MINUTES EMPORIA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EMPORIA MUNICIPAL BUILDING MARCH 04, 2025 Note to Reader: Although the printed agenda for this City Council meeting is not part of these minutes, the agenda document provides background information on the items discussed by the City Council during the meeting. A copy of the agenda documentfor this meeting may be obtained by contacting the Office of the City Clerk. Emporia City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, March 04, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers oft the Municipal Building, located at 201 South Main Street, Emporia, Clifton Threat, President of Council, presided over the meeting and offering the invocation. ROLL CALL The following City Council members were present: Councilwoman Yolanda Hines (Virtually) Councilman Mark S. Lilly Councilwoman Carol Mercer Councilman James C. Saunders Counciwoman Doris T. White Councilman Clifton Threat Others present: William E. Johnson II, City Manager Eric A. Gregory, City Attorney Tessie S. Wilkins, City Clerk Troy Allen, IT Manager Alicia Hargrove, Finance Director Mike Allen, Code Enforcement Karen A. Taylor, Treasurer Beverly Walkup, Planning and Zoning Director Interim Joyce Prince, Commission of Revenue Shanetta Beck, Economic Development Director Chief Troy Hawkins, EPD Absent: Carolyn S. Carey, Mayor Councilwoman L. Dale Temple REMOTE PARTICIPATION APPROVAL Councilwoman Hines stated that her K9 had surgery, and she was home with him. Councilman Saunders made a motion to approve Councilwoman Hines's virtual meeting participation due to personal reasons seconded by Councilwoman White, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines abstain Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye MINUTES APPROVAL Councilman Threat stated that the Council had the minutes for Tuesday, February 18, 2025, Regular Meeting and asked if there are any additions or corrections. Councilman Saunders moved to approve the minutes for the Tuesday, February 18, 2025, Regular Meeting, seconded by Councilwoman White, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines aye Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye AGENDA APPROVAL Councilman Saunders request to amend the agenda to add a proclamation for Women's History Month and move Item 25-27 to the first item under New Business before the publichearing and change its title to 'Adoption of Ordinance Referring to Virginia Code $ 15.2-907.1 - Derelict Building.' Councilwoman Hines moved to approve the amended agenda, seconded by Councilman Saunders, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Counciwoman Yolanda G. Hines aye Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye Councilman Threat presented a proclamation in honoring of Women History Month. NEW BUSINESS 25-27. Adoption of Ordinance Referring to Virginia Code S 15.2-907.1 - Derelict Building Mr. Johnson stated that this ordinance, referencing Virginia Code $ 15.2-907.1, grants the authority for a locality or land bank entity to bea appointed as ai receiver for the repairofderelict and blighted buildings under specific circumstances. He also stated that its adoption will enable the City of Emporia to take proactive measures in addressing neglected properties that pose safety hazards and contribute to neighborhood decline. He further stated that by securing court-appointed authority to rehabilitate vital structures when private owners fail to act, this ordinance promotes public welfare and enhances property values within the community. Councilman Saunders moved to adopt Ordinance No. 25-05: Derelict Building, seconded by Councilman Lilly, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines nay Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer nay PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing - TEFRA Hearing. for Bon Secours Bonds - Resolution Mrs. Brittany Simmons stated that they are serving as Bond Counsel for this transaction, which involves Sponsored Housing, 501(c)(3) nonprofit health system operating facilities in the Richmond and Hampton Roads markets, including Southern Virginia Medical Center in Victoria. She also stated that in accordance with the planned financing structure, the Economic Develop- ment Authority of Henrico County will issue revenue bonds. She further stated that the proceeds will be used to: refund and retire prior outstanding debt, reimburse for prior capital expenditures, and fund costs of ongoing and future capital projects in healthcare facilities across Virginia. Mrs. Simmons stated that this public hearing, held in compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, is necessary to obtain tax-exempt status for the bonds. She also stated that this Federal law mandates a separate hearing at least seven days after public notice, which was published on Wednesday, February 19, in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. She further stated that to secure tax-exempt status under federal law and authorize the issuance ofthese bonds under state law, we require approval from the Emporia City Council as the applicable elected representatives and a confirming resolution authorizing the Economic Development Authority to issue revenue bonds. Mrs. Simmons stated that the portion ofthe bonds allocated to Southern