HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-17Minutes of the Town Council Work Session held at 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 19, 2017 in the
Council Chambers of the Town Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W.
In attendance were:
Vice -Mayor: Gregory C. East, presiding
Councilmen Present: David L. Clark; Joseph K. Goodman; H.M. Kidd;
Lane R. Penn; James A. Radcliffe
Councilmen Absent: Mayor Nick Glenn
Administration: Shawn M. Utt, Town Manager
Nichole L. Hair, Deputy Town Manager
Spencer Rygas, Town Attorney
Press: Mike Williams, P.C. Patriot
Brooke J. Wood, Southwest Times
Staff: Robbie Kiser, P.F.D.
Bill Pedigo, Town Engineer
David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council
Rebecca Reece, Finance Director
Gary Roche, P.P.D.
Others Present: Chelsea Blount Harry Collins Ted Hamb
Cathy Hanks John McElroy Clark Payne
Rebecca Rutherford
Vice -Mayor East called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Following roll call, Vice -Mayor East called for a motion to modify the agenda to add Item 12b
regarding a fire engine. Mr. Clark moved to add the agenda item. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Kidd 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
After welcoming guests to the meeting, Vice -Mayor East asked for a motion to approve the Consent
Agenda for the minutes of August 15, 2017. Mr. Goodman moved that the minutes of August 15,
2017 be adopted as presented. His motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved by unanimous
voice vote.
There being no public hearings, the next item on the agenda was a presentation (Item 7a)
concerning "Peak Creek Repair Options and Opportunities" from the Friends of Peak Creek and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Utt noted that representatives from the Friends of Peak Creek, the New River Conservancy as
well at two representatives from the Corps of Engineers -Huntington Office were present to discuss
with Council options regarding the creek. He said that the representatives had spent most of the day
Page 1 of 9/September 19, 2017
2
talking with Mr. Pedigo and looking at the channel and it appeared there were bigger opportunities
for the Town, primarily focusing on flood mitigation, which would help the walls.
Ms. Rebecca Rutherford, Chief of Environmental Analysis, Huntington District of the Corps of
Engineers began her presentation with Mr. Ted Hamb, Chief of the Water Management Section also
of the Huntington District Office of the Corps and Ms. Chelsea Blount of the New River
Conservancy.
Ms. Rutherford said for the Corps to become involved with town and community projects, the agency
must have both authorization to undertake a study and appropriations to fund the project. A project
usually consisted of four phases: feasibility; preconstruction/engineering & design: construction; and
operation and maintenance.
Ms. Rutherford mentioned she had discussed with Mr. Pedigo the Continuing Authorities Program
(CAP) which already gave the authority needed for the Corp's participation in a town project. Other
programs, Planning Assistance to States (PAS) and Watershed Planning could offer technical
assistance, planning and other aid depending on the need of the local sponsor.
Ms. Rutherford then briefly described to Town Council four project areas under the CAP which
included: assistance with flood damage reduction; emergency streambank protection; aquatic
ecosystem restoration and ecosystem restoration at Federal projects.
CAP programs, she continued were divided into a feasibility (study phase) and design and
implementation phase. The feasibility element focused on determining if there was a federal interest
involved to warrant federal funding of the project. Federal funds covered the first $100,000 cost of
the study. Costs falling under this limit would be fully covered by federal funds. If costs exceeded
$100,000, the study was cost shared with the local sponsor on a 50/50 basis for that portion of the
cost in excess of $100,000. In-kind services were also accepted as a match toward costs exceeding
the $100,000 threshold.
After the study, the design and implementation phase follows with a search for funding to implement
the project. Cost sharing for implementation was on a 65 federal/35 non-federal basis. In-kind
services and real estate could count as part of the local match. The value of in-kind contributions,
she added were determined at the start of the project.
Ms. Rutherford told Council about their tour of the creek wall and the issues of flooding and wall
condition that she understood were of concern. She mentioned contacts with the Corps Office in
Norfolk and with Virginia DEQ concerning the Corps meeting with Council.
Mr. Utt added that staff had looked more at diversion of floodwaters to slow down potential flooding
Downtown. He understood that the Town could do the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) and
the Planning Assistance to States. (PAS). Ms. Rutherford said that was correct and that the Town
could prepare a letter indicating its interest in both types of projects.
The initial step Mr. Utt said would involve planning and study with no construction. Ms. Rutherford
estimated the study phase would be 18-24 months from the Federal interest of determination to the
end of the study.
Vice -Mayor East said Council was looking for a tiered response on how to address the issues based
on time and prioritize what could be done now and what would need to be done a year or two ahead
to keep progressing forward.
