Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-1811 1 Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council meeting held at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 5, 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: Melinda Williams, Southwest Times Mike Williams, P.C. Patriot Staff: Debbie Bivens, Info. Technician Kim Caudill, Administrative Manager, Public Works Dave Hart, Director of Parks & Facilities Carla Hodge, Code Enforcement Officer Gary Martin, General Superintendent, Public Works Bill Pedigo, Town Engineer Chris Phillips, Street Superintendent David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Rebecca Reece, Finance Director Chief Gary Roche, P.P.D. Angie Trail, Finance Dept. Others Present: Christopher Conner Brooks Dawson Thomas Holsinger Katelyn Martin Emily Rupe Thomas Rupe Thom Rutledge Brennan Snook 1. Call to Order Mayor Glenn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. and 3. Pledge of Allegiance and the Invocation Councilman Kidd led the Pledge of Allegiance and Councilman Clark led the Invocation. 4. Roll Call of Council Following the Invocation, the roll was taken with all members present and a quorum for conducting business established. 5. Modification of Agenda Mayor Glenn asked for a modification to the agenda to add Item 13b. "Resolution 2018-20" to "New Business". Mr. Clark and Mr. Kidd moved to modify the agenda as requested. The motion 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 Page 1 of 12/June 5, 2018 6. Welcome to Guest and Visitors Mayor Glenn welcomed guests and visitors attending the meeting. 7. Presentations a. Music & Merchants Festival Update Mr. Chris Conner of Velociti Audio provided a follow-up for Council for the May 19th Music and Merchants Festival. He complimented the Town Staff and the Police Department for their assistance and noted there were no incidents during the very positive event. The event raised just over $1,000 for the United Way through the sales of alcohol and sponsorships. Mayor Glenn asked about attendance at the event to which Mr. Conner ventured was about 2,000 people. He noted that vendors made between $200 and $400 in sales and that he planned to issue a survey to vendors about the event. He noted that a planning committee would be looking towards next year's event. Members of Council expressed their positive comments on the festival. Mr. East felt the event was incredible and noted that people enjoyed having the festival on Main Street. He also complemented Town Staff for their work on the event. Mr. Clark said the festival was a wonderful event and made note of the many positive comments he received on the festival. Mr. Goodman expressed his appreciation to Mr. Connor for organizing the event and said he looked forward to next year. Following the comments, Mr. Connor presented a symbolic check for $1,022.85 to Mr. Brennan Snopes and Mr. Thomas Holsinger of the United Way. Mr. Conner was then presented a plaque by Mr. Snook and Mr. Holsinger for his efforts to assist the United Way. 8. Public Hearings a. Request to Vacate a Portion of Floyd Avenue Next item on the agenda was a public hearing on a request from Historic Calfee Park L.L.C. to vacate a portion of the Floyd Avenue right-of-way. Mr. Thom Rutledge spoke to Council concerning the request noting it would involve vacation of half of the Floyd Avenue right-of-way making Floyd Avenue a one-way street from South Washington Avenue to Fifth Street, S.E. The vacated right of way would be used to reduce the slope of the west side of Calfee Park to permit the construction of additional seating, concession facilities and spaces for handicapped in the recently graded area. Mr. Rutledge noted that he had contacted some property owners in the area with concerns over potential storm water runoff from the intersection of Floyd and 5th Street, S.E. He emphasized that there would be no changes to the intersections at either end of Floyd Avenue .Regarding construction of the new improvements, Mr. Rutledge ventured that work on the Calfee project would begin the day after the season ended and would include installation of a retaining wall following technical studies of the site. Mr. Utt added that the right-of-way vacation would be approximately 16,000 sq. ft. in area. Costs for surveying, recording etc. would be borne by Historic Calfee Park. He emphasized that there were two requests; one concerning the right-of-way and the other concerning one-way traffic on Floyd Avenue that would require decisions. There being no further discussion, Mayor Glenn opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Mrs. Emily Rupe of 610 Floyd Avenue asked what the proposal would do to her property's value. She also asked if moving the guardrail for the one-way roadway would affect garbage service, her mailbox or her roses on the west side of Floyd Avenue. With no other comments being received, Mayor Glenn closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Page 2 of 12/June 5, 2018 Regarding Mrs. Rupe's question, Mr. Utt said as far as the effect on property values went, he had no idea but he did not see how it could be