Virginia Medical Center is estimated not to exceed $10 million, covering capital projects from the past three years and future projects over the next two years. She also stated that we anticipate securing all necessary local approvals by the end of March. She further stated that the bonds will be offered for sale in a public offering in April, with RBC and J.P. Morgan serving as underwriters. She states that some bonds may also be directly purchased by commercial banks. Mrs. Simmons stated that these revenue bonds will be repaid solely by the funds and revenues ofthe bond issuer. She also stated that they do not represent a general obligation debt of any political subdivision, including the City ofVictoria or the City of Emporia. Mrs. Simmons stated that she is happy to answer any questions regarding the financing, and she is joined by Brandon Forbes, who can address questions related to capital projects. Councilman Threat opened the public hearing for public comment. Councilman Threat stated that with no one coming forward this public hearing is now closed. 25-23. Public Hearing - TEFRA Hearing for Bon Secours Bonds = Resolution Mr. Johnson recommended that the Council adopt the resolution. Councilman Saunders made a motion to adopt resolution no. 25-03 expressing the concurrence of the city council of the City Emporia, Virginia with the inducement resolution adopted by the economic development authority of Henrico County, Virginia and approving the issuance of revenue bonds for the benefit of bon secours mercy health, inc. and southern Virginia medical center., seconded by Councilwoman White, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines aye Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye 2. Public Hearing - Land Bank - Ordinance Mr. McCullough stated that receivership is another method of code enforcement in Emporia to address blighted and derelict residential properties within the city. He also stated that it serves as an additional tool when other enforcement methods have failed. Mr. McCullough stated that thej process begins with the adoption ofan ordinance, which he believes that Council have just adopted. He also stated that once the city adopts an ordinance authorizing the appointment of a land bank as the receiver, it can then proceed to address individual property. Mr. McCullough presented the following flow chart of the receivership process: Flow Chart of the Receivership Process Preliminary: This step need be done only once for a locality to authorize a receiver: The locality passes an ordinance-as outlined in $ 15:2-907.1-spaling out its "authority to III require removal, repair, etc, of buildings that are dedared to be derelict or blighted." The ordinance should appoint a health and safety receiver, be it the locality or a land bank entity. The following steps are repeated for any noncompliant property eligible for receivership: Step 1: Identify and dedare the property and property ownerls) noncompliant per the provisions of 5 15.2-907.1 and 5 36-49.1:1, finding the property "derelict" or "blighted." Step 2: Record a memorandum of lis pendens against the property and simultaneously petition the court for appointment of an appropriate entity (such as Commonwealth Land Bank) to act as receiver to repair the "real property that contains residential dwelling units. * The property must be residential in some regard. Step 3: Attend the appointment hearing, at which the owner has the right to object and present a plan of remediation Ifthe court accepts owner's remediation plany Ifthe court does not accept the owner's plan, or if no appointment of receiver is denied. such plan is presented, the court appoints a receiver. End Process Step 4: Commonwealth Land Bank, as the court-appointed receiver, contracts and completes all necessary repairs. The receivership can last for a period not to exceed two years. Step 5: The receiver tracks fees and costs associated with the receivership, $ which constitute the receiver's lien. Step 6: Satisfaction of the receiver's lien: D . The property owner may redeem the # the receiver's lien is not paid, it may be enforced by a property at any time prior to confirmation sale of the property at public auction following issuance df of sale at public auction by paying the a sale order by the court. The resuit is typically clear title, receiver's lien and all property costs in full. giving the property a dlean siate to begin a new chapter. Step 7: Termination & Discharge of Receivership: After the property is fully remediated, the court will terminate and discharge the receivership. Councilman Threat opened the public hearing for public comment. Mrs. Rashanda McNair, 604 Temple Avenue, Emporia, VA 23847 addressed the Council asking when you talk about blighted and derelict properties, are you referring to vacant properties, or are they currently occupied. Mr. McCullough stated that they could be either vacant or occupied. He also stated that if the property is occupied, such as when a tenant is living there, part ofthe receivership process would involve relocating the occupants to a hotel or motel during the repairs. He further stated that the cost of relocation would be covered by the receiver and included as part of the receiver's lien at the end of the process. Mrs. McNair said SO let us