Virginia Beach City Council Retreat Summary - August 27, 2025

The Virginia Beach City Council convened on August 27, 2025, for the second day of its annual retreat. The session began with a recap of the previous day's discussions on the Innovation to Aviation (ITA) area, focus areas, and success factors for the next 24 months. The remainder of the day was dedicated to governance topics, including council pay, council policies, the legislative package, and street naming. The meeting adjourned around 11:30 AM.

Recap of Previous Day

• Staff summarized the previous day's direction: strong enthusiasm for advancing sports tourism (including a feasibility study), continued exploration of innovation park expansion, and maintaining the current path for LEDA. Themes included public input, flood protection, and public-private partnerships.
• Council used dot-voting (non-binding) to prioritize the next 24-month focus areas. The top-ranked item was economic development, jobs, workforce development, and tourism. Next were affordable/workforce housing and homelessness, then public safety, followed by flooding, taxes, and government affordability. Other priorities included mobility/transit, infrastructure, education, and resident engagement.
• Staff will compile input, return in about a month with a draft focused action plan, and aim for adoption in late November.

Council Pay Discussion

• Councilmember Amelia Rouse introduced the topic. Staff (Dana) presented information: state law changed in 2024, allowing council to adopt salaries up to $56,000 for mayor and $52,000 for members (current: $30,000 and $28,000, unchanged since 2005). A public hearing is required at least four months before November 2026, with an effective date of July 1, 2027. An inflation factor could be included.
• Councilmembers shared positions:
  • Councilmember Hutchison (supporter): Argued the stipend is not enough for those who need it; it should be fairer to enable broader participation. He stated he would donate any increase to charity.
  • Councilmember Stacy (opponent): Said the stipend is for expenses; raising it could attract people motivated by money rather than public service.
  • Councilmember Wirth (mixed): Recognized the need for diverse representation but worried about increased spending. She noted she is in a position to serve but others may not be.
  • Councilmember Michael (mixed): Emphasized public service is a privilege but noted the risk of a council composed only of multimillionaires, retired people, or those with flexible schedules. He supported legislative aides as an alternative.
  • Councilmember Barbara (leaning no): Preferred just adding an inflation factor rather than a large increase.
  • Councilmember Green (supporter): Spoke as a working-class representative with three jobs; a pay increase would allow people like him to serve more effectively.
  • Councilmember Josh (mixed): Noted single-member districts increase workload; he would not want the increase to apply to himself if effective after the next election.
  • Councilmember Rouse (supporter): As a retired person on a fixed income, she supported the increase to help future councils be more representative.
  • Councilmember Rosemary (leaning supportive): Asked staff to calculate what the salary would be with 20 years of inflation (staff replied $46,000). She noted that in some districts, the candidate pool is small because potential candidates cannot afford to serve.
  • Mayor (opponent): Strongly opposed any increase for himself, citing the “optics” during tough economic times and the need to prioritize police and fire salaries. He called it “the wrong time” but agreed to have staff gather background information for future discussion.
• Outcome: The council did not vote. They directed staff (Patrick) to compile information on salaries in other cities and practices for future consideration. No timeline was set.

Council Policies Discussion

• Council discussed procedures, including the desire for an updated policy book. The city clerk provided that an updated book was sent in January 2024 and is available online.
• Councilmember Michael suggested a three-minute time limit for council comments during meetings to allow all members equal opportunity. This was accepted by the mayor on a trial basis, with the mayor giving a wrap-up warning after three minutes.
• The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) limit of no more than two council members discussing city business privately was clarified as state law, not council policy.

Legislative Package Discussion

• Vice Mayor Rosemary proposed several items:
  1. Blue Line Protection: Request special legislation from the General Assembly requiring a supermajority to rezone land south of the “blue line” (agricultural area). Some council members expressed skepticism, noting future councils could override. Rosemary argued legislative codification would be stronger.
  2. Marine Stranding Costs: Request the state to share the cost of marine animal stranding responses (whales, turtles) that currently fall entirely on Virginia Beach taxpayers. Councilmember Michael noted the program extends beyond Virginia’s borders. Staff was directed to calculate costs.
  3. E-bike Regulation: Request state action to regulate e-bikes, which are currently treated like bicycles. Councilmembers cited safety concerns on boardwalks and trails. Staff noted an education and enforcement campaign is underway, but council may seek legislative options.
  4. Police Powers: Support the mayor’s effort to restore law enforcement tools (e.g., sovereign immunity) that were removed after the George Floyd protests. The mayor stated he is reconvening the 757 mayors to approach the General Assembly.
• Councilmember Wirth requested inclusion of lottery proceeds for school construction.
• Councilmember Stacy reiterated support for e-bike regulation and noted the proliferation of high-speed e-bikes.
• Councilmember Barbara requested a legislative carve-out for the Back Bay Marsh Restoration Project (permit issue due to protected SAV). Staff will include.
• Councilmember Henley raised concerns about federal funding cuts (SNAP, Medicaid, FEMA) that could shift costs to localities. Staff responded that administrative fees are expected to rise, and federal uncertainty is a challenge.
• Councilmember Josh proposed a vape tax, but staff explained administrative complexity and low revenue potential. He requested a study to explore implementation.
• Vice Mayor Rosemary also mentioned the need to revisit utility markings (spray paint lines) on resort area pavers. Staff reported ongoing conversations with utilities about “spot marking” as a compromise.
• Councilmember Michael supported keeping pressure on utilities via the legislative package.
• Councilmember Schumann (noted via earlier discussion) wanted transportation, flooding, and unfunded mandates included.
• Outcome: Staff (City Attorney's office) will compile all suggestions into a draft legislative package for council consideration.

Street Naming Policy

• Councilmember Michael raised concern about the lack of criteria for honorary street naming. Three recent honorary namings lacked consistent process. He requested staff research best practices from other cities and propose guidelines (eligibility, community impact, avoiding divisive figures, duration, etc.).
• Vice Mayor Rosemary supported developing a process to avoid proliferation.
• Mayor agreed, noting that some namings are permanent street renames while others are honorary markers. Staff will research and bring recommendations.

Closing Remarks

Councilmembers shared reflections and key takeaways to communicate to constituents. Common themes included:

• Productive, respectful dialogue even with disagreements.
• Clarity on priorities: economic development, housing, public safety, flooding.
• Commitment to representing all districts and working collaboratively.
• Appreciation for staff and the city’s quality of life.
• The retreat strengthened the council’s ability to move forward together.

The meeting was adjourned with thanks to the facilitator and staff.