Page 2 of 9/September 19, 2017
3
Mr. Hamb asked if he was referring to Corps involvement or resolving the flooding. Vice -Mayor East
clarified his response and said that the Town needed to determine a starting point, beginning with
more easily reached goals and what steps needed to be done for the future.
Ms. Blount of the New River Conservancy felt that the Town was already in the "now" stage,
mentioning the Conservancy's work during the past year with Friends of Peak Creek (FOPC) and
the Town. She felt that continuing small projects, such as the Valley Branch effort, during the larger
process would be the course to pursue.
As for other flooding concerns, she felt that there was too much focus on the wall and that the wall
would not help with the flooding because the Town was built in a floodplain. She suggested that
there would be no change unless there was diversion or capture of water upstream before it got to
the Town.
Regarding dredging, Mr. Hamb said from a hydraulic perspective, he felt dredging would be a waste
of money because the slope or gradient of the stream was so flat that it would refill with material
when a major storm occurred. He noted there was a lot of rock in the stream already and a little
sediment above the dam, but otherwise the creek was down to rock and that was where the stream
had stabilized. What was needed, he suggested was other areas for storage out of the stream which
would save on permitting and be more economical. A study was needed to determine the volume as
well as the timing of the flows from contributing streams and storm water runoff.
The first priority Mr. Hamb suggested was a Letter of Intent to the Corps looking at possible "rain
garden" areas to reduce runoff and then try to get the Corps in to do some work. Due to the data
already collected by the Town, Mr. Hamb felt the Corps could do a cursory review of how much area
was needed.
Mr. Goodman mentioned the desire to eliminate the "islands" in the creek as well as the plants
growing out of the wall. Mr. Hamb responded that the islands were good for fish habitat and stream
life. He recommended removal of the trees in the wall but added that trees outside the wall should
be left to provide cooling for the stream and the fish. The presence of trout in Peak Creek, he felt,
indicated the water quality was quite good. Removal of the "islands", he said, even in a flood event
would not result in enough reduction of volume compared to the reduction in volume needed to
remediate the situation. In addition even with removal, the "islands" would return after a major event
or in only a few years.
Because of its mass and size, Mr. Hamb noted he did not see a lot of issues with the wall, except for
weathering. It seems stable he added, but it would need inspection by a geotechnical engineer.
Mr. Goodman asked if the Town would be allowed to repair the wall where portions at the top had
fallen into the creek. Ms. Rutherford ventured that from the regulatory standpoint, the town should
be able to repair the top of the wall provided the repair was not done in the stream or under other
conditions.
Mr. Clark asked for clarification as to what determined "in the stream". Ms. Rutherford felt that
generally, the Corps has jurisdiction at the ordinary high water mark, which was below a set distance
up the side of the streambank. She recommended that the Corps of Engineers regulatory agency
office at Norfolk be consulted. If equipment was placed in the stream then DEQ should also be
contacted.
Page 3 of 9/September 19, 2017
El
Mr. East said he understood that overall mitigation would include the rock wall issue and the flood
mitigation issue. Mr. Goodman said he thought that the Town would need to work with the Corps
civil agency on flood mitigation and develop a plan, then reach out to the regulatory side for approval
and required permits. Mr. Utt ventured that the civil agency of the Corps could assist with getting a
plan of action together.
Dr. McElroy asked what the problem was having equipment in the stream. Ms. Rutherford replied
that permits may be required under the Clean Water Act as well as state permits for dredging and
possible testing for metals. Mr. Utt asked Mr. Pedigo if the required permits were covered under a
joint permit process. Mr. Pedigo said they were and that a combined permit would be for DEQ, the
Army Corps, and Virginia Inland Game and Fisheries.
Dr. McElroy asked what would be damaged by having equipment in the creek. Ms. Rutherford said
that the level of review depended upon the scale of the material removal and its impact. Mr.
Goodman ventured that part of the concern was sediment release increasing the turbidity of the
water. Ms. Rutherford added that water quality and fish were also concerns. Mr. Hamb said that
another concern was that problems could be "pushed" downstream.
Mr. Payne asked if he understood correctly that the physical construction of the wall was not seen
as a significant problem as compared to the problem of how extra water gets into the channel. He
also asked if was there enough distribution of the raised water level to slow down the water
spreading into the Downtown. Mr. Hamb responded that the walled channel simply was not wide
enough and that the wall from the outside appeared stable.
Mr. Payne asked if the most important action needed was to divert the water pre- and post -channel.
Mr. Hamb said it depended upon the flow from other tributaries which would be examined by the
study. Depending upon the volume he added, there may not be enough storage area for a big flood
only smaller nuisance floods.
