When he sat at the table he said
it was up to the citizens on what they should recommend to the Governing Body. Now as a citizen,
he is taking the same position as Ms. Embrey and Mr. Tabacchi have. It is a good move. He thinks
scheduling this would give a larger base to vote in local elections and get more of an interest. There
is also a side benefit of saving the city some money. As much trouble as the Registrar has in finding
people to volunteer it seems that this would simplify that and not having to go back as often to
people. He recommends support and passage of this.
The City Registrar stated this would save money and also help. We are a small locality and the
chance of recounts in May elections. Should we ever have a recount in June following May elections,
we would have a lockdown and would not have machines for the election. She is in favor of moving
May elections to November.
MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to close Public Hearing at 7:25 pm.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE: Unanimously passed
The City Clerk received an e-mail from Noreen Slater, 9250 Matthew Drive, stating she is in favor of
moving the elections to November. This e-mail will be made part of the record of the meeting.


5b. Presentations: Public Safety: Manassas Park Women’s Club:
Gina Ludvigsen, President, Manassas Park Women’s Club, gave the following awards:
Fire Department:
Firefighter of the Year: Mark Joyner, Fire Marshal
EMS: David Friedman and James N. Tharpe II
Police Department:
Police Officer of the Year: Detective Michael Perry
Dispatcher: Debbie Kines, Emergency Communications Specialist
$1,000 Scholarship Award: Kelsey West who will be attending University of Virginia
They awarded a Teacher of the Year Award one from each school.
She stated that all the fund raising funds go back into the community.
Citizen of the Year: Donald Shuemaker, Sr.
The Mayor thanked the Women’s Club for all they do for the community.
5c. Planning Commission:
There were two Commissioners city wished to thank with a plaque. They could not be present so the
City will deal with these separately.
6. Citizen Time: There were no citizens wishing to address Public Hearing.


19816
Page Three Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006


Chief Evans asked the Mayor to remind everyone that August 1, 2006 is National Night Out
at Costello Park at 4-8pm. He asked everyone to come out and enjoy this fun filled event.
Chief Evans stated this is in cooperation with parks & recreation department.


7. Review and Approval of the Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Minutes: June 6, 13, 19, 20, and 29 2006
b. Public Safety Building:

1. Harvey Hottel Revised Change Order: $95,321:

MOTION: Councilmember Polk moved to accept recommendation of SPN and approve as presented.
SECOND: Councilmember Kassinger
VOTE ROLL CALL: Polk, Kassinger, Gardner, Larson, Jones

2. NOVEC Payment: $55,383.01

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to accept recommendation of SPN and approve as
presented.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE ROLL CALL: Kassinger, Polk, Gardner, Larson, Jones

3. Workstation Furniture: Total $32,244.14 Purchase Order:

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to accept recommendation of SPN and approve as
presented.
SECOND: Councilmember Gardner
VOTE ROLL CALL: Kassinger, Gardner, Polk, Larson, Jones

4. Payment SPN: $299,343.01

c. Ordinance: Moving May General Elections to November Elections: Removed and will be
    addressed as Item 9e.
d. Authorize Purchase and Payment: Two Vehicles: Parks & Recreation: $32,832.00:
     Ratification
e. SPN: Monthly Report: Jeff Crook: Report given to Governing Body.
f. Public Works:
        1. Expenditure FY06 Not to Exceed $155,000 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter and Paving
           and FY07 Expenditure Not to Exceed $1,507,173 Sidewalk Curb & Gutter &
        Paving
        2. Trucks: $147,000 for the purchase of Three (3) pickups and one (1) bucket truck
        The bucket truck funds are to come out of FY06 funds.
        3. Light Towers: Purchase Two: FY07 budget: $15,000
        4. Branscome Paving Co Payment: $152,290.89
g. Chesapeake Netscraftsmen Payment: $48,703.70

MOTION: Councilmember Polk moved to approve the rest of Consent Agenda as presented.
SECOND: Councilmember Kassinger
Councilmember Gardner abstained on the minutes where she was absent from the meeting.
VOTE ROLL CALL: Polk, Kassinger, Gardner, Larson, Jones

8       Unfinished Business:

a. Comcast: Letter of Request: Moving of Poles: Report from City Attorney:
The Mayor stated it is his understanding that this issue has been resolved. The City Attorney stated
there were two poles out in front along Manassas Drive that was stopping Kent Village LLC from
building the road to the police station. The City Attorney stated he got a call tonight from Marie
Shuler, Local Government Liaison, Comcast who told him the power supply was moved to the new
pole and that was what was required of Comcast, NOVEC coordination. There were some problems
there. That has been moved. She was not sure if the city has approved it. Now what needs to
happen now to actually move the lines over from the old poles to new poles? That will require that
service be shut down for a period of time.