negatively affected considering the investment in the area. He added that the work would be opposite from her property so the roses would not be disturbed. As for garbage pickup he noted that most of the pickups were along the alley that ran behind the Rupe property. Any problems he felt could be addressed. Mrs. Rupe asked if anything would be done to the alley behind her property. Mr. Rutledge reiterated that the alley was not part of Calfee Park's request. Mayor Glenn observed that given the elevation and the location of the alley he felt there were no plans to do anything with the alley. Mr. Rutledge added that aside from some construction traffic there would be no changes from the centerline of the Floyd Avenue right-of-way to Mrs. Rupe's side of the street. Mr. East observed that the biggest impact to Mrs. Rupe would be that she could not exit her driveway to Route 11. Mr. Utt responded that Mrs. Rupe could exit onto Route 11 but that she could not come from 5th Street along Floyd Avenue to her driveway. Mr. Goodman asked if the alley was paved. Mr. Pedigo replied that it was not. Mr. Utt noted that there were no driveways on Floyd Avenue except for the Rupe's. Other residents he observed accessed their homes via the alley. Mr. Rygas, referring to the map in the packet, questioned whether the Rupe's could use their driveway to enter Route 11. Mr. Utt responded that the map had an error in it that it should show two way traffic at the Rupe's driveway. Mr. Rutledge noted that any traffic arrangement would have to be approved by the Town. Discussion then ensued on how the intersection could be marked using signage or raised concrete areas to better direct traffic. Mr. Thomas Rupe expressed concern over the speed of traffic approaching the intersection of Floyd Ave. and Rt. 11 from Draper's Mountain. Mr. Rygas expressed concern that the Town was setting itself up for a problem that would result in liability and that drivers would become confused. After further discussion, Mayor Glenn suggested that the Engineering staff look at the issue and in the meantime have the old signs and brush removed from the intersection adjacent to the Rupe's property. Mr. Utt said he would have both items (vacation and one way traffic) on the work session agenda. Mr. Goodman moved to direct staff to prepare the necessary paperwork for the partial vacation and one way direction of the Floyd Avenue right of way. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following voice vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye b. FY 19 Proposed Budget Hearing Mr. Utt presented the budget as advertised noting a 27% overall increase resulting from two CIP utility projects (Brookmont HAAS and James Hardie Direct Injection) proposed for the new fiscal year. The General Fund budget was nearly level funded with only a $45,000 increase in spending. He reviewed overall revenue sources for the upcoming budget noting that the majority of funding was from local funds, totaling some $6,000,000. Mr. Utt then gave Council a brief summary of the type and amounts of revenues collected under the local fund revenue category. In his review of reserves, Mr. Utt said that reserves had built up from a low in 2012. Reserves dropped last year due to expenses rollover into that particular budget. However, he did expect that reserves would rebound this fiscal year. Regarding expenditures and revenues, he noted the Sewer Fund now showed revenues outpacing expenditures which reversed a two-year trend of expenditures outperforming revenues. The Water Fund did Page 3 of 12/June 5, 2018 show an increase of approximately $30,000 of expenditures over revenues, due to reasons described in the audit review. Capital improvements, Mr. Utt said, included just under $5,000,000 total for the Brookmont HAA5 water project ($1.78 million) and the James Hardie Direct Injection sewer project ($2.6 million). Both projects were hoped to be funded by grants. The remainder of the CIP expenditures were earmarked for reserves for various projects. Highlights of the proposed budget he noted were: transition to a private operator at Gatewood; increase in insurance costs; vehicle investment; and the two large projects in the Water and Sewer Fund. Following these remarks, Mr. Utt concluded his presentation. Mr. Goodman asked how much the Town received from the state for the Police Department. Mr. Utt replied that he thought the amount was just under $250,000 with a small increase proposed by the state. However he could not confirm the increase, since it was not finalized and the state had just approved a budget. With respect to VDOT money he ventured that the Town might receive approximately $2 million. There being no other questions, Mayor Glenn opened the public hearing on the budget at 7:45 p.m. There being no comments received, the public hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m. Mr. Utt noted there was time on the agenda for additional budget discussion and that state law prevented Council from taking action on the budget this evening. He did note that there were budget work sessions on June 12tH 19tH and the 26tH 9. Public Comment Period Council received no comments from the public. 