say the homeowner is living in the property, and it has become blighted. She stated that now, the city has adopted an ordinance to address the issue, and the process moves forward to repairing the property what happens if the homeowner cannot pay the lien. She also stated that if they had the means, they would have fixed it themselves SO, if they cannot pay for the lien, do they just lose their home? Mr. McCullough stated that the home could be sold under those circumstances. He also stated that the key to this process is that not every home should qualify. He further stated that there may be valid reasons fort the city to choose not to pursue a particular property, such as a homeowner struggling to pay for repairs. He stated that additionally, there are often other sources of funding available for this type ofwork. Mr. McCullough stated that in his experience, most of the time, the owner of a blighted property is not actually living in it. He also stated that more often, it is owned by an LLC, usually not part of the local community, who is simply collecting rent while neglecting the property's condition. Mrs. McNair stated that there is no guarantee oft that, right. She also stated that it is up to the city to determine whether a property qualifies or meets the criteria for this program. Mr. McCullough stated that it is up to the city to initiate the process, which then goes to court. He also stated that the court decides whether the property qualifies. Councilman Threat asked Mr. Mike Allen to address that. He also stated that before the property even reaches the land bank, it must first go through the city. Mr. Mike Allen stated that the land bank program will be used only as a last resort and at a very minimal level. He also stated that they will continue to follow the usual procedures, including sending notices of violations. He further stated that additionally, we will begin issuing summonses and taking cases to court, where fines can be imposed. Mr. Allen stated that the city is not looking to displace anyone from their home. He also stated that this program is primarily intended for properties that have been boarded up orleft vacant for extended periods. He further stated that if a property has only cosmetic violations, we will still issue a notice and allow time for compliance. He stated that again this will be a last resort and used in only a minimal number of cases. Mr. Melvin Hines, 510 Cleveland Street, Emporia, Virginia 23847 stated that he opposes land banking, arguing that it is a tool that can displace residents and increase homelessness rather than addressing blight. He believes poverty is not blight and that struggling homeowners would make repairs if they had financial support. He stated that instead of land banking, he suggests hiring grant writers to help residents secure funds for renovations. He also stated that Emporia's 's situation is unique and requires a tailored approach, not a one-size-fits-all policy. He further stated that the Council is losing touch with the community's needs and emphasizes that people are watching, listening, and will remember these decisions come election time. Councilman Threat closed the public hearing. 25-24. Public Hearing - Land Bank - Ordinance Councilman Threat asked is there a motion for the Land Bank Ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated that this is the last step. He also stated that the judge must approve it. He further stated that as Mike Allen writes letters to the citizens, we try to guide those who seek help in the right direction, whether that involves grant funding or addressing minor cosmetic issues. He stated that the most important thing is that property owners respond to the correspondence. Mr. Johnson stated that as Mr. Allen stated, we are not trying to displace anyone. He also stated that if there is a way to help property owners with cosmetic issues, we will do everything in our power to assist them. He further stated that there are grants available, though some are age restricted. He stated that fori instance, ifyou are sixty-two or older and meet income requirements, you can apply for a $10,000 USDA grant that does not need to be repaid. He also stated that additionally, homeowners can borrow up to $40,000 at a 1% interest rate through USDA. Mr. Johnson stated that the goal is to address neglected properties that affect the surround- ing community--homes that neighbors pass by every day. He also stated that we want to ensure that the community is well-represented and maintained. He further stated that we are not seeking to remove anyone from their home. Mr. Johnson stated again, the judge must approve the process, SO we will be paying close attention. He also stated that in Mike Allen letters, we see cases involving both residents and out- of-state property owners. He further stated that this is a structured process- -we cannot simply decide to evict someone from their home. He stated that proper procedures must be followed. Councilman Threat stated that Miss Beck, the Economic Development representative, is present tonight many of the business prospects she engages with-those considering investing in our city- -have told us, "You need to clean your city up if you expect us to come here." He also stated that it is a tough pill to swallow. Councilman