HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-17Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council meeting held at 7:00 p.m., October 3, 2017 in the Council
Chambers of the Town Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W.
In attendance were:
Mayor: Robert N. Glenn, presiding
Councilmen Present: David L. Clark; Gregory C. East; Joseph K. Goodman;
H.M. Kidd; Lane R. Penn; James A. Radcliffe
Administration: Shawn M. Utt, Town Manager
Spencer A. Rygas, Town Attorney
Press: Mike Williams, Pulaski County Patriot
Brooke J. Wood, Southwest Times
Staff Dave Hart, Director Parks & Facilities
Robbie Kiser, Chief P.F.D.
Jackie Morris, Assistant Finance Director
Terri Sutphin, Finance Department
David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council
Gary Roche, Chief P.P.D.
Others Present: Reid Broughton Shannon Collins JoAnn Davidson
R.D. Duncan Debbie Dvorshak Stanley Frost
Barry Hale Liam Hale Carl Hanks
Faye Hanks Ann Jameson Lynn Loftus
John McElroy Lee Pearman Brian Stacy
Mayor Glenn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Councilman Radcliffe led the Pledge of Allegiance and Councilman Clark gave the Invocation.
Following Roll Call, Mayor Glenn asked if there were any modifications to the agenda. There being
none he welcomed both guests and visitors to the meeting.
Next item on the agenda was "Presentation" (Item 7a) from Ms. Linda Davis, Executive Director of
the Pulaski Adult Day Service and Fall Prevention Center. Mr. Utt noted that Ms. Davis had been
scheduled to speak at the request of Mr. Radcliffe, but since she was not present, her presentation
would be rescheduled for a future meeting.
Mayor Glenn then moved to the Public Comment Period (Item 9) and noted that Ms. Lynn Loftus
was registered to speak and asked for her comments. Ms. Loftus said she preferred to give her
comments later in the meeting during the portion dealing with urban chickens.
There being no further public comments, Mayor Glenn moved on to the Consent Agenda and asked
for a motion concerning the minutes of September 5, 2017. Mr. Kidd moved to adopt the minutes of
the September 5, 2017 Council meeting as written. Mr. Penn seconded the motion which was
approved on the following roll call vote:
Page 1 of 8/October 3, 2017
Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye
Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye
Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye
Next item on the agenda was "Project Updates" (Item 7). Mr. Utt briefly referred to the Project
Review Chart noting that there were not many highlights to discuss unless Council had questions.
He asked instead to focus on reviewing the Department Goals.
Mr. East, noting that the Project Review chart had approximately 17 items that were ongoing or past
due, expressed concern that there was a loss of focus on the review chart and some on the 3/6/9
chart as well. Mr. Utt responded that he agreed with Mr. East that the chart was a good tool if it
could be kept up. He added that sometimes expectations were set further than could be attained.
Mr. East replied that in all fairness some of the items were on hold for matters out of the Town's
control. He suggested if a project was shown on hold, that no date should be assigned to it. Instead
a reason for the hold would be given. He felt that would be more accurate since presently it was not
clear to him how the Town was doing in relation to its goals.
Proceeding with the review of the Department Goals, Mr. Utt noted that several new projects had
been added to the list. Regarding installation of Christmas lights in Jackson Park, he said the work
was in progress with completion expected by end of the week or by next week. Mr. Utt reviewed a
diagram of the park noting where lights would be installed on various sized trees for the upcoming
and future holiday seasons.
The next item was the status of the Letter of Intent to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Utt reported
that there had been conference calls with the Corps where the Town had received feedback on what
type of information was needed for the letter of intent concerning upstream flood mitigation and the
creek wall. The letter of intent, he continued was requested for submission to the Corps before
Thanksgiving. He anticipated, in talking with Ms. Rutherford of the Corps, that it would be a four or
five month process for the Town's request to proceed through the Corps office and for the project's
funding priority to be determined.
In reference to wayfinding signage, Mr. Utt reported that the sign for the East Main Street "triangle"
had arrived. Construction of the sign's supports and landscaping would be done after completion of
work at Jackson Park. The sign he emphasized would reflect the current branding effort. By spring,
he anticipated that more wayfinding signage would be installed as part of the Downtown
Revitalization program.