19815
Page Four Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006

The City Attorney stated that everything is moving along now. It has not really impacted the road
construction because of the rain delay. SPN was not able to move the dirt from Kent Village site
over to back fill the police station until recently.
The Mayor stated all the pole issues and wiring issues have been resolved per threatened subpoena
action. Mr. Crook stated certainly from NOVEC perspective. He knows we are moving forward with
Comcast and Verizon. There are a couple of cost components that are not yet identified in terms of
conduit we have to put in.

9.      New Business:

9a. Personnel Policy: Annual Leave Accrual: City Manager:

The current annual leave policy converts annual leave to sick leave on July 1 in the middle of summer
when annual leave is most likely to be used. Leave accrues from July 1 through June 30 based on
the fiscal year. Any leave accrued beyond the cap is converted to sick leave. This proposal would
base the accrual period on the calendar year of January 1 through December 31, such that leave
beyond the cap is converted to sick leave on January 1. There is no cost associated with this action.
The City Manager is recommending changing the annual leave accrual period effective immediately.
Annual leave accrued beyond the cap will convert to sick leave on January 1, 2007. The change will
be incorporated into the new personnel policy.

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to accept recommendation of City Manager and
change the annual leave accrual period from January 1 through December 31st effective immediately.
Annual leave accrued beyond the cap will convert to sick leave on January 1, 2007. The change will
be incorporated into the new personnel policy.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Kassinger, Polk, Gardner, Larson, Jones

9b.     Advertise Irrigation System IFB: Signal Hill Park: Catherine Morretta:

Irrigation system was authorized as an approved CIP for Signal Hill Park through the FY07 budget
process. Funding has been allocated for this purpose. The City Attorney has reviewed and revised
the IFB documents thereby providing his endorsement.

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to accept recommendation of Director of Parks              &
Recreation and authorize advertising Irrigation System IFB for Signal Hill Park.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Kassinger, Polk, Gardner, Larson, Jones

9c.     Well Study Report: Informational: Kathy Gammell: Director of Public Works

Water Quality
       Primary constituent requirements are those established to protect public health. Based on a
comprehensive list of test results provided by the state, WR agrees that primary constituent levels in
the well water exceed all EPA requirements, and therefore exceed requirements for protection of
public health.
       Secondary constituents are those that impact taste, odor and color. The EPA has provided
recommendations for maximum secondary levels. Based on levels of total dissolved solids (TDS)
sulfates and hardness in the city’s well water, WR has recommended that any treatment at the wells
be focused on these constituents.

Treatment Options
     WR has considered several options for treatment of the wells, all of which will treat sulfates,
TDS, and hardness:

             Reverse Osmosis
             Ion Exchange Softener
             Combination of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange Softening

      WR has submitted test results to several water treatment equipment suppliers for treatment
recommendations but had not received response by the time this report was written. Staff will update
with a Quick Note when the information is available.

19814
Page Five Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006

       Based on prior experience, WR favors Ion Exchange softening but will wait to make a firm
recommendation after input from suppliers. Their conservative estimate to equip all three wells with
Ion Exchange is $1,500,000 in up-front capital costs. The RO treatment option is expected to have
similar capital costs but there are no estimates for RO currently available.

       Operational costs for treated well water are minimal at 3 cents per 1,000 gallons for process.
Staff estimates approximately10 man hours per week to monitor the process and re-supply chemicals
involved in the process.

Water Service Options
Staff is continuing to work on the option to bring Prince William County Service Authority water
into the city from      several locations, which will require evaluation by Whitman Requardt. There
are several possible scenarios for supplying treated water to the city, all of which will increase
capital and service costs.
Staff will bring costs to the Governing Body for different options by early September along with an
analysis of the affect on the enterprise fund. The Mayor asked that this item be the main discussion at
the Board of Directors meeting because it is very crucial.