Threat stated think about it this way: IfI step outside every day and see trash in my yard, and I know a company is coming over, leaving that trash there would reflect poorly on me. He also stated that if we want to grow this city and develop economic opportunities, we must start somewhere. Councilman Threat stated that he knows Mr. Allen mentioned that this would be a last resort, and he trust that Council understands that when we say it is a last resort, we mean it. He also stated that we will work closely with the attorney, the City Manager, and staff to ensure that no senior citizen or vulnerable resident is displaced that is not what we are about. He further stated that we do not want anyone to leave tonight under the impression that the city is in the business of putting elderly residents out on the street because that is simply not the case. Councilman Lilly stated that he thinks therei is a misconception that adding this tool to the toolbox means all other tools will disappear. He also stated that it is not the case, this is simply an additional tool. He further stated that the existing options will still be available, but this may encourage people to explore and utilize those resources more proactively. Councilman Lilly stated to be honest, who pays for grant writers. He also stated that if we were to write grants for every single citizen, who would cover that cost. He further stated that it would fall on the taxpayers. He stated that the city already pays grant writers to secure funding for municipal projects, but we cannot afford to provide a dedicated grant writer for every resident. He also stated, however, this new tool might encourage people to take advantage of the existing re- sources before reaching this point. Councilman Saunders stated that 12 to 14 years ago, the Council began stricter code en- forcement due to vacant and neglected properties with absentee owners. He also stated that they emphasize that no one has ever been forced out oft their home as a result. He further stated that this new measure is seen as another tool for addressing such situations. He stated that additionally, state economic and housing officials previously urged the city to improve its condition. He also states that he reassures that displacing resident is not the intent. Councilman Saunders made a motion to adopt the ordinance for Land Bank as presented, seconded by Councilwoman White, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines nay Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye NEW BUSINESS 25-25. AMB Infrastructure Modernization Project Presentation Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Whit Blake from ABM is here this evening to give a presentation on the planned roof repairs at City Hall and the library next door. He also stated that the cost of these repairs will be covered by this project, like the energy efficiency program ABM assisted with a few years ago. He further stated that as a result, there will be no cost to the city, making it revenue neutral. He stated that additionally, Greensville County will share 50% of the cost for the library roof repairs. Mr. Whit Blake and Dan Honeycutt presented the following presentation: ABM Emporia tgixia Infrastructure Modernization Project Presented By ABMBuilding Solutions. LLC March 4 2025 1 ABM. Emporia - Project Timeline Pruliminany Aasessmert OuE 62024 MOU Approval Date 72034 investrert Gace Aud OGA Dahe 82024 - vita Findings Moctng Dute 102024 Pinjoct Verscaton 4 Frauaton Date 122024 Courcil Paeserufors Oae 32025 - a Coreract 4 Firancing Approva Dute 12025 o Picects Suat Dasa 52015 2 Emporia Buildings Included in Development ABM -4 City Hall Richardson Memorial Library Water Treatment Plant 2 3 EAELT IRAN DEPOT Audit Findings: Energy Conservation Measures & Infrastructure Solutions CityHall Richardson Memorial Water Treatment Library Roof Plant New TPO 30-year membrane roofing system New TPO 30-year Install ground mount with replacement of allIsO membrane roofing solarpanel aray insulation system with replacement of alll ISOi insulation Roof mount Solar PV System 4 City Hall & Richardson Memorial Library Technical Solutions Roof Upgrades, New TPO membrane roofing system with replacement ofall ISO insulation 30-year Warranty R-30 Value Tax Credit at Cily Hall 5 City Hall Technical Solutions Rooftop Solar PV System Offseta approximately 90% of existing electrical load Federal Tax Credit 30% a 6 Solar System Details - City Hall Solar PV System Rating PDrT Rins 54680 Voc oyer Rcng 48394) WAGSES Menchly tnegy Use vs Selae Ceneretien Energy Consumption Mix Lo0 AnnualE Enero Use 94283MWAS coe so0 L ue A a A a A - S * A 4 a A nile 5 021M 115 0 ou P 24t WS no 11 - 7 Water Treatment Ground Mount Solar System lechnical Solutions Ground Mount Solar PV System Offsets approximately 45% of existing electrical load Federal Tax Credit 30% 8 Goog 9 * > fa far a 10 Solar System Details - Water Plant Solar PvSystem Rating Power Ratng 246.885 woc Povver Rating 215,0521 WACH CEC Menchly tnersy Ve v Selar Cenereden Energy Consumption Mix Annusl Energyuse 762365KWh * - a d - - a - - - - * d a S sy 413059KN 154 15 Sols PV 349 306 ww (458 82R1 11 11 ABM City of Emporia - Project Summary - New Roof at City Hall Cityk Hall Solar System New Roof att Library D Water Trestment Ground Mount Solar