After further discussion, Vice -Chairman East asked the Town Manager to prepare a plan, starting
with a Letter of Intent, for review for the steps needed and a time frame possibly for the 30/60/90 list
so progress could be monitored. Regarding the creek wall, the immediate concerns over obvious
failures of the structure could be looked at and prioritized. Mr. Utt said he would work on the issue.
Vice -Chairman East thanked Ms. Rutherford, Mr. Hamb and Ms. Blount for their assistance.
The next item for consideration was Brownfield Remediation (Item 8a.).
Mr. Utt reported that the initial location for the Peak Creek Promenade Plan recreation area on West
Main Street had proven unsatisfactory. Discussions however had turned to utilizing the former Rice
Property on First Street, N.E. The Brownfield Grant required the remediation of the First Street site
by removal of soil down to a level of two feet. Another option would be to cap the site with concrete
or pavement for a basketball court or skateboard park. Draper Aden had made inquiries concerning
making a change of scope using capping and received a positive response.
Mr. Utt requested action from Council that would allow him to request that DEQ allow a scope
change to revise the mitigation efforts to include a skateboard park, basketball court, and other
related areas. He also told Council that the Town may be able to fund the project with grant money
and that there were funds budgeted ($80.000-$100,000) that could be used for the skateboard park.
Page 4 of 9/September 19, 2017
5
Vice -Mayor East asked how this change fitted into the original plan. Mr. Utt said originally Draper
Aden had proposed a Farmer's Market at the office site on First Street and felt that if a positive use
for the property were found it would be a win for everybody.
Vice -Mayor East then asked for a motion from Council to amend the remediation grant to allow a
basketball court, parking area, and skate board park for the Rice property on First Street, N.E. The
motion was made by Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Penn 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 Jackson Park Holiday Lighting Plan update (Item 8b.)
Mr. Utt reviewed the current progress. Because the current breaker box was at capacity, adding a
side panel breaker box would be needed to accommodate the additional lighting which would use
LED lights to reduce power consumption. The goal, he added was to get as much done as possible
now and then make a strong effort after Pulaskifest.
A short discussion ensued concerning management and fund raising for the display. Vice -Mayor
East requested that a map be prepared showing the location of the lighting. Mr. Utt said a map of
the park was available and could be updated.
The next item reviewed by Council was "Debrief on Gatewood" (Item 8c.).
Council discussed several issues concerning their visit to Gatewood Reservoir at their last work
session.
In response to criticism on social media concerning the visit, Mr. Kidd said that the meeting was to
consider improvements to Gatewood and the critics should "get over it".
Mr. Radcliffe felt the first thing to do was to stop the park from losing money and explore what could
be done at the park to get citizens to come. The issue, he suggested, should be addressed
aggressively including considering privatization to stop losing money. He hoped that the Town could
at least break even and provide a good quality experience for the citizens.
Mr. Goodman commented that generally parks lose money with the issue at Gatewood being that
the loss was very large. He felt revenues would improve if there were more things for campers to do
such as: allowing swimming, developing swimming areas; having cabins; adding rustic campsites
and additional parking. He added that a balance would have to be struck between what is there now
and what the park needed to be.
Mr. Radcliffe agreed saying that he wanted to maintain the quiet nature of the park, but he hoped
the park could at least break even and a determination made where the losses were occurring. He
emphasized that the park was not for sale or to be shut down. He requested the Town Manager to
provide data on how much it cost to open the park, what money was made in operations; and what
the losses would be at closing.
Vice -Mayor East noted that the recent loss for the park was $153,000 which he felt was hard to
justify. He suggested that some kind of public-private partnership to operate the park be considered.
He also noted of the amount budgeted ($227,000) $60,000 went to maintenance, the rest was
Page 5 of 9/September 19, 2017
no
primarily salaries, while the advertising budget was $1,500. He said that there were not good
numbers on what the occupancy rates were and how more advertising would result in more income.
Mr. Kidd suggested that a survey be given to campers and included in utility bills asking citizens
what the Town could do to make Gatewood better. He felt persons who camped frequently at the
park would be the best source of information.
Vice -Mayor East noted that according to Mr. Hart, a lot of campers at Gatewood were not from the
Town. Mr. Utt said they were many from surrounding counties and that the data from a past survey
of campers might be available to find out where they were from.
Mr. Goodman felt that the Town had not used technology enough, especially concerning point of
sale systems; use of credit cards; inventory tracking and online reservations, which resulted in
revenue losses. Use of the technology could be more convenient for the customer, give
management information on sales, and improve revenue.