9d.     Prince William County Service Authority: Release and Waiver Agreement: City
        Attorney:

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to approve the revised Release and Waiver Agreement
as recommended by City Attorney.
SECOND: Commissioner Larson
This should be constructed at southeast corner of Conner Drive & Euclid Avenue. It releases the city
from any and all obligations associated with Blooms Quarry agreement of 2000. That agreement
obligated the city to design and build another vault on Blooms Quarry Road. The Prince William
County Service Authority is building a much larger booster pump. The City is considering going to
Birmingham Green and asking them to pay for half of the cost because this was essentially built
because of their need to expand their facility.      The original agreement had a mechanism for
determining how to pay for cost over runs. The Birmingham Green piece has not been resolved.
There are funds in FY07 budget. There was $200,000 in FY06 for Birmingham line just to carry
forward. There are additional funds that she has asked Finance Director to carry forward to take care
of the vault.
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Kassinger, Larson, Gardner, Polk, Jones

9e.     Resolution, Letter to Senator Colgan and Ordinance: Moving May General Elections to
        November Elections:

MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved to approve for discussion.
SECOND: Councilmember Kassinger
Councilmember Larson stated he does not agree with this. His basic problems are:
First, he thinks that we seriously underestimate how much the local elections would be over
shadowed by the federal elections if we do that. If you speak when other people are quite; people
have more of a chance to hear. If all the other people are talking politic at the same time you have to
speak louder you have to spend more money and if you are lucky people will still hear you.

Second, he thinks that we have had improvements recently in local elections. If you compare the
recent election with elections four years ago both of which were local elections, we had a 50%
increase in the percentage of registered voters who came to vote. True that was still only 11% but
never the less it was a great improvement. Yes it is true if we moved elections to November we will
get more people to vote. Many of those people who are voting who are people who would not have
voted didn’t care enough to actually come out to vote specifically for local elections. They are not
there to vote for local elections they are there to vote for the President of the United States. As such,
chances are pretty good that when they vote either they are not going to vote in local election or they
will go oh well we have the local election what should I do. They will either not vote or they will
make a quick decision or they will do the easy thing and just vote along party lines. As such, one of
the things this will do is increase the power of our local parties probably more the Republican Party
than Democratic Party. We don’t have a clear standing if we move elections to November we still
will not have a republican or democratic election. Republican and Democratic candidates are chosen
at the committee meetings. He attended the last committee where the candidates were chosen for the
last election. There were about 12 people there. There were two candidates (two candidates
themselves) plus two elected officials plus a handful of others including him.

19813
Page Six Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006

He does not want to see the people who sitting here essentially get chosen by a group of 12 people.
He would far rather have them chosen by 600 people who end really caring and not to come and show
up to vote. He would rather not see the votes of those 600 diluted by the votes of 2,000 who end up
showing up to vote for the President.

Councilmember Kassinger stated she respects Councilmember Larson’s position. She would much
prefer to have an intelligent vote than an emotionally based vote or apathetic vote. That would be
the ideal situation for anybody. She thinks the issues belie interest. If you were running as you did in
the last election on tax issues and you did it in November it resonates to the people in May. It
certainly will resonant in November. They will not have it hidden by national issues because that is
something that will tax them. Can you get other people to consider it, possibly? The potential is
there if you increase the population of the people that are up there. Does it take more effort on an
individual’s part to get the attention, absolutely? But if savvy politician could leverage their time off
of the party they could leverage time also with what is happening with others. She does not think we
will be able control whether it will be an emotional based vote but she does think we can leverage
attention off others more so. We will have more people to work with. She respectfully disagrees
with Councilmember Larson but she understands his position. She stated she did research on this to
find out if this was unique as far as having local elections having less votes away from November and
didn’t have much luck. It is a universal problem to have a local election brings people to the polls
alone. One of the Ivy League schools did a research study for six years on what would bring people
to the polls regardless of the month of the year. It was people going out the week before knocking on
doors reminding people to go out to vote.

It is that ever presence that there are issues out there and pay attention reminders. That seems to
work in select cities they did the research in. It does take a concerted effort regardless of the time of
year. She does think there is a way to get more people out conscious of the issues whether it is
November or May.
Councilmember Larson stated that is the key whether it is November or May that works. We don’t
have to move the elections to November to do that. Councilmember Kassinger stated you can also
save money in addition to that. You can save about $4,500 so why not use that for getting people out
and knocking on doors.