System $1.9M" $2.9M Project Ccomprerensverregrem Savings over Project Financials: 30yrs $2.6M Total Project Cost S1.9M Net Project Cost afterrebates $29M Energy Savings Over 30yr Lifespan "Nes co ar rubntes are received. Srucrd Aralysis nooded lo fralize çontract picing" "pricing is subject to charge baed an ining ol contrac erculion Prevaling ig res are not indluded la 12 de - a 1 1 331 0s 34 15133 132 - 51342 * 11120 srm 1204 s 52433 *a $244 jor s 37 a su: sn 3 1434 s % 11rt 22467 3n ot s5 En san $13 1D M taN4 SreTt a 114 Au 1 s17 0 a 1 A a s A : 241 4X 4 7 : 05 thea 7 P : E 21 a A5 141A3 13 - nn lei bes 11 o 1 - bra Siel susns CAM 5 523 AS Es EN A E 514 1 E 341 45 I EN - 1 1 E5 a ST L5 14 B t 55 s 41 17 A 1 L4 7 Ta 1 1 u 55 15 1 T T BA5 5415 LES 355 s ne 3 - pans EI U IGM sT E95 x 14 S - e - a a OsM Sera A N s % Baxt - o : : 411 24 - x N2 1 : 14 issewdar *a 15 ABM Program - What's Included? Al Pricing is "Al-in" turkey pricing V ManufacurwDretPadn, 0 E Procurementole each/all projectscopes Engineering & Design Costs Permits &1 Fees Crane & Rigging Removal & Disposald ofo oldequipment. imaterials Project Managementf for alls suboontactos & scopes. br the duration ofthep project Trainingo on all new equipment Any3 additionale engineering odllateral, drawings andplans. as requiredby permting ofice andior inspecors Inspections Warranties Measurementa Verificationi PostinstiliatonRepont FirmF FxadPidng-NoChange OrisonOufinedSope Results are GUARANTEED! 16 Thank You ABME BULDING SOLUTIONSUC Emal Whitey Bseutm.com f in - 17 Councilman Saunders asked what is a solar inverter and the 30 years. Mr. Honeycutt stated that a solar array works by capturing photos from the sun, generating DC electricity on the roof. He also stated that since energy systems require AC electricity, an inverter converts the DC power into AC, making it usable. He further stated that the inverter acts as the system's brain, ensuring efficient energy conversion. Mr. Honeycutt stated that Under the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement, they will continuously monitor the system to ensure optimal performance, replacing inverters as they reach the end oft their useful life. He also stated that the system is designed to last for 30 years. Mr. Honeycutt stated that having worked together before, they want to highlight key points for the council. He also stated that these programs are design-build, meaning we manage all upfront engineering, permitting, and project management. He further stated that they oversee the entire process, from material procurement and installation to training (ifrequired). He stated that they also perform measurement and verification (M&V) in accordance with state law, providing a post-installation report to the City Council. He also stated that additionally, they will continue measuring and verifying system performance for up to 25 years. Mr. Mike Allen asked Mr. Honeycutt ifhe could explain the 30-year system lifespan in more detail to Councilman Saunders. Mr. Honeycutt stated that a solar decommissioning bond ensures that, once the system reaches the end ofits lifespan, the equipment is removed, and the site is restored to its original condition. He also stated that the bond is backed by a guarantor company, holding the installer accountable for the removal and restoration process. Councilman Saunders asked what happens if the installer goes out ofbusiness. Mr. Honeycutt stated that ift the installer goes out ofbusiness, the bond ensures that an- other contractor will be hired to remove the system at no cost to the city, as this expense is COV- ered within the bond and program. Mr. Johnson stated that at this time, staff would like approval from the Mayor and Council to move forward sO staff can finalize the contract and present it to the Council at a later meeting. He also stated that there will be no cost to the city, and all work will be guaranteed by ABM and the contractor. He further stated that additionally, if there is ever a shortfall in savings between what they save and the debt payment, ABM is required to ensure that they can meet the debt service payment. He stated that tonight, staff is simply seeking authorization to proceed, and once the contract is finalized and reviewed by Mr. Gregory, we will bring it back to the Council for ap- proval. Councilman Lilly made a motion to grant the manager and staff the authority to move forward with the ABM solar project, seconded by Councilwoman Mercer, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines aye Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye 25-26. Code Amendment - Chapter 10. Animals - Chickens in Residential Districts = Request a Public Hearing Mrs. Beverly Walkup, Planning and Zoning Interim stated that last month, the Code Enforcement Officer, Animal Control, the Police Chief, and herselfmet to discuss regulating chickens in the city. She also stated that this discussion arose because chickens are already being brought onto residential properties within the city, and they want to take an initiative-taking approach in addressing the issue. She stated that they have observed an increasing trend in cities, driven by the rising cost of eggs, sO they want to get ahead ofit. She also stated that currently, the city code is mostly silent on the issue of chickens, except