Laserfiche WebLink
October 28, 2025 <br /> <br />Recommended Action: <br /> <br /> Adoption of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Next Steps Following Council Action: <br /> <br /> The Finance Department will make the appropriate budget adjustments. <br /> <br />“ORDINANCE ACCEPTING STEP-VA FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,440 FROM <br />THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL <br />SERVICES AND APPROPRIATING SAID AMOUNT IN THE FY 2026 BEHAVIORAL <br />HEALTHCARE SERVICE FUND FOR USE BY BHS TO PROVIDE SAME DAY <br />ACCESS TO SERVICES, CASE MANAGEMENT, AND PSYCHIATRIC <br />REHABILITATION. <br />” <br /> <br />25 - 316 - Adoption of a resolution authorizing employees of the City to analyze the <br />specifics, advantages and disadvantages, and long and short-term costs of <br />proposals submitted under the Public-Private Education Facilities and <br />Infrastructure Act of 2002. <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br /> The City received an unsolicited proposal from Ripley Heatwole Company, MEB, <br />and their associated team members for the construction of a new City Hall and garage on <br />the former site of the County Street Garage. <br /> <br /> On September 23, 2025 the City issued a preliminary acceptance of the proposal <br />for the purposes of publication and conceptual-phase consideration. <br /> <br /> In accordance with the City’s PPEA Guidelines, the City subsequently advertised <br />the receipt of the unsolicited proposal and issued an invitation to submit competing <br />proposals. As specified in the notice, any competing proposals must be submitted no <br />later than 4:30 P.M. on December 2, 2025. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br /> The Guidelines require that the City perform an analysis regarding the specifics, <br />advantages and disadvantages, and long and short-term costs of the proposals received. <br /> <br /> The analysis may be performed solely by qualified third-party professionals not <br />employed by the City. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, if approved by City Council, the analysis may be performed by City <br />staff, which may be assisted by qualified third-party professionals. <br /> <br /> The City Manager has determined that, given that the subject matter of the <br />unsolicited proposal and any additional proposals received will address the type of City <br />facilities that staff currently operates and with which staff is intimately familiar, staff should <br />perform the review with the assistance of qualified third-party professionals. <br /> <br /> The resolution presented for City Council consideration is necessary to authorize <br />City staff to perform the required analysis. <br /> <br />Financial Impact: <br /> <br /> <br /> N/A <br /> <br />Recommended Action: <br /> <br /> Adoption of the resolution. <br /> <br />Next Steps Following Council Action: <br /> <br /> After the deadline for submission of any competing proposals, staff (with the <br />assistance of qualified third-party professionals) will review and analyze the unsolicited <br />proposal and any competing proposals in accordance with the PPEA Guidelines. <br /> <br />“RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY TO ANALYZE THE <br />SPECIFICS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, AND LONG AND SHORT- <br />TERM COSTS OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED UNDER THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE <br />EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002. <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, <br />the City received an unsolicited proposal for the construction of a new <br />City Hall and garage on the former site of the County Street Garage; and <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />