Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-02Minutes of the Town Council meeting held April 18, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building. There were present: John A. Johnston, Mayor Council: James M. Neblett, Lane R. Penn, Jeffrey S. Worrell, Bettye H. Steger, Daniel Talbert, Jr., Joseph L. Weddle, Pauline G. Mitchell, Charles W. Stewart Staff: Gary Elander, Town Manager Dave Quesenberry, Asst. to the Town Manager Randy Eley, Town Attorney Robert Dye, Economic Development Sherry Boyd, Finance Director Patricia Pendergrast, Clerk Others Present: Ken Fleenor Anne Knarr Heather Talbert Lee Carter, Press Tina Ratliff, Press Paul Dellinger, Press Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilman Talbert led the Pledge of Allegiance and Councilman Neblett gave the Invocation. Following roll call, Councilman Weddle requested that an item be added to the agenda under New Business, Resolution 2000-14. Councilman Worrell made a motion to adopt the consent agenda consisting of the minutes of the April 4, 2000 meeting, seconded by Councilman Weddle and carried on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - Aye Daniel Talbert, Jr. - Aye Lane R. Penn - Aye Joseph L. Weddle - Aye Jeffrey S. Worrell - Aye Pauline G. Mitchell - Aye Bettye H. Steger - Aye Charles W. Stewart, Jr. - Aye Councilman Weddle advised that Ms. Boyd, Finance Director was present to deliver a report to Council. Ms. Boyd summarized the financial report and fielded questions from Council. She advised that revenue collections, including personal property taxes and business licenses are at expected budgeted levels as of 3/31/2000, and expenditures are at 69% for the year. She advised that she is preparing to transfer funds into an investment pool to receive higher interest rates. Next, Councilman Neblett reported that progress is being made on Draper Mountain and Case Knife Road water projects. Councilman Penn advised that a citizen has offered to donate a parcel of land at Ridge Avenue and Baywood Street to the Town to be used as green space for a park. After discussion, Councilman Worrell made a motion to refer this proposal to the Public Operations Committee for study, seconded by Councilman Neblett and carried on voice vote. Councilwoman Steger advised that Ordinance Committee has not met because of budget schedules, but will be meeting soon. Councilman Stewart advised that Planning Commission met April 10, 2000 and conducted a work session and two public hearings. He advised that Commission approved both requests from the Town for conditional use to construct a water booster pump station at 800 S. Washington Ave. in connection with the South Route 11 water project and at 1400 Case Knife Road in connection with the Case Knife Road project. A Public Hearing is scheduled for May 2, 2000 to discuss these requests. Councilman Stewart advised that there is a request to rezone a parcel of land at 1105 Memorial Drive from R-1 to R-0, Conditional zoning, to locate a realty office at the site. Mr. Stewart made a motion to refer this request to Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Penn and carried on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - Aye Daniel Talbert, Jr. - Aye Lane R. Penn - Aye Joseph L. Weddle - Aye Jeffrey S. Worrell - Aye Pauline G. Mitchell - Aye Bettye H. Steger - Aye Charles W. Stewart, Jr. - Aye Mayor Johnston advised that Council needs to decide whether to reschedule the May 2 Council meeting as it is an election day or hold it as regularly scheduled. After discussion, Councilman Penn made a motion to cancel the Council meeting scheduled for May 2, 2000 and to re-advertise the public hearing scheduled for May 2 and reschedule it for May 16, 2000, seconded by Councilman Weddle and failed on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - Aye Daniel Talbert, Jr. - No Lane R. Penn - Aye Joseph L. Weddle - Aye Jeffrey S. Worrell - No Pauline G. Mitchell - No Bettye H. Steger - Aye Charles W. Stewart, Jr. - No Mayor Johnston – No Mr. Eley, Town Attorney, gave a projects update to Council. Councilman Stewart inquired whether the Town Attorney had made a decision on the question Mr. Stewart had posed regarding the vote held November 2, 1999 regarding Resolution 99-40? Mr. Eley advised that after extensive research, he still has no concrete answers. He opined that due to lack of definitive information, Council might wish to rescind the vote held on November 2, 1999, and vote again on whether the Town Attorney should prepare an option agreement for Loving Field. Councilman Stewart inquired why the vote should be taken again when, in his opinion, it failed the first time. Mr. Eley replied that he agreed with the point that’s been raised and that the last action taken is in doubt as to its validity and it is up to Council to decide whether to vote again on this issue. Councilwoman Mitchell stated that she hoped everyone in Council would give this a lot of thought when they vote and that they must remember that this decision will take the schools out of the Town. Mayor Johnston asked Mrs. Mitchell to hold her comments until time for that subject. Mr. Eley advised that he had