for a brief mention under Section 10-1: Running at Large, which states: "It shall be unlawful for the owner or other person in charge to permit any horse, cow, mule, sheep, goat, hog, or other livestock, or any chicken, goose, duck, turkey, or other. fowl ofwhich he is the owner or in charge, to run at large in the city. H She further stated that this is the only reference to chickens within the existing ordinance. She stated that when they met, they reviewed ordinances from other localities, including Newport News. She also stated that all of these are cities because, unlike counties which have agricultural districts and address these issues differently, cities require separate regulations. She further stated that we specifically examined ordinances from Newport News, Hampton, Petersburg, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Hopewell, Norfolk, Richmond, and Suffolk. Mrs. Beverly Walkup, Planning and Zoning Interim, presented the following presentation: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0, ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS City Coundil Meeting March 4.2025 1 CODE. AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Code Enforcement, Animal Control, Police Chief and Interim Planning/Zoning Director met to discuss regulating chickens in the City, particularly since it seems to be an increasing trend in a lot of cities, including Emporia with the report of some residents already having chickens in the City. Currently, the Code is silent of chickens, except for a brief mention under Sec. 10-1. Running at large, which reads as follows: "c shall be unlawful for che owner or other person in charge co permit any horse, cow, mule,sheep,goat hot or other livestock, or any chicken,goose, duck, curkey oF other of which hei is the owner or in charge, to run at large wichin the Ciry" 2 CODE. AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Reviewed Other sasalekrsalas Newport News Hampron Petersbury Virrinial Beach Chesapeake Hopewell Norfolk Richmond Suffolk 3 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Newport News: Allowns up Bo 6 chickens No roosters Coops at least 25 fromp pli Prohibits selling eggs or chickens fori meat Chickens must be provided wich a coveredpredatorgroal: shelcer dhat is choroughly ventilated.provides: sun, shade and protection from che elements. and is designed co be easily. accessed and cleaned $25 permitf feei 4 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Hampron: Allows up to 6 chickens No roosters Coops must be kepthygienic via regular cleaning co prevent perceptible oders ac dhe pll Feed must be kept in a secure container or locacion co prevent che accraction of rodents and other animals Nos slaughoering for consumption or other parposes is not allowed as part of the use $25 permie fee. 5 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS hsnburt Alion - te 20 chick Rocen ae alled Shul - be hpi RN 30 fet af y strvar ewe N mather anduad feri lu ahiset Lion er 1 ansamblagn, whathers ah strece ar 1 in des M a a aent Mecker r A bou ar heker R be previded y edene ie whichs ch lede er Pgom ana brpe Such bone - ker al be hpt dry end wallemtilse ad hal bes lsned - leas - eak, het wesR November ad May d at lat ic ok, beben May d Neve r - h and hener a edured hy tha eakth directer Drinhing fount taine tre ghe al b lps desn - th Thes as - de à - - - - - leo ders A nc len a hl be . - a - - de Nething int dia sect Lien e - a aae E for the ale - % - r lriel drsani ing nd 6 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 10,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Virginia Beach: Allowed on land: zoned for agiculoural use Allows up to 6 chidens Roosbers are allowed Coops must be located atleast50 feet tmymipbainyaaing Coope or enclosed area mustbe keptclean andf free of odorsandi it mustbe vendlaced to prevente the buildup of moistureand harmful gases Chickens must have accesst to food and watera atall cimes Coop or enclesed area mustbe constructed ina a manner chatprevents ches chickeens from escaping and from beings preyedu upon by other animals Slaughtering chidens forp persond consumptioni isallowed,but commercial: sake of diden meat or eggs isprohibiced Permiti is required. 7 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Chesapeake: Allowed on land zoned for ingie-amilyreidemntal Allows up co 6 chickens Chickens shall be housed in at fully enclosed accessory: soucture Accessory seructure shalll be locatedi in dhe rear yard! 50 feet from contiguous residential lot 8 CODE. AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Hopewell: Allows up co 6 chidens Nor roosters Ans andosurs shall bey provided on all premias, which fowi are kept Ahousa or sheleer shall be providedi in al enciosuresi ins which fowl ara kape Such house or sheker shall bel kapt dry and well ventilced and shall ber maincainedi ina a dean and sanicary condicion free of oliensive odors and excrement at a dimes AI anclosuras shal bs so constructed as co kesp che fowl sacure from other animals Al snclosures shal be adequacely anclosed and fres from any rodent AI snciosures shall bel locaced in che rear yard oft che premises No enclosurei intended primarily for che ksping offowi shall be constructed wichin cen (10) fest ef chey property lines. No enclosure shall