With respect to other goals, Mr. Utt noted that work was continuing with VDOT concerning
landscaping for Route 99 and incorporating that design into the Town's landscaping areas.
Concerning the contract for the Town's website, he noted that Council would consider that item later
in the meeting. In reference to the zoning ordinance Mr. Utt informed Council that the ordinance
should be going to the Planning Commission by December and that work was continuing on the last
of the districts. He hoped that a draft for Council's consideration would be ready by January to
explain the changes made to Council, so that Council could hold a public hearing in February.
Concerning other goals, Mr. Utt noted the Senior Center renovations would be "winter work" with
renovations to the kitchen, the rest of the walls, and the floor. Regarding the "pocket park", Mr.
Rygas was working with family members of the owner to work out an agreement concerning the
property.
Page 2 of 8/October 3, 2017
The skateboard park, he reported, was now incorporated into the Brownsfield Remediation Grant
and that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) appeared likely to approve the change in
scope to allow the Town to use some of the grant funds to construct the basketball court and skate
park.
Mr. Utt asked for Council's input on a public-private partnership plan for Gatewood. He said he
needed a better understanding of what Council sought in developing an RFP for Gatewood for the
many options offered by private businesses. Basically he ventured the desired direction of the RFP
was to open up the directions that were out there.
Mr. Radcliffe told Mr. Utt that he was correct and that Council was asking him to find the best
options for the park to be privately operated or contracted out. He felt the topic should be discussed
at a retreat to see what should be done and what needed to be done first. The key point, he said
was to make it known the park was not for sale. Mr. Utt replied that Gatewood would definitely be a
topic for the retreat. Mr. East added that given past discussions of Council, there were a multitude of
possibilities and that staff appeared to be on the right track.
Mayor Glenn then asked Chief Kiser for comments on the Fire Parade. Chief Kiser said the 70th
Annual Fire Parade would be October 12th at 7:00 p.m. and would proceed from East Main to
Jefferson Avenue. Mayor Glenn encouraged Councilmen who had not ridden in the parade to
consider participating.
Mr. East noted that on the 3/6/9 project chart there had been a lot of activity and several successes.
He emphasized that he would like a way to measure performance to "capture" the efforts made and
to celebrate successes.
Mayor Glenn moved to the next item on the agenda "Urban Agriculture" (Item 12a). Mr. Utt reviewed
Ms. Hair's memo to Council concerning the Planning Commission's recommendation on urban
chickens. In response to the first Commission meeting, staff had drafted an ordinance for a zoning
amendment for urban agriculture to give a measure of control over the proposed uses.
The ordinance limited chickens and bees to the larger lot, less dense residential areas and required
a minimum lot size of one acre. Setbacks and other standards were also included in the ordinance.
Mr. Utt told Council that the Planning Commission had reviewed the ordinance and decided to
recommend that Council not consider chickens in the Town limits. He added that staff's
recommendation, since a zoning amendment was involved, would be to hold public hearings before
the Planning Commission and Town Council to allow the public an official opportunity to comment
and allow for a more complete staff report on the issue.
Concerning the timing of the hearings, Mr. Utt said that the Planning Commission could hear the
case in November and Council at the first meeting in December. Given that a new zoning ordinance
would be before Council in February, Mr. Utt proposed that action or feedback from Council
concerning direction on this issue be incorporated into the new zoning ordinance so that it will be
current upon adoption.
Mr. Penn asked when the Planning Commission heard the issue and did they have this ordinance
for reference. Mr. Utt responded that they had the ordinance to review, but it was not a public
hearing although public comments were made. Mr. Penn then asked why the issue had to go back
to the Planning Commission. Mr. Utt responded because it was a zoning amendment which required
Planning Commission public hearings and a recommendation to Town Council in a public hearing.
Page 3 of 8/October 3, 2017
Discussion then followed concerning when the hearing would be held. During the discussion, Mr. Utt
clarified for Council that any action would be incorporated into the new zoning ordinance and that
the Town would not enforce the current ordinance if an ordinance allowing chickens was approved.