Vice -Mayor East said he envisioned a system more like Randolph Park where concessions were
contracted out to vendors experienced with such services. He suggested that going out for an RFP
might indicate who would be interested operating the park. A private organization could come in,
evaluate the park, and tell the Town what it could do with the facility. While he thought Gatewood
was a great place, he thought the Town would not operate the facility as well as it could be done.
Currently, the citizens paying the taxes were not benefitting from Gatewood's operating loss.
Mr. Utt said that during the budget process, he had Mr. Hart and Mr. McManus outline what it took to
run Gatewood so that an RFP could be issued. While the RFP has not been released, he noted that
a few persons had shown some interest. He felt the next step was pulling together the public-private
partnership basics to see how it could be put together.
Mr. Goodman agreed with Vice -Mayor East noting that government hotels contracted with
management firms to run the day to day operations. It was a good idea, he continued, to look at an
RFP or RFQ to see what they might be able to do and how much it could cost, which could indicate
if the Town was spending too much money.
After concluding discussion, Council moved to the next item on the agenda "Requested Revisions to
the Urban Archery Program" (Item 8b.).
Mr. Utt reported that citizens had asked for revisions to the Town's Urban Archery Program. Due to
the current deer population problem, citizens had requested that hunting be allowed on Town
property, which is currently not permitted. He noted there were only three large Town owned
properties, two cemeteries and the landfill. large enough for hunting. While individual hunters had
been given permission to hunt on the landfill property, he felt it would be good to formalize a policy
for all Town properties.
He referred to the permit used by Christiansburg for hunting on Town properties which allows a
certain number of hunters on a first come first serve basis. Council he felt should specify a process
that would allow persons to apply to hunt and also keep track of the hunters and specify where they
would hunt.
Vice -Mayor East asked how the number of hunters would be determined. Mr. Goodman suggested
checking with Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries to get a number. Mr. Utt also mentioned that a
Page 6 of 9/September 19, 2017
7
group similar to "Hunters for the Hungry" had expressed an interest and furthermore had been
mentioned by several citizens.
Mr. Radcliffe cautioned Council concerning the use of bows, to which Mr. Utt added that the use of
crossbows was prohibited. Mr. Radcliffe suggested that any hunter should go through the Police
Department to be checked for permits, because the County. under a similar program, had hunters
outside their prescribed areas.
Mr. Rygas felt the biggest concern was that two of the three properties were cemeteries which
should not permit hunting because citizens walk there. He suggested the other piece of property
could be considered since it was outside of the Town and was more remote.
Mr. Goodman said that two herds were in the Northwood area at Oakwood Cemetery which were
causing problems in the surrounding neighborhoods. He thought that the issue was how to control
the population of those two herds since they were the source of complaints.
Chief Roche said he had facilities and vehicles on the landfill property that had been subject to
vandalism, so he wanted to keep that area off limits to hunting. Mr. Radcliffe and some members of
staff also commented on the presence of bike trails in possible hunting areas.
Mr. Utt suggested using the property to the left of Route 11 since there were no facilities there.
Mr. Clark said that since the urban archery program was established, he had not heard of anyone
using that process during that time. A sanctioned group he added wanted to cull the deer and take
them to a "feed the hungry" style program. He felt that a group would be easier to monitor and take
care of than would individual hunters.
Discussion then ensued on the intent of the original urban archery season, the lack of large privately
owned areas for hunting, and restrictions involving distance from dwellings.
Dr. McElroy mentioned that the Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (DGIF) has regulations for
urban archery and to regulate the deer population it would be necessary to kill bucks. He felt that
allowing hunting in some areas of the Town would be good, if the DGIF regulations were followed,
which would allow most of the yards in town to qualify as hunting areas.
After further discussion, Mr. Utt was directed to return with maps showing the Town owned
properties where hunting might be feasible.
Next item on the agenda (Item 10a.) was Ordinance 2017-09 Granting of a Special Exception for a
Virtual Reality Venue. Mr. Goodman moved to adopt the ordinance. His motion was seconded by
Mr. Kidd 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
Council then considered Ordinance 2017-10 Amending Section 86-5 "Billing" of the Town Code. Mr.
Kidd moved to adopt the ordinance as written. His motion was seconded by Mr. Radcliffe and
approved on the following roll call vote:
Page 7 of 9/September 19, 2017
Mr.
Radcliffe
-Aye
Mr.
Goodman
-Aye
Mr.
East
-Aye
Mr.
Kidd
-Aye
Mr.
Clark
-Aye
Mr.
