Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-181 1 Minutes of the Town Council Work Session held at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 20, 2018 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 Nichole L. Hair, Deputy Town Manager Legal Counsel Spencer A. Rygas, Town Attorney Press: Mike Williams, Pulaski County Patriot Staff: Kim Caudill, Administrative Manager, Public Works Dave Hart, Director, Parks & Facilities Chief Robbie Kiser, P.F.D. Bill Pedigo, Town Engineer Chris Phillips, Street Superintendent, Public Works David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Rebecca Reece, Finance Director Chief Gary Roche, P.P.D Others Present Stephanie Rygas Emily Viers Mayor Glenn called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Following the roll call, Mayor Glenn asked for a modification to the agenda to add to the Closed Session, one item under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) (1) in reference to a personnel matter regarding retirement incentives. Mr. Goodman moved to add the item to the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penn 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 and visitors to the meeting, Mayor Glenn moved to the Consent Agenda (Item 5) concerning the minutes from January 16, 2018 and January 18, 2018. Mr. Goodman moved to adopt the minutes as outlined. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penn and approved by the unanimous voice vote of Council. Next item on the agenda was a presentation from Ms. Emily Viers from Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates on the Town's audit for FY 2017. (Item 7a.) Page 1 of 12/February 20, 2018 Ms. Viers told Council that both the Independent Auditors Report and the Government Auditing Standards opinion issued a "clean unmodified opinion" on the Town's audit which was the highest level of approval. Using an abbreviated reverence as a guide, Ms. Viers reviewed the major categories of fund balance, long term obligations, and fund transfers in addition to trends in fund balances and revenues for FY 2017. Regarding long-term obligations for the governmental funds, she noted the amount ($5,731,969) included accruals, pension liability etc. Out of the total amount of long-term obligations, $2.6 million related to pensions, leaving approximately $3.1 million of "true debt" outstanding. With respect to the net position of the Water and Sewer Funds, the accruals were only $360,000 with $6.2 million in outstanding debt. Concerning debt per capita, Ms. Viers noted that the Town's per capita debt ($1,352) was slightly below the average for the state. Ms. Viers recommended that the Town's unassigned fund balance, currently at 15.56%, be increased to between 20% and 25%. The percentage of cash and investments to expenditures was 31.35% of the General Fund, which was inflated by a $1.4 million loan to the Town from the UDAG. She recommended that a payment plan for the UDAG loan be implemented or a determination made if the balance was appropriate to continue recording to insure the accuracy of UDAG and General Fund balances. Ms. Viers informed Council that there was a reconciled overdraft of approximately $500,000 in the proprietary funds (water and sewer) as a result of pulling cash from those funds. The General Fund cash balance she continued was not overstated but did not take into account a negative cash balance in the proprietary funds. Mr. Utt added that the amount was tied to transfers between the funds. He then asked how the cost allocation plan worked into the audit since the transfer numbers were tied into the plan. Ms. Viers responded that auditors did not typically find that a cost allocation plan was used for transfers from proprietary funds to the General Fund for covering overhead and administrative costs. Some communities had the General Fund invoice the proprietary funds for overhead costs, which were not determined by a cost allocation plan. Mr. Utt asked if an invoice system, instead of automatic transfers would address the deficit. Ms. Viers replied that it might because proprietary funds had operating income available before transfers were made, which might help. Otherwise a negative cash flow was being created in the proprietary funds, which was not a true representation of the fund. An invoice system might address the issue, despite differences in transfers between fiscal years, and better reflect the true costs to the funds. Mr. Utt said the Town previously had transferred 50% vs. the full anticipated cost of transfers, but would have to get closer to transferring the full anticipated cost. Ms. Viers said that if transfers continued in the same manner, that in time the position of the funds would be "eaten Page 2 of 12/February 20, 2018 away" requiring an increase in revenue or a reduction in expenses to prevent deterioration of the funds net position. Mr. Goodman asked Ms. Viers if there was not enough money coming into the proprietary funds for the transfers. She responded that she thought the debt payments and capital outlays were offsetting the