Councilmember Gardner stated the way she sees it, regardless of when it is, the people that are
interested in voting are going to vote and the people who aren’t, aren’t going to vote so it doesn’t
matter what month you have it in. Those that are not interested are not going to vote anyway.

Mayor stated he agrees with your concerns about apathy. We need to have people informed and
people to be educated. He stated when he heard Ms. Embrey first bring this up as an idea, it has
resonated when him the entire time and he is glad to see this issue on the table. When we look at our
last series of elections, Rachel Kirkland, citizen, asked the Mayor if there was an opportunity to draw
enough interest to get our local House of Representatives to come to the city and talk about their
issues. When you talk about their issues, they are more closely aligned to our community than the
senators are in the entire commonwealth. Because of scheduling issues, it was not able to happen.
One of the things he sees as an advantage is the ability to bring that kind of local focus to what has
been an absence of regional involvement at least with the City. We would be able to hear from the
local candidates on what our issues are and it would be a much easier process to say to the individuals
who would be candidates, what is your view, what is your stance, how do you feel and here are our
local issues so we understand how their views plays into what is a local issue for us. That driving
factor is the similarity of time and the need to compete for votes. If that means we have to link
people and ideologies by the virtue of time and election that is the leveraging point that it takes to
drive them forward. He agrees that money is an issue when you look at cost to run an election. As
the Registrar stated if we had an issue with May election it could cause us to have to do something
again in June we have a problem. We can’t meet the window. The Mayor stated it makes a lot of
sense to move this thing to November election. The point that Mr. Tabacchi made is the shear
numbers and volume of voters. He doesn’t want to sit here and presume that voters are casting an
uninformed decision. If they walk into election place and state they are here to vote it presumes they
have done some modest amount of research. We will not be able to do one thing to stop those
individuals who are going to walk in and blindly punch I vote for party or I vote for philosophy or
whatever. The people who are going to vote on ideology are going to do that.
The Mayor supports the November move.

The Mayor stated he spoke with Councilmember Bunner and Councilmember Privett.
Councilmember Privett supports the moving of elections to November because of the pure numbers
basis.

19812
Page Seven Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006

There was a time that a person set on this council with a write in vote of 52 votes. He hopes to never
see that again. Something that will draw the maximum participation which is the way to go.

Councilmember Bunner stated he supports the migration to November if the Governing Body makes
the commitment with the dollars saved by not having to run second election is not used somewhere
else in Registrar budget but we cut expenses commensurate with that so it shows our commitment
that we are not just pushing money around in budget and we are truly saying expenses will be
reduced. The Mayor stated he is looking at the Registrar and she is shaking her head yes that this is
able to be done and that expenses in Registrar’s office will be dropped. Councilmember Kassinger
stated as part of the motion he wouldn’t want Councilmember Bunner’s caveats about the money part
of the motion. The Mayor stated he didn’t want it as part of the motion but wanted it on the record.

Councilmember Polk agrees that there is a risk that the number of votes increasing if you don’t know
what the quality of those votes but he would propose that you don’t know what the quality of any
vote is. You encourage everyone to be informed. Increasing the number of voters increases the
volume of votes. There are a number of voters that are informed. We should leave it to the voters
and increase the turnout. Hear a larger majority of the population.

1. Resolution 06-1000-1009:

MOTION: Councilmember Polk moved to approve Resolution as presented by City Attorney
requesting the Charter be amended.
SECOND: Councilmember Kassinger
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Polk, Kassinger, Gardner, Jones No: Larson

2. Letter to Senator Colgan dated July 18, 2006:

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to authorize the Mayor to sign letter to Senator Colgan
requesting he initiate the proposed legislation to amend the charter attaching copy of Resolution
approved by Governing Body and as recommended by City Attorney.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Kassinger, Polk, Gardner, Larson, Jones

3. Ordinance 06-1700-809:

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to adopt the Ordinance which will not take effect until
the Charter has been amended by 2007 General Assembly and signed by Governor.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE: Yes: Kassinger, Polk, Gardner, Jones Abstain: Larson

The Mayor declared the Governing Body in recess until 8:30 pm. Governing Body will reconvene in
Worksession with on PPV.