Penn
-Aye
Next item considered (Item 12a) was the Rural Development grant for Police vehicles. Mr. Utt said
the Town had been awarded $25,000 from Rural Development for the purchase of a police vehicle.
Completion of the agreement with Rural Development required Council approval of a letter of
conditions, a code of conduct and Resolution 2017-21 authorizing the Town Manager to execute all
necessary documents.
Mr. Goodman moved that the Letter of Conditions be adopted. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Radcliffe 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
Mr. Goodman then moved that the Code of Conduct be approved. His motion was seconded by Mr.
Radcliffe 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
Mr. Goodman moved that Resolution 2017-21
be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kidd
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 then moved to Item 12b concerning the new fire engine. Mr. Utt mentioned that the bids for
the vehicle had come in at $639,858 which was over the expected bid of $560,000. Chief Kiser and
the committee had been working on ways to reduce the price of the unit by cutting out various items.
The County proposed adding $50,000 to the original funding of $500,000 if the Town would fund
$57,815.
After discussions as to what items should be added back, Mr. Goodman moved that the Town
approve up to $75,000 for application to the new fire truck. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kidd
and approved by 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 (Item 14a.) was discussion by Council concerning the Council Retreat and the Roundtable
Discussion. After discussion, Council decided on a tentative date of October 20th. Mr. Utt said he
would get with the event facilitators while Council emails him agenda items.
Concerning roundtable discussions, Mr. Radcliffe inquired about a vehicle for code enforcement and
the compensation study. Mr. Utt said he was working with the Police Department on a vehicle for the
Page 8 of 9/September 19, 2017
E
code officer. For the Compensation Study, he told Council that he had draft job descriptions and was
working to get staff to meet with Department Heads, but he was not sure when that would happen.
Mr. Clark had no comments.
Mr. Goodman asked that the Council consider, for the Human Resources policy overhaul, a smoking
policy, a vehicle use policy and a workplace violence policy.
Mr. Kidd and Mr. Penn had no comments.
Vice -Mayor East asked about the First Street, N.W. parking. Mr. Utt responded that the Engineering
Department was reviewing the plans.
Vice -Mayor East then called for a motion for a Closed Session for one item pursuant to Virginia
Code 2.2-3711 (A) 1 regarding discussion for consideration of employment, assignment,
appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining , or resignation of public
officer, appointees or employees regarding the Main Street Program and one item pursuant to
Virginia Code 2.2-3711 (A) 7 consultation with legal counsels and briefing by staff for discussion of
specific legal matters and matters subject to probable litigation regarding a sewer billing request.
The motion was made by Mr. Penn; seconded by Mr. Goodman and approved on the following roll
call vote as follows:
Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye
Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye
Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye
Following approval of the motion, Council went into Closed Session at 7:11 p.m.
Council returned from Closed Session at 7:25 p.m. Vice -Mayor East asked for a motion that the
Council only discussed those matters for which it went into Closed Session. Mr. Penn made the
motion which was seconded by Mr. Goodman 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
Following a reminder of future meeting dates, Vice -Chairman East called for a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Goodman made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Clark and carried by unanimous voice vote
at 7:26 p.m.
Attes
t:
/7
David N. Quesenberry
Clerk of Council
Page 9 of 9/September 19, 2017
Approved:
Gregorg C.`East
Vice -Mayor
`� Y 'I � t'a'�� % ��.� '� ��,� yrs. P .� -� `` va�k � � r 'k `m� r a M x ., z t'eF s : s a✓ - r :,
y+rb xr# � � z &.. a`� d � s � � r r � t� h> � l.;z- �*-�ie r ✓�
'r•.i� 4 �" i �z Y`F ,;,{ik !' F , k, �^,ef: :,..`>?� i r},� f i'i e 1° k �.. �?. aa.
Resolution 2017-21
Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia
Regarding Rural Development Funding for Police Vehicles
WHEREAS, the governing body of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia consisting of seven (7)
members, in a duly called meeting held on the 19th day of September, 2017, at which a
quorum was present RESOLVED as follows;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of
Pulaski, Virginia, sitting in regular session this 19th day of September 2017, that in order
to facilitate obtaining financial assistance from the United States of America, United
States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (the Government) to provide
funding for the purchase of police vehicles and equipment, the governing body does
hereby adopt and abide by the covenants contained in the agreements, documents, and
forms required by the Government to be executed;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute
on behalf of the Town of Pulaski, the above -referenced agreements and to execute
such other documents including but not limited to, debt instruments and security
instruments as may be required in obtaining the said financial assistance.
FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution, along with a copy of the required
documents is hereby entered into the permanent minutes of the meeting of the Town
Council of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia.