10. Consent Agenda a. Consideration of May 2, 2018 Council Meeting Minutes Mr. Kidd moved to adopt the minutes of the May 2, 2018 Council meeting as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Radcliffe and approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council. 11. Proiect Update a. Project Review Chart Mr. Utt noted there was no change on the status of the James Hardie Direct Injection Project pending outcome of the sulfate study. A meeting on the matter was scheduled for Peppers Ferry Board meeting on Thursday. Wiring was completed for the wayfinding sign at the East Main "triangle". Additional paving was scheduled to begin perhaps at the end of July for different areas in the Town. The Case Knife/Kersey Bottom housing project was nearing the end of its funding. There was an issue that seventeen houses were needed for the project, but presently there were only fourteen homes enrolled. Mr. Utt said the Town was looking for less expensive renovations on existing property and added that he did not think it was a concern. Auditors had begun their preliminary work for the fiscal year ending June 30th. Delinquent tax collections continued with the first report being issued by Sands Anderson. The firm indicated that the larger projects were included on the collection lists (Randolph House, Magnox) with other properties. The first half of real estate taxes were due (June 5tH) with data on collections to be reviewed when available. Mr. East asked if Sands Anderson had followed up with property owners who had not responded. Mr. Utt said that he thought state code required at least two notices and advertising before the Town could have a sale. He felt that the Town was still 90 to 120 days out from action. Mr. East asked if Sands Anderson was responsible for carrying action on the properties to completion. Mr. Utt said they were. In reference to other projects, Mr. Utt note the Town had received favorable reports from the Gatewood vendor and that the water treatment system passed all of its requirements and was operational. Drawings and financial budget estimates for the basketball -skate park were complete with the Town waiting for Page 4 of 12/June 5, 2018 notices of funding. The grant writer had the submission ready for the Tony Hawk grant application and the Brownfield funding request was submitted for review. Mr. Utt hoped that the park could be started this summer, with a deadline for site mitigation set for December. In reference to the zoning ordinance, Mr. UTT said the zoning ordinance was nearing completion and needed a final review. In addition, he anticipated that the Site Review Committee would have a report at the June work session on the site analysis for the public safety building and that he would be in further contact with that committee. b. Review of Short -Term Goals With respect to short term goals (30/60/90), Mr. Utt reported that the Street Department had been involved with brush collection and that he would be in contact with them regarding the temporary barriers on the creek wall. The "Silver Jacket" program documentation for the creek had been submitted and there had been a follow-up phone call with the Corps of Engineers. Senior Center improvements had been completed. Ordering of branding items was to be done, with the street banners having already been ordered. Mr. Utt hoped to have an update on the "pocket park" at a future date. b.1. Updates on Vuhvanagon, Randolph House and Magnox Mr. Utt said site review comments for Vuhvanagon were in the architect's and engineer's hands with a 30 day review deadline in place. Mr. East asked if every time the site plan was "handed off', was the review time started over. Mr. Utt asked Mr. Pedigo how many 30 day deadlines were allowed. Mr. Pedigo replied that if the drawings were resubmitted then the review process started over. Mr. Goodman said that there had to be a point where matter were resolved and felt that the owner was "playing a game". Mr. Penn added that vans were still being hauled onto the site. Following a short discussion, Council expressed its desire to take action against the site, possibly under the state code. Mr. Radcliffe suggested a motion calling for the matter be pursued through the legal process. Mr. Goodman asked at what point the Town could cease with the reviews. Mr. Rygas said he would start work with staff on other legal avenues that could be pursued. Mr. East added that he could not envision the "back and forth" going on indefinitely and that the Town must have some recourse for the situation. He asked if staff had heard from the EPA, to which Mr. Pedigo said they had not. Mr. East suggested that staff contact the EPA to get their input. Mr. Goodman said that he wished to add an item to the 30/60/90 review concerning working with the PSA to get the brush problem reduced. Mr. Utt said he had received correspondence from the County Engineer and that the item was on the agenda for June 19 and felt that there was an opportunity to use what was available. c. Update on Code Enforcement Efforts Next item was an update on Code