fund's income which, coupled with transfers, moved cash out of those funds. Taking into account the overdraft, the Town's percentage of cash and investments to expenditures was still a robust 27%. Ms. Viers then reviewed general trends involving various aspects of the Town's finances. An increase in the fund balance was noted, but the water fund net position was flat and the sewer fund position had declined. Revenues overall remained flat with a minimal 2% increase, while expenditures remained steady. Tax assessments on real estate were also flat and were decreasing slightly. Personal property assessments were expected to drop as well. After review of the required communication and the management letters, Ms. Viers concluded her presentation. Mayor Glenn asked Mr. Utt what constituted Other Local Taxes. After Mr. Utt named several taxes under that revenue item, Mayor Glenn commented that some of those taxes could become a major source of revenue for some communities, but could be cut off quickly for others. In light of rising expenses, he cautioned Council and staff to understand where these taxes were coming from, since they were increasing, while general property and personal property taxes were remaining level from year to year. He recommended that if these revenues dropped, it would be best to plan for it. Mr. Utt suggested that the increase of Other Local Taxes was due to meals tax increases from Calfee Park and Al's on First. Ms. Viers agreed, noting that other taxes in that category increased incrementally but the meals tax showed a substantial increase raising Other Local Taxes revenues overall. Mayor Glenn inquired if there were other large tax issues that would favor the Town, for instance, Calfee Park. Mr. Utt responded that Calfee Park's real estate tax for this year and next year would be 50% or $5,000 per year. Mayor Glenn asked about James Hardie. Mr. Utt replied that the debt service for Hardie would end in 2019, but the funding, $300,000, was tied to the Public Safety Building Project. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Utt about a retirement withholding notation as related to three employees. Mr. Utt felt the three employees in question were incorrectly entered into the accounting system. Mrs. Reece said the Town was paying the correct amount to VRS. Ms. Viers added that the three employees paid their contribution, but not on the same pro - rata basis because of the extra check. Mr. Utt added that had been changed. Mr. Goodman asked what caused the VRS liability. Ms. Viers responded that the Town pays what VRS requires, based on calculations of actuaries for future earnings of employees; the investment of the Town and the amount of the benefit. She added that the Town was not doing anything wrong and other localities had significant pension liabilities under VRS. Page 3 of 12/February 20, 2018 1 1 Mr. Goodman inquired what the Town was funded at in relation to what was owed to VRS. Ms. Viers said the Town was paying what it is supposed to be paying, which is updated annually by VRS. She added that some persons had considered contributing money to VRS to reduce liability. Any funds paid in however, would be subject to a market drop which would result in the loss of the contribution. She added that the VRS liability was strongly affected by market swings noting that a one percent swing either way in the VRS investment portfolio could result in a liability for the Town as low as $97,000 or as high as $5.2 million. Mayor Glenn asked if a number of retirements would cause problems. Ms. Viers answered that VRS would adjust the rate for the Town over the next few years to compensate for the change. Mr. East asked if the reconciled overdraft was a result of costs being greater than anticipated. Mr. Utt responded that he felt most of the issue involved how transfers were set up and the cost allocation plan. Mayor Glenn thanked Ms. Viers for her presentation. Next on the agenda was authorization for cemetery space buyback (Item 8a). Mr. Utt mentioned that during a requested cemetery lot buyback in 2014, a policy was proposed to Council that lots would be bought back at the original price or a minimum of $300. The action in the minutes however was specific to that particular request. The current request from Mrs. McGrady was for the Town to buyback one lot. While Council in the past was required to approve the buyback of a space, Mr. Utt proposed a resolution that established a policy whereby staff can automatically buy back lots in the new section of Oakwood, since lots in the old section of Oakwood were mostly family lots. A short discussion took place concerning buyback of plots in family spaces in the old section of the cemetery and whether or not resale was allowed in the older section.Mr. Utt felt if Council wished to include the older section, then staff needed to look at different standards. Mayor Glenn suggested that staff create standards for buying back plots for both the old and new sections of Oakwood. After discussion, Mr. Goodman moved to direct staff to repurchase the lot back from Mrs. McGrady