This resolution is effective upon adoption and is hereby adopted this 19th day of
September 2017, by the duly recorded vote of the Town Council of the Town of Pulaski,
Virginia as follows:
James A. Radcliffe
-Aye
Joseph K. Goodman
-Aye
Gregory C. East
-Aye
H.M. Kidd
-Aye
David L. Clark
-Aye
Lane R. Penn
-Aye
THE TOWN OF PULASKI, VIRGINIA
BY:
Gr st
Vice -Mayor
ATTEST:
-�4-a "L.-
David N. Quesenberry
Clerk of Council
1
1.
-
fi cS Sgr t��r�{? iE�r�,£. k :. '' y 3�
';'�'r._.
.;x .'.. 3� �&,,'a �,mfis
..�.-''iu✓, .Yi.4T
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
Rural Development
RD Area Office
September 7, 2017
140 Highland Drive,
Suite 5
Lebanon, VA 24266
Mr. Shawn Utt, Town Manager
Town Pulaski
Voice 276-415-3521
of
Fax: 855636-4613
P.O. Box 660
Pulaski, VA 24301
Dear Mr. Utt:
This letter, with Attachments 1 and 2, establishes conditions which must be
understood and agreed to by you before further consideration may be given to your
application for financial assistance from Rural Development for the purchase of two
police vehicles and equipment. The Rural Development staff administers this
financial assistance on behalf of the Rural Housing Service (RHS). Any changes in
project cost, source of funds, scope of services, or any other significant changes in
the project or applicant must be reported to and approved by Rural Development by
written amendment to this letter. Any changes not approved by Rural Development
shall be cause for discontinuing processing of the application.
This letter is not to be considered as grant approval or as a representation as to the
availability of funds. The docket may be completed on the basis of a Rural
Development Community Facilities (CF) Economic Impact Initiative (EIl) grant not
to exceed $25,000 and other funding in the amount of $26,400, for a total project
cost of $51,400. The other funding is planned in the form of a cash contribution from
the Town of Pulaski.
All regulations, forms, and bulletins outlined in this letter can be obtained from our
web site at http://www.rd.ustia.gov!. (Click on "Publications," "Regulations and
Guidelines.") From this web site, you must review RD Instruction 1942-A, Sections
1942.17, 1942.18, and 1942.19, and RD Instruction 3570-B. You must also review
RD Instructions 1942-C and 1940-Q and all exhibits. If you do not have internet
access, we will provide the appropriate documents. Any regulation, form, or bulletin
identified in this letter as a Virginia form will be provided to you at the appropriate
time.
Attached are the following:
Attachment No. 1 - Project Planning Factors
Attachment No. 2 - Form RD 194246, Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions
The conditions referred to in the first paragraph of this letter are as follows:
1. Organizational Documents - We have reviewed the documents creating your
Town and have found them acceptable.
2. Audit Requirements - Audited financial statements shall be submitted on an
annual basis in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards (GAAS),
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer
If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discnmmabon, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found
online at http:itwww.ascr.usda.gov/cornplaint_Fling_cust", or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request On form. You may
also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Director, Otfice of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue. S.W.. Washington. D C 20250-9410, by fax (202)
690.7442 or email at program mtake(Musda gov
�, u Jr 9fi - } u / ,ss# r x r rcr .r ' .s'r� ` ' �- �:t
N. 'y �"�$
..g, oausi` k t.. :-'��uuu,:+,�.r • `� F .sy.u.,-.0 a:4.�,k •� .zfC..;:c„a.a:b.M .. �.. ,chr . — .� _k ° .... ::. "� �":7 Q. �y5"�' .3
Mr. Shawn Utt, Town Manager 2
Town of Pulaski — Letter of Conditions
Police Vehicles and Equipment - CF Ell Grant - $25,000
09-07-2017
General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and the Generally Accepted
Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States, 1994 revision, and any subsequent revisions.
Audits performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of States,
Local Governments, and Non-profit organizations," are based upon the amount
of Federal financial assistance expended during a Grantee's fiscal year from a
Federal source. Grantees expending Federal financial assistance over $750,000
are required to have an OMB Circular A-133 audit. Grantees expending less
than $750,000 in Federal financial assistance are required to submit financial
statements, either GAAS, GAGAS, or management reports, based upon loan
balances and prevailing Federal regulations.
In addition to the audit required above, RD Instruction 1942-A outlines
management reports which must be submitted to Rural Development.