After further discussion, Mayor Glenn called for a motion to move the November Council meeting
from Tuesday, November 7th to Wednesday, November 8th. Mr. Clark made the motion, which was
seconded by Mr. Goodman and carried on the following roll call vote:
Mr. Radcliffe -Aye
Mr. East -Aye
Mr. Clark -Aye
Mr. Goodman -Aye
Mr. Kidd -Aye
Mr. Penn -Aye
Mayor Glenn then called for a motion to have either a meeting separately from or jointly with the
Planning Commission and to set the date for the hearing. Mr. Goodman moved that a joint Town
Council -Planning Commission zoning hearing regarding the urban agriculture proposal be held on
November 8th. Mr. Clark and Mr. Penn seconded the motion which was approved on the following
roll call vote:
Mr.
Radcliffe
-Aye
Mr.
Goodman
-Aye
Mr.
East
-Aye
Mr.
Kidd
-Aye
Mr.
Clark
-Aye
Mr.
Penn
-Aye
Mayor Glenn then called on Ms. Lynn Loftus to present her comments to Council.
Ms. Loftus addressed Council by asserting that a large body of facts overwhelmingly supported
having urban chickens. Outlining some of the positive benefits of chickens, she noted that 500
communities have allowed urban chickens. She asserted that the objections to chickens are not
supported by any data.
Ms. Loftus took issue with some of the objections voiced by Commission members. In addressing
the "Pandora's Box" argument, that allowing chickens would result in requests for many other kinds
of animals to be kept in town, Ms. Loftus said that she had checked with Christiansburg, where
chickens are permitted, she was told there had been two such requests, while in Radford there had
been no requests and in Dublin one.
Regarding the second objection that enforcement would be a waste of time for the compliance
officer, Ms. Loftus asked if enforcement was not their job. With respect to the third objection, the
attraction of predators such as skunks, coyotes and other vermin, Ms. Loftus maintained that bird
feeders, fish ponds, pet food and trash have always attracted these types of pests.
Whether or not an ordinance was or was not approved, she said that many persons having chickens
in the Town would have to get rid of them. She asked if and when the enforcement would begin and
was told it would be put on hold until the issue was decided. She felt in would be in the best interest
of the Town to have the ordinance in place and handle infractions as they occur. Overall Ms. Loftus
concluded, the townspeople supported keeping chickens in the Town. She also asked about families
who have kept chickens for years losing a food source and felt that it reflected badly on the Town
that there was resistance to the idea.
Mr. Kidd noted that he and Mr. Goodman had attended the Virginia Municipal League annual
conference, where he talked to representatives from other communities and learned that chickens
were an ongoing problem in other localities. Mr. Goodman mentioned his concern over a study by
the Center for Disease Control concerning urban chickens, but had no further information on the
Page 4 of 8/October 3, 2017
topic. He hoped that staff would look at the issue and that he would try to reach the contacts he
made to get more information to address any potential health concerns
Mr. Penn asked if a suspension of the current ordinance was necessary. Mr. Utt replied that Code
Enforcement had suspended enforcement. Mr. Goodman felt that until a solution was reached
suspension was inappropriate. Mr. Utt said he recommended suspending enforcement regarding
chickens in the Town limits or the ownership of chickens in the Town limits. Mr. Goodman suggested
since Police Officers had discretion regarding the noise ordinance that the Code Compliance Officer
should be allowed to exercise similar discretion also.
Next item on the agenda was `Urban Archery" (Item 13b.). As a follow-up from the last meeting, Mr.
Utt provided a map of Town -owned properties exceeding one acre in area. While there were several
properties of ten (10) acres owned by the Town, they were given to recreational or public works
uses. The property on the east side of Route 11 (187 acres) across from the landfill/armory
appeared to be the only property that was not used by the Town. The property was not under the
urban archery program since it was out of the Town limits. Instead it would follow normal hunting
regulations if Council chose to formally allow hunting on the site. Mr. Utt noted that there had been
informal agreements in the past allowing citizens to hunt on the property. He added that he had no
concerns with allowing hunting on the 187 acre parcel. The Town properties within the corporate
limits, he stated, did not provide viable urban archery hunting options although there may be areas
on private land that would.