for $400 and come back with a proposed policy for purchasing lots back in old Oakwood as well as an additional policy for new Oakwood. The motion was seconded by Mr. East 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 moved to consider the redevelopment of 67/69 West Main Street (Item 8b.). Ms. Hair reported that an RFP was issued for 67/69 West Main Street as part of the Downtown Revitalization Project. Despite initial interest from two parties, no proposals were Page 4 of 12/February 20, 2018 received. Inquires revealed that developers did not understand that the Town would assist with grants, etc. Complicating the situation was that potential developers could not be informed that the Town had submitted a pre -application for the Vibrant Community Initiative. Since developers have learned of the grant she added, they were interested in submitting a proposal. Ms. Hair asked Council what next steps should be taken. After extensive discussion regarding reissue of an RFP, potential funding and consultation with state officials at DHCD, Council directed staff to proceed with their ongoing efforts. Next issue considered was the Police Department Mobile Device Grant (Item 12a.). Mr. Utt reported that the Police Department had applied for the Byrne Grant application to purchase 12 to 15 new laptops for the patrol vehicles. He requested authorization from Council to apply for the Va. Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Justice Byrne Justice Assistance Grant for up to $50,000 and authorization for the Town Manager to sign whatever grant documents are needed. Mr. Goodman moved to authorize staff to apply for the Va. Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Byrne Justice Assistance Grant for up to $50,000 and authorize the Town Manager to sign any necessary documents. Mr. Clark 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 Council then considered a proposed tier system for Town personnel (Item 13a.). Mr. Utt referred Council to the packet summary for a list of positions that could be impacted by a tier system as well as the job descriptions for each position. He told Council that the positions of laborer, equipment operator, administrative secretary and administrative manager were not included because of the variation in duties of those positions between departments. The goal of the tier system was to come up with a process that would: (1) give employees the opportunity to better themselves; (2) give management an avenue to reward that improvement; and, (3) have a stronger, happier workforce. The proposal he added would give employees more control as well as options for improvement. Mayor Glenn asked from a budgetary perspective, if an employee reached a higher level that would not necessarily mean they would get the pay increase immediately. Mr. Utt said it would be at the discretion of Department Head and himself, but the pay could be worked into the budget. Mayor Glenn observed it would work to the advantage of the employee to get training. Mr. Utt added he was trying to create a system that was employee driven with more employee control giving them more buy -in to the Town. Chief Roche added that in addition to benefits the proposal also had sanctions in that an employee was required to have good performance evaluations and not have disciplinary actions. He felt these provided incentive for employees to adhere to the policy which would over time, result in development of appropriate behavior as the employee's tenure continued. Page 5 of 12/February 20, 2018 Mr. Utt agreed noting that if an employee qualified for a higher position, but had a disciplinary issue, they would have to wait awhile and prove themselves again. Mayor Glenn asked if the proposal could be incorporated into the salary study. Mr. Utt replied that it could. Mr. Goodman said he wanted to be sure if an employee moved into a position, then they should expect the raise. Mr. Utt said that the process allowed an employee to know they would get a raise if they got the position. Mayor Glenn said he did not see that the budget would be affected and it would help attain the goal of employees reaching their best capability. Mr. Goodman expressed concern over the differences of length of service requirements for promotion. Mentioning the 10 years for one position vs. two years for another, he felt there did not appear to be any consistency for length of service. Mr. Utt explained that the consistency was in turnover potential. The time provision for some positions was shorter because of the higher turnover potential in those jobs. Chief Roche added that the Town was still behind in terms of pay and if the pay was increased early in an employee's career it would be a disincentive to look for another job. Discussion then turned to creating additional tiers, Level IV or Level V, as a response to the possible lack of openings in a higher rank for employees to advance to. Mr. Utt responded that the issue could be looked at, as implementation of the tier system moved forward and its results became apparent. One issue he foresaw was