3. Insurance and Bonding Requirements - Prior to closing, you must acquire the
following insurance and bond coverage:
a. Liability and Property Damage Insurance - The project will be reviewed for
liability and property damage needs, and amounts will be established
accordingly. The amount of coverage will be determined by the Grantee in
conjunction with a representative of Rural Development.
b. Workers' Compensation - In accordance with appropriate State Laws.
c. Position Fidelity Bond Coverage (For Multiple Advances) - You must
provide evidence of adequate fidelity bond coverage for all persons who have
access to funds by closing. Coverage may be provided either for all
individual positions or persons, or through "blanket" coverage providing
protection for all appropriate employees and/or officials. Form RD 440-24,
Position Fidelity Schedule Bond, may be used for this purpose. We
encourage you to have your attorney and/or insurance provider review
proposed types and amounts of coverage, including any deductible
provisions.
d. National Flood Insurance - In addition to meeting the requirements for the
type of assistance requested, the following requirements must be met for
financial assistance for acquisition in designated special flood or mudslide
prone areas:
1. If flood insurance is available, you must purchase a flood insurance
policy at the time of closing.
2. Applicants whose buildings, machinery, or equipment are to be Iocated in
an area which has been notified as having special flood or mudslide prone
areas will not receive financial assistance where flood insurance is not
available.
.,-.> _,... ^"- s �" '�'�.-•�-s��b ill � c,.�...s., �Lv�`��'��'''��' ,�;yam
Mr. Shawn Utt, Town Manager
Town of Pulaski — Letter of Conditions
Police Vehicles and Equipment - CF EII Grant - x25,000
09-07-2017
e. Real Property Insurance - You must obtain real property insurance (fire and
extended coverage) on all above -ground structures to include machinery and
equipment housed therein, in an amount equal to the insurable value thereof.
4. Procurement - You may proceed to acquire the proposed vehicles and/or
equipment by competitive negotiation. You must develop a Request for Proposal
(RFP) and specifications. Rural Development must review and give prior
approval to the specifications and RFP before soliciting for offers.
Following the receipt of offers, Rural Development must be provided with the
following:
a. Summary of all offers
b. Copy of the successful offer
c.. Narrative summary of all negotiations
d. Copy of notice to all unsuccessful offerors
e. Copy of resolution of tentative award
5. Code of conduct - Owners shall adopt and maintain a written code or standards
of conduct which shall govern the performance of their officers, employees, or
agents engaged in the award and administration of contracts supported by Rural
Development funds. No employee, officer, or agent of the owner shall participate
in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by Rural
Development funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved.
- 6. Other Funds - Prior to advertisement or soliciting for bids, you must provide
evidence showing the availability of the cash contribution from the Town.
7. Disbursement of Rural Development Grant Funds — Rural Development grant
funds will be advanced as they are needed in the amount necessary to cover
Rural Development's proportionate share of obligations due and payable by the
Town. Interest earned on grant funds in excess of 5100 per year will be
submitted to Rural Development at least quarterly as required in 7 CFR 3016.
8. Community Facilities Grant (CFG) - You will be required to execute Form RD
3570-3, Agreement for Administrative Requirements for Community Facility
Grants, at the time of grant 'closing.
CFG assistance is subject to the interest of the United States Government in the
market value of the property attributable to the Federal participation in this
project provided by 7 CFR, parts 3015, 2016, or 3019 et. seq., as subsequently
modified.
CFG assistance is subject to the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the regulations
issued thereto. This covenant is in effect for as long as the property continues to
be used for the same or similar purpose for which the financial assistance was
extended or for as long as the grantee owns it, whichever is longer.
9. Agency Forms - You will be required to execute certain Agency forms in order
to obtain financial assistance from Rural Development. By Resolution, these
f t
..te,'Ju_:asw.a]w.6oz..wa.�aYL•.;s:�:LY �Li.a.w�kLs.L - ul wti � ( -
Mr. Shawn Utt, Town Manager 4
Town of Pulaski — Letter of Conditions
Police Vehicles and Equipment - CF Ell Grant - $25,000
09-07-2017
forms must be adopted and properly executed, and minutes showing the adoption
must be provided.
10. System for Award Management (SAM,) — As the recipient, you must maintain
the currency of your information in SAM.gov until (a) you submit the final
financial report required under this award and (b) all funds under this award have
been disbursed or cancelled, whichever is later. This requires that you review
and update your information at least annually after the initial registration and
more frequently if required by changes in your information or another award
term. Recipients can register online at wtivw.sam. ov.
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794),
no handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of their
handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial
assistance from Rural Development.