finished his report. Mr. Elander, Town Manager, presented Council with the proposed 2000-2001 budget. He reviewed the high points and advised that the first two budget meetings will be Monday, April 24 and Thursday, April 27 at 7:00 a.m. Next, Mr. Elander advised that Council had a revised copy of the Drop Site regulations to review. He summarized some changes he had made. Councilman Stewart opined that the revised copy does not reflect the changes requested by Council at the last meeting regarding permitting administration to set a list of allowable and non-allowable recyclables and non-recyclables and prohibited items. After discussion, Councilman Stewart made a motion to table the vote on drop site regulations for further changes, seconded by Councilwoman Steger and carried on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - Aye Daniel Talbert, Jr. - Aye Lane R. Penn - Aye Joseph L. Weddle - Aye Jeffrey S. Worrell - No Pauline G. Mitchell - Aye Bettye H. Steger - Aye Charles W. Stewart, Jr. - Aye Next, Mr. Elander summarized the revised rates for proposed insurance with the New River Valley Benefits Consortium. He advised that the revised proposal is 3% lower than the original proposal. Under New Business, Council discussed the 2000 Street Paving bids. The low bidder was APAC of Virginia in the amount of $231,738.75. Staff recommendation is to award the contract to APAC. Councilwoman Steger made a motion to award the street paving contract to APAC of Virginia, seconded by Councilman Neblett and carried on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - Aye Daniel Talbert, Jr. - Aye Lane R. Penn - Aye Joseph L. Weddle - Aye Jeffrey S. Worrell - Aye Pauline G. Mitchell - Aye Bettye H. Steger - Aye Charles W. Stewart, Jr. - Aye Next item under new business was Resolution 2000-14, authorizing the Town Attorney to prepare an option agreement for Loving Field property. Councilman Weddle encouraged Council to vote on this issue tonight and get it behind them. Mr. Eley advised that Resolution 2000-14 expresses more clearly than the first Resolution, that the Town Attorney is authorized to prepare an option agreement with the Pulaski County School Board to purchase an estimated 50 acres of the Town’s Loving Field properties for the purpose of constructing elementary and middle schools; bring the contract back to Council for discussion, and repeals and/or supplants any prior action taken by Council including Resolution 99-40. Councilman Stewart stated “ I object to the manner in which this Resolution is being introduced. Laying it on the Council table two minutes before the meeting, is in my opinion, a stealth attempt to prevent public comment by preventing the local media from notifying the public that this controversial matter will be before Council”. He advised that “The Southwest Times has asked for position papers from the candidates for Mayor and others, and if we vote on this matter tonight, we will have rendered those questions moot”. He then made a motion “to table this thing until the public has had adequate notice of it to respond if they so wish”, seconded by Councilwoman Mitchell and failed on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - No Daniel Talbert, Jr. - No Lane R. Penn - No Joseph L. Weddle - No Jeffrey S. Worrell - No Pauline G. Mitchell - Aye Bettye H. Steger - Aye Charles W. Stewart, Jr. - Aye Councilman Stewart advised that his reasons for tabling this issue were: 1. The Town will be reduced to a single in-Town school. It will be bad for our image and make it tough for us to attract young middle class families. 2. Sewer and water development to the area will move middle class housing to the County. Town housing will decay as the middle class citizens rotate to the school areas. 3. We have dangerous roads that must be improved and sewers built and that’s very costly. 4. This will greatly increase busing. 5. The Town has negotiated for virtually no concessions from the County. Boundary adjustments should have been put on the table in this matter. 6. He stated that it could be argued that we can annex in the future, but annexation is very costly, very long, it’s very bitter and would cost the Town $500,000 to 1 million dollars to do that in a matter of 3 years in order to recover the schools and the loss of the revenue that would be constituted. Mayor Johnston stated “It seems to me that we have negotiated with the County. We’ve talked with the people. We’ve talked with the School Board. A number of meetings have been had. This is not a thing that has just come up. In terms of element of surprise, I think you saw the Resolution – the last one and this one is basically no change, but I need to remind Council that, in terms of school buildings and locations – that doesn’t belong to us. That belongs to Pulaski County School Board and the Board of Supervisors. Now, we can encourage them and there’s no one sitting on this Council today who would not like to have more schools in the Town of Pulaski. But, it’s not our decision. I feel like the research that has been done by the School Board and the Board of Supervisors in terms of all possible sites, has been lengthy, has been