that a Laborer IV or Police Officer IV could earn more than next rank of operator or corporal. He added that the issue would need review. Mr. Penn said that he could not imagine anyone working for ten years before getting a step increase. Mr. Utt felt the issue went back to turnover. The time could be changed but it could lead to a person reaching the top tier in their grade in five years for example, and not having opportunities to advance. A short discussion began on the potential difficulties for advancement in a smaller department, as well as the required years of service between each tier. Mayor Glenn observed that turnover in some departments was not as critical as in others where there were highly skilled persons. He reminded Council that the proposal could be "tweaked" from time to time and that Council was addressing a prior mistake. Mr. Utt felt that a mistake was not involved but that it was an attempt to give employees another benefit. To Mayor Glenn's inquiry if action was needed, Mr. Utt responded that the tier proposal could be worked on, possibly changing the years of service required for the next tier. He asked what other information Council required. Mayor Glenn asked if some department positions could have more than three levels. Mr. Utt ventured that more than three tiers would cause confusion. Page 6 of 12/February 20, 2018 Regarding action by Council, Mr. Utt suggested a recommendation to adopt the tier system approach as presented with the expectation that the job descriptions would be prepared. Mr. Penn said he did not have a problem with the proposal, but he did have a problem with the long time periods to qualify for promotion. Mr. Utt replied that he would change the recommendation to adjust the time frames of specialist positions from 5 years and 10 years to 3 years and 5 years. Mayor Glenn said that once an employee made it to the top level, unless they planned to switch to a higher position, they could not proceed further regarding salary. Mr. Goodman said a positive thing was that employees would get the raises sooner which would benefit their VRS. Mr. East commented that while he supported the tier structure, he felt that the KSA's (knowledge, skills, & abilities) mirrored each other and were very subjective. Mr. Utt said the differences were under qualifications/requirements. Mr. East said he was concerned about employees who felt they met the requirements. If the requirements were so subjective, he asked, how could they be measured. Discussion followed concerning the subjective nature of the position descriptions. Mr. Goodman ventured that since the supervisor and Town Manager had to sign off on an employee change, that this would reduce the subjectivity (of the position descriptions). Following the discussion, Mr. Goodman moved that staff be directed to prepare a resolution outlining the steps for the creation off the Level III positions listed in the packet as well as provide templates for the additional positions. Mr. Kidd 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 a recess at 6:23 p.m. Council reconvened at 6:30 p.m. and moved to the next item on the agenda "Take Home Vehicle Policy" (Item 13b.). Mr. Utt reviewed the attachments for the vehicle policy discussion consisting of policies from ten localities and a summary of those policies. He reviewed what he considered were key items in a vehicle policy: eligibility expectations, tax liability (paid by employee) and other standards that Council might deem necessary. He added that all take-home Town vehicles were exempt under the IRS rules except for the Town Manager and Deputy Town Manager's vehicles. Mr. Utt felt that those items were found in other policies and seemed to be agreeable with Council, but a discussion was necessary concerning using either a radius from the Town, mileage, time, or county limits to set vehicle use boundaries. He noted that there were four employees living beyond the 15.38 mile radius. Page 7 of 12/February 20, 2018 Mr. Penn asked how the radius was changed. Mr. Utt said he approved the change administratively as a pilot project to figure out the cost. Mr. Utt then moved to the spread sheet reviewing maintenance costs and the IRS rates. He noted that reimbursement using the IRS rates were higher than the total annual average costs for take-home vehicles. Mr. Radcliffe asked how it could be justified to a citizen to have a Town vehicle in Woodlawn costing $19,136 per year. He also questioned vehicles driving 69,732 miles a year on non - Town business. Mr. Goodman asked concerning the 15.38 mile radius if that was wrong. As a policy decision, Mr. Utt ventured that the measure should have been mileage driven. Mr. East said the issue showed the problems of using a radius and did not agree with a 45 minute response time limit. Mr. Goodman added that given the discussions among Council, they did not want Town vehicles leaving the county, unless it was justified and the permission of Council was given. Mr. Radcliffe agreed saying tax increases could not be done while allowing Town vehicles to drive 19,136 miles