As a recipient of Federal financial assistance, you must be in compliance, and
continue to comply, with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rural
Development regulations promulgated by this Act. Your signature on Form RD
400-4, Assurance Agreement, is your commitment to comply with these Federal
laws and regulations, as well as your agreement to maintain records and data to
verify your compliance. The data you must provide depends on the type of project
financed with Rural Development funds, and guidance will be provided to you by
Rural Development. Your compliance is monitored through compliance reviews
conducted by Agency personnel. The first compliance review will be conducted
prior to or concurrent with closing, with subsequent compliance reviews if/when
needed.
If all parties agree the bids received are acceptable and it is determined that adequate
funds are available to cover the total facility costs and that all the administrative
conditions of grant approval have been satisfied, closing instructions will be issued.
The closing instructions, a copy of which will be forwarded to you, will set forth any
further requirements that must be met before the grant can be closed. GRANT
CLOSING WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED UNTIL CLOSING
INSTRUCTIONS ARE RECEIVED FROM RURAL DEVELOPMENT. When
all parties agree that the closing requirements can be met, a mutually acceptable date
for the closing will be scheduled.
The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996 requires that all Federal
payments be made by Electronic Funds Transfer/Automated Clearing House
(EFT/ACH). Grantees receiving payments by EFT will have funds directly
deposited to a specified account at a financial institution with funds being available
to the recipient on the date of payment. The Grantee should complete Form SF -
3881, Electronic Funds Transfer Payment Enrollment Form, for each account where
funds will be electronically received. The completed form(s) must be received by
Rural Development at least thirty (30) days prior to the first advance of funds.
As a recipient of federal financial assistance, you must comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, regulations, and codes. The major
��-
! y } ! " M. °tea t o,"1•.
Mr. Shawn Utt, Town Manager
Town of Pulaski — Letter of Conditions
Police Vehicles and Equipment - CF Ell Grant - $25,000
09-07-2017
5
portion of existing Rural Development rules and regulations which must be met are
included in RD Instructions 1942-A, 1942-C, and 3570-B. No modifications or
waiver of any portion of these regulations is authorized. Such regulations shall
govern regardless of any misinterpretation, omission, misunderstanding, or
statements made by any Rural Development employee. The most critical
requirements of the instructions have been highlighted or clarified in this letter.
The applicant contribution shall be considered the first funds expended. After
providing for all authorized cost, any remaining Rural Development funds will be
considered to be grant funds and will be refunded to Rural Development.
We believe the information herein clearly sets forth the action which must be taken;
however, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Please complete and return the attached Form RD 1942-46, Letter of Intent to Meet
Conditions, if you desire that further consideration be given to your application.
If the conditions set forth in this letter are not met within six (6) months from the
date hereof, Rural Development reserves the right to discontinue processing of the
application.
Sincerelv vours/') C1
E"CRAIG"BARBROW
Area Director
USDA, Rural Development
cc: Deputy Administrator, Community Programs, Washington, D.C.
State Director, Rural Development, Richmond, VA
Accountant
a......n,�..�..a..w_..,,.. c<..s✓..v». w..�_—.�..._.._..- •��s�.e+..s:..•,+�.:.rw6r .e;' _ _._�yc � a .xas ... �..�_._.f...... �.._.... ._.....__...
Mr. Shawn Utt, Town Manager 6
Town of Pulaski — Letter of Conditions
Police Vehicles and Equipment - CF EII Grant - $25,000
09-07-2017
Attachment No. 1
Letter of Conditions
For: Town of Pulaski
Police Vehicles
and Equipment
Dated: 09-07-2017
PROJECT PLANNING FACTORS
The following estimates are to be used as a basis for project planning and must not be changed
without prior approval of Rural Development:
PROJECT COSTS
Police Vehicles and Equipment $ 51,400
TOTAL $ 51,400
FUNDING
Rural Development CF EII Grant $ 25,000
Applicant Contribution 26,400
TOTAL $ 51,400
OPERATING BUDGET - TYPICAL YEAR
Income
Operating Income $ 9,254,381
Expenses
Operating Expenses $ 9,254,381
BALANCE $ 0
0
1_�,s,...ar_u.FiV.r
CODE OF CONDUCT
No employee, officer or agent of the owner shall participate in the
selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by Rural
Housing Service funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be
involved.
The above Code of Conduct was approved at a meeting held on
2017, and -_ members of the Governing Body were
present which represents a quorum. A vote was held on this resolution
and the resolution was adopted by a vote of (a -r yeas and O
nays with O abstaining.
Town of Pulaski
Date (Signature)
-Do,41 LN. 00u s „ spy C lert n P Ca cdI
(Name, Title)
MARION JOYCE WOJCIK
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commonwealth of Virginia
Reg. 65
My Commission Expires
OS -31 10