Mr. Goodman said the biggest concern was the deer in Oakwood Cemetery. Mr. Utt said he
recommended to potential hunters to contact the Carriage Hill association which owns the heavily
wooded area immediately adjacent to the cemetery which had appropriate area and terrain for
hunting.
Mr. Utt asked for Council's input concerning the former landfill site, east of Route 11. Mr. Goodman
felt as long as the property was not being used for a government function or recreation it was
acceptable. Mr. Utt reminded Council that the Police Department and Town employees had hunted
on the west side where the landfill was located. Mr. Goodman felt it was not appropriate to draft a
resolution allowing the police and town employees to hunt there, when the public could not. Chief
Roche said regarding Town facilities near the landfill, that he had no security concerns on Town
employees using the site as he would with the general public.
Following discussion of land use and adjacent properties to the west side, Mayor Glenn felt the
issue was that the deer population was not in the areas that could be hunted in. He felt that there
might not be anything that the Council could do about the deer population. Mr. Utt suggested that if
property owners banded together to create an area large enough and gave permission to hunters,
urban archery was still an option for private property.
Mr. Goodman said he had no problem drafting an ordinance allowing people to use the east side of
Route 11, but was concerned about a different set of rules for Town employees and the public for
hunting at the land fill (west side). Mr. Utt said the west side was simply not open to the public and
when it was opened, problems developed with illegal dumping of trash.
Mr. East said that in researching other communities, he found that there were only five archery
incidents since 1960. He felt the guidelines have to be available to let people know what the
expectations are. Mr. Utt suggested using a "first come -first serve" by a permit approach so the
Town could track who was accessing the property.
Page 5 of 8/October 3, 2017
After further discussion, Mr. Utt proposed that staff could prepare a more detailed map showing the
boundaries for potential hunting areas. Mayor Glenn suggested that Council allow staff to bring back
some designated areas and a draft proposal for the Council. Mr. Goodman clarified that this would
be for archery season, not for use of firearms. He also suggested marking the areas designated for
hunting.
There being no further discussion, the next item on the agenda was "Contract for Website Server"
(Item 13a).
Mr. Utt referred Council to a copy of a proposed contract with CivicLive for website services for the
Town website. The contract would cost $15.600 which would include maintenance and hosting for
the first year, then a $4,200 per year annual fee for hosting. He requested feedback from Council
and hoped to get authorization from Council to move forward. The firm, he continued, had an
aggressive schedule and used a template that had worked successfully for several hundred other
websites. They were ready, he said to proceed once Council made the authorization.
Mr. East asked if the Town would have a lot of input regarding the site. Mr. Utt said that the program
would be set up so that each department could have an individual update their particular part of the
site. It would have possibly, online Gatewood reservations, online payment potential, and mobile
app options that would enable the Town to do what it currently could not.
Mr. Penn asked if this was the only proposal received. Mr. Utt explained there originally were five
proposals, two were disqualified due to being late or being incomplete, leaving the three remaining
proposals with prices ranging from $15,000 to $100,000.
Mr. Goodman felt it was important for Council and staff to take an active role in the content portion of
the site. Mr. Utt displayed the Christiansburg website as an example of how the site would appear.
Mr. Goodman asked concerning mobile options if there would be some redundancy on the ticketing
system. Mr. Utt said that two apps could replace the existing systems. Mr. Goodman said the
system looked good to him and felt the price was reasonable and had a content management
system that would make it easier for staff to maintain. He hoped that some add-on programs would
be considered for addition to the system.
Mr. Goodman asked concerning online payment, since there was no discussion in the contract, for
PCIDSS compliance, which is mandatory and would be required from the vendor. The other
question he had was where the site would be hosted. Mr. Utt thought the hosting site was Joplin,
Missouri, but he was not sure and would find out.