be locaced wichin seventy-five (5) fer ofa residential dwling or two hundred (20) feec of any church or school buidingezcaps chs residence of che owner of cha fowl 9 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Norfolk: Allows uPp 0o 6 chickens No roosbers Coops aci least 15 feet from any property line, 20 feet from the nearest boundary of any city drainage easementand 50 feet from anys point of mean! high wacer of any waterway Property must be a minimum area of 5,000 square feet Wriecen consent shall be obtained from the property ower A decailedy pan for the chicken coop shall be required Permiti is required 10 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Richmond: Allows up co 6 chickens No roosters Coops at least 200 feet from all property lines $60 permic fec. Suffolk: Only allowed in rural residential or agriculeural districts 11 CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER IO,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Emporiafropos!: Allows up co 6 or fewer dhideens my! bel leept for mpommerdapeparel in all residentia zening districe accessory 8 singo-family detached residential propertiessubject co chef following requiremens: Ap rmi mnt hs ahusinad frem the Raimalc Contrel cer tet h chichass Owly hem are permitted a ne etlar pey i diewd Redes ied in the cisy Oue! hens mant be hepsi in vred EP - DApP chati i pedaeprek thersughiy aclesl ie 1 - sacs i fan the le iped be -ly acE esed, and dee fram ebri amd ce PAvant parcpale den a de pruprty an Oict hem mE ehmay heve aara e freak foed and WEEE whick prant bet lps i BEC iae - c die se - * the aterses tiee - dents and cher aimah Te E ay hdu i niesd te the rear pd and h be e desur Can Boe (9 feus o the 1 e n peny Snea The that dici lans wot - e - - 3 - - acon - S al i itin d a - a dicke an for et a hi b Sleughtaring - thich - o allle pral Pvaal ties for olletion ef tha ot Vielsters psp - sisss niod ih fme - a apprapriate out 12 CODEAMENDMENT, CHAPTER I0,ANIMALS - CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Update other code references: Change the reference to Animal Warden to Animal Control Officer; Morez appropriately reference female dogs: Request Public Hearing: April 1.2025 Cicy Council Meeting 13 Councilman Saunders asked why only five feet that seems remarkably close to another person's property to him. Chief Hawkins stated that they chose the five-foot requirement based on the current code for sheds, which allows them to be within five feet ofaj property line. He also stated that, however, they do not have firsthand experience with how chickens might impact neighboring properties, particularly in terms of odor. Councilman Saunders stated that first, he does not mind telling y'all that he is totally against it. He also stated that a chicken coop and a shed are not the same thing. He further stated that sheds are typically purchased or well-built, whereas many of these chicken coops will be poorly constructed in backyards. He stated that his next concern is about snakes chickens attract them. He also stated that he could list more issues, but he is not in favor of this. He further stated that we recently passed measures to improve code maintenance, yet now we are considering allowing chickens in back- yards. He stated that to him, that feels counterintuitive. Councilwoman Mercer stated that there were chickens in a certain area, and what happened was that vultures became a major issue. She also stated that they were all over the ground. She further stated that she would not specify the location, but she personally contacted someone to come and assess the situation. She stated that when they arrived, they found that the chickens were scattered everywhere, and the vultures were actively feeding on them. Councilman Threat stated that again, this is just a request to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Mike Allen, Code Enforcement stated that there are at least two residents in the city who have chickens. He also stated that one of them had a considerable number over 20-and lost about half due to a dog. He further stated that he does believe we need a type ofr regulation on this matter. He further stated that regarding the five-foot requirement, many residential lots are small, making it difficult to adhere to a setback of five or even ten feet. He stated that he does think they need an ordinance to address this issue in some form. Councilman Saunders asked why the ordinance cannot simply prohibit it. Mrs. Walkup stated ifthat is the Council's desire. Councilman Threat stated that if that is the Council's decision when the time comes, and you wish to prohibit it, that will be the appropriate time to act. Mr. Johnson stated that if it is the will of the Mayor and Council not to have a public hearing, you can simply decide not to hold one, and the matter will be dismissed tonight. Mrs. Walkup stated that ifyou want to prohibit them, you need to include that in the current code. Councilman Threat stated that he would suggest to the Council tonight that we do not move forward with the public hearing instead, we table this matter and have staff come back with language in the agenda explicitly stating that they prohibit it. Mr. Mike Allen asked about the people who already have chickens, are they going to be grandfathered in. Mr. Johnson