on non -Town business. Chief Roche said, in addressing Mr. Goodman's point, the thinking at the time, prior to allowing take home vehicles, was what difference did 15.38 miles make. Mr. Goodman responded that the problem was perception, especially regarding Town vehicles outside the county about which he heard the most complaints, aside from water bills. Chief Roche responded that those employees were called back to the department so much, that there would be a serious business issue if the employees could not be called back. Mr. Radcliffe asked how the Town would explain an accident involving a Town vehicle outside of the County. Mr. Goodman questioned spending $60,000-$70,000 per year on new vehicles while having a vehicle being driven twice as much which would not last as long. Chief Roche responded that the vehicle in question was actually being driven less that patrol vehicles despite the greater commuting distance. Mr. East said that Council had the responsibility to produce something that made sense. A 45 minute drive time he felt, was contradictory to a 24 hour call out. Mr. Utt opined that there were enough officers close by to deal with incidents like a shooting, but the 45 minute response standard was more applicable to larger scale events such as another tornado. Mr. East ventured that the 45 minute standard seemed arbitrary. Chief Roche replied that the standard was developed to allow employees, in case of an emergency, 15 minutes to get their equipment together and be at the department within one hour. Mr. Goodman felt the standard was subjective to which Chief Roche replied that the standard was based on being reasonable where the employee could live, yet respond to a call -out in as expeditious manner as possible within the 45 minute drive time. Following additional discussion of the 45 minute drive time standard, the number of vehicles taken home and call-back of officers, Mayor Glenn observed that the issue involved incorrect perceptions regarding use. Employees should be trained in the use of the vehicles with imposition of penalties when needed. The bottom line he concluded, involved correcting perceptions. Page 8 of 12/February 20, 2018 After discussion concerning possible action, Mr. Clark said that he did not think that Council could make the decision in one meeting and that more investigation was required. The danger he felt, was making a decision without understanding the issue. Obviously something needed to be done, he continued, but he did not mean to postpone dealing with the issue. He felt that Council should come back to the next meeting with suggestions and focus on the effects of change. He encouraged Council to exercise due diligence. Mr. Utt said he agreed with Mr. Clark's comments to get feedback. Chief Roche said there were a lot of employees that had bought houses based on the 15.38 radius policy. Mr. Goodman suggested that if the distance was reduced, those employees would be grandfathered in. He added that he agreed with Mr. Clark that there was more information that was needed and suggested that the different variations be mapped so Council could review it and come to a decision. Mr. Clark said that in reviewing policies from other places, he noticed that some had changed their policy using processes similar to grandfathering because of circumstances. He felt that sometimes concessions had to be made to what was going on and then going forward, the policy would be applied to new employees. Based on this discussion, Council decide to get more data before making a decision. Next item on the agenda was smoking in Town vehicles (Item 13c). Mr. Utt said that based on discussions with Council members and Department Heads it appeared that there was a need to create a "phase out" plan. He referred to the four points in the packet which he felt would eventually reach that phase out point. The four points classified vehicles as smoking or non-smoking based on their date of purchase and their present status as a smoking or non-smoking vehicle. For clarification, Mr. Utt reviewed the state's definition of a "tobacco free vehicle". Mr. Utt noted that the previous ordinance approved by the Town applied to tobacco use. Mr. Goodman added that the past ordinance was approved as a safety factor because of possible allergic reactions from tobacco use. Mr. Utt said his personal concern was the health of Town employees and he wished that he could give an incentive for employees to choose to not engage in unhealthy behavior. He suggested that ideas for a smoking cessation program incentive be looked at during the budget process. Mr. Utt said that other options would be to do nothing or to enact a complete prohibition of smoking on any Town owned property. He cautioned Council that they would not make people happy no matter what was decided. Mr. Clark said if the program was implemented as outlined, in four or five years smoking would be completely off of Town property except for one or two vehicles. Mr. Goodman and Mr. Kidd both said they thought the plan as presented was fair. Page 9 of 12/February 20, 2018 