good and I’m not in a position as a member of this jurisdiction, to comment on those things. I feel like we’re barking up the wrong tree”. Councilman Stewart replied “Well, I’m not attempting to argue educational matters, but I am attempting to argue what the Town can do with its own land. That certainly is our prerogative”. Councilwoman Mitchell stated “I represent the Town of Pulaski. I’m sitting on the Town Council for the Town of Pulaski. We own this land. It belongs to the Town of Pulaski. We have absolute control whether we give it to the County or not. Now the County may have control of the schools – where they put them. But, we have the land that they want. There isn’t a great deal of land in Pulaski County that is desirable for what they want to build. I say that if we are going to turn this land over to them, we should have in the contract, that we can negotiate with them in 3 years to take this into the Town of Pulaski. Because it’s our land and this should be in the contract - that we still have the schools within the Town of Pulaski. We’re losing revenue when these people move out of Town and they will go toward the schools. And I say either turn it down and let them look somewhere else if they think they can find it in the County or we have the contract that we can annex within three years. Now, that’s my desire”. Councilman Weddle stated “First of all, we’re not turning the property over – we’re selling it to the County. They would have liked for us to have turned it over to them, but we’re selling it to them. Second, boundary adjustment was brought up in the negotiations. It’s like the Mayor said, they can put it anywhere they want to. They don’t have to put it inside the Town. They don’t have to put it near the Town. If we turn down this option, they may decide to put it somewhere completely away from the Town. Now, I agree the majority of the people – it’s an economic decision – the majority of the people that are going to be served are inside the Town, so there is a busing issue there, but they really have a right to put it wherever they want to”. Councilman Worrell stated “I think there’s been a spin put on this issue. In my opinion, it’s inaccurate and I’m not at all comfortable with it. I am totally in favor of having the school in town as I’m sure every member of this Council is. I believe the School Board would prefer to have it in town. I don’t know the criteria for selecting a new school site. That is not the job of Council - that is up to the School Board. For whatever reasons, I think they have been unable to find a suitable site in the Town for this school. Now if we cannot find a site in town for this school, to me the obvious, second best choice would be town property out in the county. We have a large sports complex at that site. It’s been there a long time and starting to show a lot of wear and tear. We have a vandalism problem out there. I think if it were to be developed, it would offer us an opportunity to enhance that complex. This Council voted on this issue last fall and at that time it was the will of the majority of this Council to extend an option to the County for this property. I do not think we’re going to entice the County to come back to a site in town by going back on our word now. What we will do, I think, is force them onto another site that can cost them two or three times what this one will. And of course, as Town citizens living in the County we will have to pay for it”. Councilman Neblett stated that “there are formulas that School Board’s have to adhere to in order to build these schools. These formulas have to be met in order to be functional”. Councilman Stewart inquired “Do any of those specify Loving Field as the site?” Councilman Neblett replied “No, I’m not saying that. I’m talking about space primarily”. Councilman Stewart stated “I still think that we’re on the wrong legal side here, because this, the sale of this land here, requires an ordinance, not a resolution”. Attorney Eley stated that “this resolution is not authorizing the sale. It’s authorizing the Attorney to prepare an agreement. It’s not authorizing a sale”. Councilman Weddle made a motion to adopt Resolution 2000-14, seconded by Councilman Worrell. Councilman Penn advised Council that he had abstained from voting on the original Resolution to avoid the appearance of a conflict because he works for the Pulaski County School Board. In the meantime, he has received three legal opinions advising him that he can discuss and vote on this issue as long as he announces in a public forum, such as this, that he is an employee of the Pulaski County School Board and that he is receiving no personal financial gain from this transaction. Councilman Weddle’s motion to adopt Resolution 2000-14, seconded by Councilman Worrell then passed on the following recorded vote: James M. Neblett - Aye Daniel Talbert, Jr. - Aye Lane R. Penn - Aye Joseph L. Weddle - Aye Jeffrey S. Worrell - Aye Pauline G. Mitchell - No Bettye H. Steger - Aye Charles W. Stewart, Jr. - No At 6:40 p.m., there being no further business, Councilman Penn made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilman Neblett and carried.