Enforcement by Ms. Hair. She reported that in the last 12 months, Ms. Hodge had cited 180 violations (e.g. high grass, weeds, inoperative vehicles) with 21 cases reaching the courts. Ms. Hair noted that Ms. Hodge agreed to become a property maintenance official and that she would begin training in June with certification hopefully by January. Ms. Hair gave Council flow charts showing how different violations were handled, the time line for addressing violations set by state code, and how remediation efforts (e.g. mowing) were conducted. A similar process was used for inoperative vehicles, which had some success in the courts. Mayor Glenn asked if most violators complied before their court date. Ms. Hair responded that they did and that Ms. Hodge had been complemented on her work. Mayor Glenn also noted that citizens had expressed compliments on the action being taken and encouraged Council members to show the chart to the public. Mayor Glenn again complemented Ms. Hair and her staff on their efforts and asked about enforcement of the chicken ordinance. Ms. Hair responded that the process was working well. Page 5 of 12/June 5, 2018 Mr. East complemented Ms. Hair and her staff on the flowcharts then asked if there was still software available for reporting complaints. Ms. Hair responded that the software, "Go Outreach" was available and being used. Mr. Goodman asked if the program was accessible to the web to which Ms. Hair replied that it was and it would continue to be accessible on the new website. Mr. East asked about dilapidated buildings. Ms. Hair said she did not have information to provide to Council. She added that Mr. Pedigo currently was the building official. Mr. East said he would like to see a process for dilapidated structures and asked if it would require a building official. Ms. Hair responded that in such cases a building official was required. Mr. Radcliffe complemented Ms. Hair and her staff and noted that dealing with structures was very difficult due to the court's refusal to move quickly. Ms. Hair suggested that in the future she would return to Council to come up with incentives to redevelop such properties as opposed to time spent on demolition. Mayor Glenn asked Ms. Hair how to get a property owner to agree to sell their property. She replied that some of the properties had trustees who were willing to give them up. Mayor Glenn said he had tried to negotiate sales for three commercial properties around Town. Even with buyers available, the owners refused to sell. Ms. Hair ventured that incentives could be used to address that issue. Mr. Rygas said that the process was slow because the Town was just starting. However he felt once the Town established a rapport with the judges, the court's confidence in moving these cases along would grow. Their natural tendency, he ventured, was to give the citizens time to comply. As the judges gained a "feel" how cases are handled by the internal staff, he felt the Town would get returns for its efforts. Mr. Rygas said the Va. municipal code set forth what met code. Approaching a case from the standpoint of structural safety was a good place to start along with contacting the owners of such structures. The problem he continued was that most of these structures were in the hands of absentee owners or have many heirs with an interest in the property that could not be contacted. This could be a problem for tax sales in that the County might not wish to divide legal costs with the Town for a derelict structure that might incur thousands in legal fees to get something on the tax rolls of low value. There was a return rate involved, he concluded, which would be interesting to see how the Town's third party collector addressed the issue. Mr. East urged that a rigid process be established to deal with derelict structures. 12. Oid Business a. FY 19 Budget Review Mr. Utt reviewed the retirement incentive document from Radford. He noted that the program provided insurance up to five years for the employee in addition to a stipend which was added based on years of service. The remainder of the agreement he said solidified the agreement so that future Councils could not nullify it. If Council was in agreement with the document, Mr. Utt said that language could be incorporated into a finalized agreement for a more in-depth review by Council. With respect to the budget, Mr. Utt referred to Mr. East's email following the last budget session, which could be used as a starting point for discussion. Referring to a summary prepared for Council's review, Mr. Utt noted that state code said the budget year ended on June 30, while the Town Charter allowed six additional weeks for budget approval. While given that the charter trumped state code, Mr. Utt felt the Town would be getting into an uncertain situation if the budget process went beyond June 30tH Mayor Glenn asked Mr. East if he wished to go into more detail. Mr. East said he would answer questions regarding the information. Mr. Goodman asked where the figure for the 2.5% budget reduction came from. Mr. East responded that was the difference between 2016 and the present for the amount of revenues