Mr. Clark moved that Council have the Town Manager and staff to prepare the paperwork to create a new tobacco use policy for Town vehicles as recommended in the packet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penn and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -No Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council then moved to the Roundtable Discussions (Item 14). Mr. Radcliffe had no comment. Mr. East said he understood there was activity at the VW lot on Rt. 11. He expressed concern for possible environmental issues caused by seepage from the vehicles into the creek. He felt the Town had accommodated a junkyard in violation of state law and local code. For the present, his concern was contamination and how it could be controlled. Mr. Pedigo said that as far as stormwater and E&S goes, the owner had resubmitted and the staff was reviewing the materials. He added that it appeared the owner had addressed the issues the Town had. Mr. East asked if there was any concern with existing contamination and had that been addressed. Mr. Pedigo did not know about existing contamination but did say that all fluids were to be removed. Mr. Utt said staff had not gone to the site and checked if vans had fluid in them. Mr. East said that the Town should do its due diligence and be sure what it was getting involved with. Mr. Clark had no comment. Mr. Goodman said regarding the vans, it was a functional junkyard which was reprehensible and felt the owner had thumbed his nose at the Town. He did not understand why a body of the Town (reference to BZA) would give the owner variances and setbacks. He felt the Town needed to come up with a plan how to address this issue. Likewise he had reservations on potential environmental effects. Mr. Utt said the BZA had control of any issue brought to it. Mr. Goodman asked if staff provided information on the Town's view that no variance for setbacks should be given. Ms. Hair replied that staff provided data and made one comment from a zoning standpoint concerning a "paper street" for which a zero setback was considered. She added that she did not agree with the request from Mr. Lindamood, but all she could do is provide the information. Mr. Goodman asked if the Board were told from a leadership standpoint that the use was inappropriate. Ms. Hair responded that the Board was aware of the other hearings and other steps. Mr. Utt added that with the BZA, staff's job was to provide the facts and that it was harder to give a recommendation. If, assuming a recommendation was given and the matter proceeded to court, a good attorney could turn the matter against the Town. Page 10 of 12/February 20, 2018 Mr. Goodman emphasized that in the view of the Town, the days of special favors were over and the rules were set out and should be strictly followed. There followed a short discussion concerning storm water runoff, seepage, best management practices and a potential timetable for implementation of standards regarding the VW site. Mr. Kidd in addressing take home cars, said that it was a bonus and a big benefit that needed to be tweaked not done away with. He felt it was a big tool in keeping employees. Mr. Penn had no comment. Mayor Glenn had no comment. Council then moved to the final item on the agenda, the Closed Session (Item 15). Mayor Glenn called for a motion to enter into closed session under:(1) Virginia Code 2.2- 3711, (A) 1, for two items regarding employment contract review and retirement incentives;,(2) Virginia Code 2.2-3711, (A) 5, for three items regarding Project Plank 2, Project HCP, and utilities services; and,(3) Virginia Code 2.2-3711, (A) 7, for one (1) matter involving Zoning Litigation. Mr. Goodman moved to enter Closed Session. His motion 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 Closed Session at 7:41 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 9:04 p.m. Mayor Glenn called for a motion certifying that the Council only discussed those two items under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (A) 1; three items under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (A) 5; and one item under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (A) 7 for which it entered into Closed Session. Mr. Goodman moved to certify the Closed Session. His motion 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 Mayor Glenn then called for a motion from Council. Mr. Goodman moved that Council approve the agreement with the Mill Creek Creative, Inc. for the administration of the Pulaski on Main Street Program for $40,000 and authorize the Page 11 of 12/February 20, 2018 1 1 1 Town Manager to execute the operation agreement subject to final review by the Town Attorney. 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 Following a review of future meeting dates and there being no further business, Mr. Goodman moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved by the unanimous voice vote of the Council at 9:07 p.m. ATTEST: David N. Quesenberry Clerk of Council Approved: _ (A�� ", — Roliert N. GI nn Mayor Page 12 of 12/February 20, 2018