10.     Worksession: McGuireWoods: Public Private Venture: Christopher Lloyd.
Presentation made part of the record of the meeting. The Governing Body approved the Guidelines
on June 20, 2006. Virginia has two public private partnerships statutes. The first is PPTA (Public
Private Transportation Act of 1995) and PPEA (Public Private Education Facility and Infrastructure
Act 2002). PPTA was the first one tasked by the General Assembly. There have been amendments
to PPEA every year it has been in existence. PPEA is a tool that is an alternative procurement tool
that allows public entities to more efficiently develop infrastructure and achieve better value for the
taxpayer. VA has a great public procurement law and is one of the best in the country. It may be slow
and frustrate people but it is a good statute and one people are comfortable with. There are some
procurement that are very complex structures that require something a little more sophisticated and
that is where PPTA and PPEA come into play.
PPEA allows for solicited and unsolicited proposal to develop or operate a qualifying project.
The Mayor asked about CDA’s. Mr. Lloyd stated they are covered by law but Mr. Lloyd has not seen
one done yet. He believes you will see it more and more. All authorities are covered when it talks
about what a public entity is. It is any authority or political subdivision of the commonwealth.

The City Attorney merged the PPTA and PPEA guidelines into one document which Mr. Lloyd
believes is a good way to do it.
Fredericksburg has wanted a parking deck for a long time but could not get over the history of the
town and finding a way to keep the historical look of the town. There was descent on the part of
citizens about the need for a parking deck.

19811
Page Eight Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006

They adopted the PPTA guidelines and a company called Donley made initial contact with the
city and narrowed potential properties partied with a local builder and put an option on what they
felt was the site for that parking garage. They turned in their unsolicited proposal in January
2004. There were no competing proposals. Fredericksburg wanted a quality product and they
wanted Donnelly to please the downtown merchants group.                  Fredericksburg signed a
comprehensive deal in November and that deck (297 space deck at cost of a little over six million
dollars) was built and opened in 2005.
In unsolicited bids, you put funds in the agreement to pay for hiring consultants; attorney’s etc to
review the proposal to make sure it is in the best interest of the jurisdiction. This was very
important to the General Assembly. It is a good process.
Sudley Manor/Linton Hall Drive is a PPTA project by Prince William County that was awarded
to CH2MHill.
The Mayor asked if our guidelines could be on city web page. The City Attorney stated it was a
public document. This document will be placed on McGuireWoods website.

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved to direct City Staff to develop a Resolution that
would express interest by projects in the things that might suitable for Public Private Ventures to
be brought back at next business meeting.
SECOND: Councilmember Larson
VOTE: Unanimously passed

MOTION: Councilmember Polk moved to authorize Staff to make necessary public notice that
might be appropriate that there might be interest on the city’s part in some form of parks &
recreation type project with text to be developed by staff and allowed to be released to determine
potential PPV interest in park renovation project.
SECOND: Councilmember Kassinger
VOTE: Unanimously passed

11.   Convene in Closed Session (as per 2.2-3711(a) of the Virginia Code): 9:40 pm:

MOTION: Councilmember Polk moved that the Governing Body go into Closed Meeting to discuss
with the City Attorney contract negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 7, of Subsection 2.2-3711(A) of
the Code of Virginia.
SECOND: Councilmember Kassinger
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Polk, Kassinger, Gardner, Larson, Jones

Reconvene in Open Session: 10:40pm:

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE: Unanimously passed

Certification of Closed Meeting and addition of items to Agenda due to closed meeting (If
Necessary):

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the City of Manassas Park has convened a closed meeting on
this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712(d) of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this public body
that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Body of the City of Manassas Park
hereby certify that, to the best of each member’s knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under this chapter and (ii) only such public business
matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed session was convened were heard,
discussed or considered in the meeting by the public body.
SECOND: Councilmember Larson
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Kassinger, Larson, Gardner, Polk, Jones

19810
Page Nine Governing Body Meeting July 18, 2006

Community Development Authority: Clark

MOTION: Councilmember Kassinger moved that the City support Clark’s efforts to pursue the
creation of a community development authority for the purpose of constructing public infrastructure
within Park Center, with the understanding that Clark must first provide the City with (i) a petition
signed by property owners representing at least 51% of the proposed district, (ii) a list of the properties
to be included in the proposed district, and (iii) the amount of the bond proposed to construct the
public infrastructure, that a public hearing must be held in order for the public to voice support or
opposition to the proposal, and that the City’s support for Clark’s efforts is not to be considered pre-
approval for the creation of a community development authority.
SECOND: Councilmember Polk
VOTE ROLL CALL: Yes: Kassinger, Polk, Larson, Gardner, Jones