vs. expenditures; with expenditures having outpaced revenues. He felt that 2.5% was not that big of a cut given the size of the budget. Mr. Utt said that it was difficult in several instances for some departments and Page 6 of 12/June 5, 2018 referred to his handout showing what the reduction would equate to and identify where the reductions would be made. Some departments would not be affected as much, while others would result in substantial reductions (e.g. Police Department and the Fire Department) that were difficult to identify without affecting personnel. Mr. Utt hoped that his handout would provide neutral ideas or talking points to begin to address or provide data for other points in Mr. East's email. Mr. East said one of the other items he had involved the three open positions in the Police Department. He had looked at number of officers per capita in other towns (e.g. Wytheville, Vinton, Galax, Pearisburg and others). Pulaski had more officers per capita (1/302) as compared to an average from the other towns of 1/337. He suggested a reduction of one position of the three open positions in P.D, which would result in Pulaski having more policing per capita than the other communities. Mr. Utt asked for the list of towns researched to get the number of calls per service, crimes, etc. for comparison. Mr. East listed the officer per capita figures for other communities surveyed: Vinton 1/355; Christiansburg 1/368; Pearisburg 1/394; the closest was Galax with a ratio of officers to citizens of 1/290. If the two remaining open positions were filled, Pulaski would be at one officer per 282 citizens (1/282). Despite the reduction, he contended that Pulaski would be better policed than other communities in the area. Mr. Utt observed that there had recently been training for additional bike patrol officers and that there would not be as many on a shift if the Town did not have the ability to get up to 29 officers. Mr. East responded that there had been talk about bike patrol officers for three years. He mentioned a motion two years ago by the Council, but the Town still did not have a bike patrol officer. Mr. Utt said at that time the Town had a full complement (in the department). Mr. Goodman addressed Mr. East saying the Council had made an effort to clean up the Town and he felt like Mr. East was suggesting to reduce or defund the number of officers. Mr. East noted that there were three positions that had not been filled in the last few years. When a Code Enforcement Officer was sought, he maintained that they were told that there could not be one until five positions in P.D. were filled. That was two years ago he added and there had always been a number of vacancies. Mr. East added he was simply suggesting that there be a reduction of one open position, which would not reduce the current duty staff and leave room for two additional positions which in addition would result in savings. Mr. Utt said the department had a full complement as of December 2017. Mr. Goodman felt that the proposal was a form of "budget trickery". He continued that if a point was reached to fill all of the positions that money would have to be allocated out of reserves for the cost of those positions. He understood that one of Mr. East's concerns was over the reserves. What happens Mr. Goodman continued, is when positions are open but not filled, the money is not spent but it goes into the Town's reserve funds. Mr. East agreed, but said a "shell game" was played to get to favorable numbers for the implementation of the Phase II increase. While there was a $15,000 difference shown, the reality he maintained was $140,000 by playing a "shell game" with the staffing. Mr. East said his point was why have an open position that, from a numbers perspective, has not been filled in a longtime. In addition he asked, why put it as a line item in the budget? Mr. Goodman responded there were different positions in the department and ventured there were 33 positions. Mr. Utt said there were 29 sworn and 4 non -sworn department members. There would be turnover or retirement in the department Mr. Goodman continued. If the money was not put into the budget, how would you find somebody (for the position). Mr. East responded there was still money in the budget. He referred to the position of the Town in relation the per capita ratio of officers to citizens. Mr. Goodman responded that he felt the comparison was of apples and oranges and that not every community was the same. He ventured that each community had different issues with crime and the Town needed to be sure it addressed those issues. Mr. East agreed. Mr. Goodman continued it would be phenomenal to have all those positions filled. But, if positions weren't funded in anticipation that they would Page 7 of 12/June 5, 2018 stay open for a while he asked, where would the money come from to fill the position if the opportunity came? Mr. East responded that if the Town were on average of one officer per 337 citizens, the Town would only have 26 sworn officers. Mr. Utt verified there were 29 positions with 26 of them filled. Mr. East maintained that was close to the average