Mr. Utt requested that if Council wished to move forward that he needed an authorization from
Council to do so. Mr. Goodman moved that the Town Manager be authorized to sign and execute
the documents for the proposal for the new website from CivicLive. The motion was seconded by
Mr. East and carried on the following roll call vote:
Mr. Radcliffe -Aye
Mr. East -Aye
Mr. Clark -Aye
Mr. Goodman -Aye
Mr. Kidd -Aye
Mr.Penn -Aye
Mayor Glenn then moved to the next item on the agenda `Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collections"
(Item 13b).
Page 6 of 8/October 3, 2017
Mr. Utt referred to a draft agreement in the packet for delinquent tax collections for real estate taxes.
A few month ago he related, the firm of Sands Anderson approached the Finance Department about
offering to assist with collections with the cost of collections charged to the properties. Mr. Utt then
introduced Mr. Reid Broughton concerning the proposal.
Mr. Broughton told Council that he handled delinquent tax collections all over the state. Under their
collection process, the locality is not charged for the service, but a 20% fee is added on to the tax
which is authorized by statute and from which the firm's fee is taken. Normally he continued, the
agency went through a judicial process where the firm goes to court and gets an order of sale.
Mr. Utt said that in talks with staff and Mr. Broughton, it was determined that initially one hundred
(100) properties would be the first trial group to see how things progressed and then move forward
from that point.
Mr. East said there were numerous properties in the Town which were still deeded to a deceased
person. He asked Mr. Broughton what would happen in those cases to get the property to a sale.
Mr. Broughton said there were several options available, usually involving suits to quiet title.
Occasionally with properties that sell at a very low value, the firm will write off its fee and the
municipality will write off their taxes. Municipalities did that to clear up the title to encourage
investment in the property.
Mr. East also asked about selling a property in a blighted community with the stipulation that an
investment of a certain amount be made. Mr. Broughton said it was a possibility that the judge could
agree to that, but it was not something he had done before.
Mr. Goodman voiced his concern that the Town did not want a "slumlord" to pick up properties
cheap and then not maintain them. If a place was sold, he said the Town hoped that the site would
be cleared or developed. Mr. East said that collection would complement code enforcement efforts.
Mr. Broughton said another option was for the Town to acquire the property. If the value of the
property is at a certain level and the taxes or abatement fees reach a certain level, the Town can
acquire the property.
Mr. Goodman asked if the property was sold and failed to bring what was owed, could the Town
take ownership, sell it for a dollar, but with stipulations as to what the buyer was required to do. Mr.
Broughton said that was a possibility.
Mr. Goodman asked if an RFP was required for the legal service. Mr. Broughton said that obtaining
legal counsel did not require an RFP.
Following the discussion, Mayor Glenn opened the floor for a motion. Mr. Goodman moved that the
Town Council authorize the Town Manager to sign and execute an agreement with Sands Anderson
for tax collection purposes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following
roll call vote:
Mr. Radcliffe -Aye
Mr. East -Aye
Mr. Clark -Aye
Mr. Goodman -Aye
Mr. Kidd -Aye
Mr. Penn -Aye
Next item on the agenda was Closed Session (Item 14). Mayor Glenn asked for a motion to enter
Closed Session under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 1 discussion for consideration of employment,
Page 7 of 8/October 3, 2017
assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of
public officers, appointees or employees for two items regarding Retirement Incentive Options and
Town Manager Evaluation and one item under Virginia Code 2.2-3711, (A) 3, discussion for
consideration of the disposition or acquisition of publicly held property concerning a First Street
Parking Easement Request.
Mr. Goodman made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll
call vote:
Mr. Radcliffe
-Aye
Mr. Goodman
-Aye
Mr. East
-Aye
Mr. Kidd
-Aye
Mr. Clark
-Aye
Mr. Penn
-Aye
Council entered the Closed Session at 8:09 p.m.
Council returned from Closed Session at 8:48 p.m.
Mayor Glenn requested a certification motion for Closed Session that Council discussed only those
two items under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 1 and the one item under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 3. The motion
was made by Mr. East, seconded by Mr. Goodman and carried on the following roll call vote:
Mr.
Radcliffe
-Aye
Mr. Goodman
-Aye
Mr.
East
-Aye
Mr. Kidd
-Aye
Mr.