stated no. It was the consensus of the council to table this matter and have staff come back with language in the agenda explicitly stating that we prohibit it. PUBLIC COMMENT Councilman Threat asked if anyone wished to bring ai matter before City Council members adhering to the three-minute time limit. Mr. Melvin Hines, 510 Cleveland Street, Emporid, Virginia 23847 stated that he does not have any chicken, and he does not plan to have any except for baking or frying them to eat. He also stated that there are more than just two or three households in the city who already have chickens. He further stated that there is an ongoing bird flu outbreak, and egg prices are high. He stated that he does not eat many eggs, but depending on how the bird flu situation develops, having chickens in Emporia might be beneficial for egg availability. He stated that you can prohibit chickens, but they are already here. He also stated that if the city plans to confiscate and slaughter them, keep him in mind when deciding what to do with the meat. He further stated that he hopes that Council reconsider allowing new chickens in the city. He stated that there is a reason all the other cities mentioned permit them. He also stated that bird flu is ongoing, egg prices are high, and other essential goods may become more expensive as well. He stated that he does not expect to own live chickens--unless egg prices skyrocket, and hei reconsider. He also stated that ifhe ever does, he will ensure they are properly housed and well- kept until it is time to eat them. Mr. Clinton Slate, 103 Beech Tree. Lane, Virginia 23847 stated that he is amazed that we are even having this conversation about chickens. He also stated that he has sat here many times debating zoning ordinances and trying to improve the city. He further stated that the Council, along with others, have mentioned that investors and new residents are coming into the community, sO we need to clean up. He stated that he agrees there are things that need to be cleaned up but adding chicken coops to yards is not part oft that solution. He stated that he knows how people maintain their dogs, and he can only imagine how chickens would bel handled. He also stated that ifwe are talking about tough times, we all experience them. He further stated that he lives on an 11-acre lot, one of the largest within the city limits, and he still would not put chickens on my. property. He stated that ifyou allow people to keep chickens just five feet from a property line, what is next? He also stated that the next time fuel prices rise, should he put a 20,000-gallon fuel tank on his land because fuel is just as important to him as eggs are to them. He further stated that while everyone is advocating for their position, he could stand here and argue with them all night. He stated that there will be no chickens on any property he owns, and if people already have them, he imagines they would need to go because they will become a nuisance. He also stated that allowing chicken coops to be just five feet from a property line is deeply concerning. He further stated that some properties he owns are only fifty feet wide-if one neighbor places a chicken coop five feet from the property line, and another does the same, what kind of situation are we creating. With there being no further comments to come before the City Council, Councilman Threat closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ***CLOSED SESSION*** Councilman Saunders moved that the Emporia City Council convene in Closed Meeting pursuant to Virginia Freedom of Information Act Sections $ 2.2-3711 (A)(7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staffi members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of City Council, and (A)(29) discussion ofthe award ofaj public contract involving the expenditure ofpublic funds, including interviews of bidders or offerors, and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy ofCity Council. Invited to attend the closed meeting, as necessary, are the City Manager and the City Attorney because they are deemed necessary and their presence will aid City Council in its consideration ofthe topics to be discussed, pursuant to Virginia FOIA Section 2.2-3712(F), seconded by Councilman Lilly, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines aye Counciwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye ***1 Regular Session *** Councilman Saunders moved that the meeting be returned to Regular Session. Councilman Lilly seconded the motion, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines aye Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye CERTIFICATION Councilwoman White moved to certify the following: That the Emporia City Council return to Public Meeting and certify by roll call vote that only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered during the closed meeting, seconded by Councilman Saunders, which passed as follows: Councilman Mark Lilly aye Councilman Clifton Threat aye Councilwoman Yolanda G. Hines aye Councilwoman Doris T. White aye Councilman James C. Saunders aye Councilwoman Carol Mercer aye ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the City Council, Councilman Threat adjourned the meeting. Clifton Threat, President ofCouncil oociswilll - Cmc Tessie S. Wilkins, CMC City Clerk