14. Adjournment at 10:45 PM:

Approved August 15, 2006

_________________________
Francis C. Jones, Jr., Mayor

____________________________
Lana A. Conner, City Clerk




19809
•   Brief History of the PPTA/PPEA
•   Built on Highway Corporation Act of 1988 (Dulles Greenway)
•   Passed General Assembly in 1995
•   VMS is first contract, followed by 895, Route 28, 288, 58, CFX
•   Significant overhauls in 2002 and 2005, 2006
•   Use by local governments has been limited (Prince William)
•   Built on the successes of the PPTA (895, 288, 28, Coalfields Expressway)
•   Passed General Assembly in 2002
•   Model Guidelines issued in October 2002, state guidelines in December
•   First comprehensive agreement signed July 1, 2003
•   Amendments occur in 2003, 2004, and 2005
•   Additional changes in 2006 regarding FOIA, public disclosure, oversight
•
•   What is it?
•          - An alternative procurement tool that allows public entities to more efficiently develop
    infrastructure and achieve better value for the taxpayer
•
•   What it is NOT?
•           - A panacea that resolves all procurement issues
•           - A way to get something for nothing
•           - A way to steal ideas from the private sector
•           - The solution for Virginia’s transportation or education needs
•   Allows for solicited and unsolicited proposals to develop or operate a qualifying project
•   A qualifying project is:
•   education facility (public school and higher education)
•   equipment to enhance public safety and security at public buildings
•   utility and telecommunications and other communications infrastructure
•   recreational facilities
•   Technology infrastructure
•   any building or facility that meets a public purpose and is developed or operated by or for any
    public entity
•
•   Overview and Process
•
•   Public body adopts PPEA guidelines
•   Private entity submits proposal to public body or public body issues a solicitation for proposals
•   Public body makes a written determination whether the project is developed using competitive
    bid or competitive negotiation
•   Competitive negotiation can proceed if the public body determines that this method is “likely to
    be advantageous” because of the “probable scope, complexity or urgency of the project” or
    “risk sharing, added value, an increase in funding or economic benefit from the project that
    would not otherwise be available”
•   Private entity secures confidentiality agreement for FOIA protection
•   Private entity submits a conceptual proposal for review (qualifications and experience,
    conceptual schedule and cost, public benefit)
•   Open competition period of not less than 45 days (no minimum for solicited projects)
•   Public body determines whether or how to proceed
•   If public body moves forward, asks for a detailed submission (accelerated process permitted)
•   At this phase, schedule and price become locked in
•   One proposer is elevated to the interim/comprehensive agreement stage
•   Virginia Experience – Examples




    What is happening across Virginia?
•   School facilities in Falls Church, Fredericksburg, Chesterfield, Winchester, Bedford County,
    Warren County, Stafford County, City of Harrisonburg - agreements signed
•   Public safety facilities in Roanoke, Stafford, and Frederick Counties
•   Capitol Square redevelopment
•   James City County recreational facilities
•   DOC Prison construction program (Centex), regional jails
•   Parking decks (Fredericksburg, Roanoke, Winchester)
•   Technology projects (VITA)
•   Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind consolidation
•   Prince William and Chesapeake human services offices
•   Bedford County Public Service Authority facilities
•   Crater Public Safety Training Academy
•   Spotsylvania County Courthouse Complex
•   Prince William Service Authority facilities


    PPEA Guideline Implementation
    City of Salem              Chesterfield
    City of Richmond                 Stafford
    City of Winchester               Roanoke
    City of Manassas Park            Frederick
    City of Virginia Beach           Loudoun
    City of Fredericksburg           City of Chesapeake
    City of Falls Church             James City
    City of Manassas                 York
    City of Lynchburg                Bedford
    Norfolk Airports Authority       Fairfax
    Clarke County                    Fauquier County
    City of Suffolk                  City of Norfolk
    Southampton                      City of Roanoke
    Town of Herndon                  Henrico
    Bedford PSA                      Spotsylvania
    Rockbridge County                Campbell County
    Loudoun County
    Henrico County
    Prince William County
    Spotsylvania County