Clark
-Aye
Mr. Penn
-Aye
After a review of future meeting dates, Mayor Glenn asked for a motion to adjourn which was made
by Mr. East, seconded by Mr. Goodman and approved by unanimous y' vote at 8:48 p.
Approved:
( ;I—
RobeRN. Glenn
Mayor
ATTEST:
David N. Quesenberry
Clerk of Council
1
Page 8 of 8/October 3, 2017
1
1
Oct. 1, 2017
Leave the woman alone.
The town should be ashamed of itself and apologize to Lynn Loftus for its excesses. A horrible wrong is
being done here.
You have attempted to anchor this silliness in law. You got the spirit of it all wrong.
The stated purpose of the Town of Pulaski's Residential R-1 District [402.1] is to provide low-density
single-family residential development characterized by large lots and open space normally compatible
with residential surroundings. This is primarily designed to provide and encourage a safe and suitable
environment for family life. She has accomplished this in spades.
That the town is wasting time badgering her is evidence that its penchant for bureaucracy and
superciliousness has exceeded all permissible bounds. There are a thousand solutions better than the
course now taken.
Drive by 1409 English Forest. You should be giving the woman an award, not harassing her with Town
Council and Planning Commission rigmarole.
Look at the planting she has done. Look at the beauty. Look at the attention to detail. If the exterior of
my home were one quarter as attractive as hers, I would drop over in a dead faint.
It is homes like this that build the best elements of our nation. If she is attacked, who will the Town
attack next? It is sad enough to make you cry that the best this town can do is to run her down.
SHAME ON YOU.
If you have not driven by 1409 English Forest, let me show you some eye candy the way Google Earth
sees it:
{fir
Aq
k774w) r.AMA,
h�
Any person, rational or otherwise, walking by her home and mini -farm would be hard pressed to
conjure up how four hens could bring the social order of a R-1 residential district to its crumbling knees.
For folks like myself who live on the poor side of town with lots typically 50'x100', special ordinances are
not apt to be drawn up to protect us. We are at special risk.
Unlike town -permitted dogs (especially the barking or threatening variety) or cats (such as those that
make a meal of local goldfish and song birds), our few hens are harmless beauties. Yet, at any minute
the town may bring its hammer down on us too. How much fun do you think it is to have this threat
hanging over your head, ready to strike at any unsuspecting moment?
Just like the hens on the more elegant side of town, ours are often almost like family. They bring
comfort and pleasure to us. The kids love them. These are videos of my bantams:
Roughly 31,000 folks have seen this video: https://www,youtube.com/watch?v=dKS57URJSb4
And this is my movable chicken house: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmQzkP35DUI
For more on bantams: https://www.youtube.com/results?search query=bantam+chickens
I kept chickens because I like them. Didn't have much use for eggs, so they were given away. I kept the
chickens on display near the road so kids could see them. The little rooster went to a fellow in the
county. Later I gave the hens to a town employee whose wife's chickens were on the losing end of an
encounter with a raccoon.
Backyard pet chickens are a big item. They are tremendously interesting. Go to Tractor Supply and gaze
at their $300+ stylish chicken cottages. The sad point is that we have a wonderful town and a great
agricultural heritage. Such a place is the logical destination for those who want to escape urban and
suburban congestion. These are the responsible young adults and children we desperately need to bring
here.
2
Yet we send them the unambiguous message, "You conform to our nonsense or suffer the
consequences." It is no small point that this freedom lost is an excellent reason to leave the town of
Pulaski or not to come here in the first place. All of this on your aegis. Diversity lost. Pleasure lost.
Economic development lost. A text book lesson on how to be a looser.
At least our modestly oversized tweety birds bring us happiness and a bit of tranquility. It would be
sweet if our elected and administrative officials did half as well. This is a call for the chickens of Pulaski
to unite and bring reason to less able two -legged creatures.
-Ike Jeanes, Pulaski, VA
Addendum
Southwest Times:
https://www.southwesttimes.com/2017/07/r)ulaski-takes-another-look-at-chickens/
httos://www.southwesttimes.com/2017/09/aulaski-planning-commission-votes-no-on-chickens-but-
issue-remains-open/
The Backyard Chicken Site:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/
1