and that what he was suggesting that the Town have 28 positions instead of 29 which put the Town well below the average. He also noted that the Town had more officers per capita than most every other community around. Mr. Goodman ventured that Mr. East was proposing to eliminate a sworn officer position in going to 28 positions. Mr. East clarified that his proposal was not to budget for a position that had not been filled in a very long time. Mr. Goodman disagreed noting that the vacancies were filled in 2017. Mr. East replied that he had stated his position. Mayor Glenn commented that he did not think that much more could be accomplished this evening. Mr. Goodman said he had one more question. He asked Mr. East if this came from the cost of the amount of the salary increases that were proposed for Phase I and Phase 11 implementation. Mr. East replied that he had explained those issues, that it was the difference, about 2.5%, between expenditures and revenues. What Council and staff had done he maintained, was that every time there was an increase in revenue, expenditures also were increased, which he felt could not continue. Mr. East said his concern was that revenues would start to level off while spending would not. He noted that in 2018 there appeared to be shortfalls. Mr. Utt said that the budget was a little misleading in that the Town received a lot of money in June (e.g. real estate, VDOT payments). Mr. East said his point was that the Town needed to be responsible. Semantics could be argued over the number of positions open. The fact of the matter was that the Police Department's budget was 25% of the Town budget. Where he asked, would you look if you are trying to save? First place you would look would be 25% of your budget. Mr. East said he thought there needed to be an open, honest discussion and a stopping of trying to protect "sacred cows". Everything needed to be put on the table he said. Furthermore he did not think that having 28 sworn officers instead of 29 officers was irresponsible. He felt the proposal was very responsible and that was where he was at. Mr. Kidd said he personally felt it was a safety issue. If one or two officers get hurt, like the recent fight in the street, they are out of work. His concern was if he needed an officer, they might not be available. Mr. East replied that the positions had not been filled. Mr. Kidd agreed, but said they were needed. Mr. Radcliffe ventured that two issues were being discussed. One issue was not cutting any officers, but taking a position away that was empty for a year. Mr. Kidd said the officers that were presently here had to continually come back to work. Mr. Radcliffe said to Mr. Kidd that the position was not filled now, and asked him how did that position help with what he had earlier referenced. Mr. Radcliffe maintained the positions referred to had not been filled in a year. Mr. Goodman said that as of December of last year every position in the Police Department was filled. Mr. East said they were filled for a short period of time. Mr. Goodman requested a report showing the vacancies per month in the Police Department over the last 36 months. He added that he would like to see how frequently the Town had positions not being filled. Mr. Goodman said the suggestion concerned him and asked what would be done if you had 28 positions and it was possible to bring another on. Mr. East responded that you would not bring them on, to which Mr. Goodman replied that a position was being eliminated. Mayor Glenn ventured that Mr. Goodman asked what happens when you bring 29 on, while Mr. East asked what happens when your revenue stream diminishes and instead of hiring position 29, you actually lay off position 28, 27, 26. Mr. Goodman said he did not want to sacrifice public safety. Positions were open in Public Works, he said, why was not elimination of a position in Public Works being discussed. Why, he Page 8 of 12/June 5, 2018 continued, because the Town needed them and needed to have the positions filled. Realistically, he figured every position in the Town must be reviewed. Mayor Glenn said that having experienced set reductions and level funding, he felt that was not the way for Council to address the budget. He felt that looking at positions was needed, and that private corporations were doing it. A future concern was that in the next three years, the Council will have to make tough decisions to survive. A short discussion then took place regarding corporate layoffs and the effects on employees. Mr. East said he reason he was holding a hard line was that $150,000 in the budget could be found for raises, yet he was told that money could not be found for reductions. The Town could not continue increasing expenditures. Mr. Utt said the budget had opportunities and reductions would make things tight, but there were still opportunities. Mr. East said the 2.5% reduction was an exercise for staff and that staff should take guidance from Council. Mr. East asked staff to look at the budget and tell him what could be done. There was a number by which the budget could be reduced and he wanted to see what it was, and it was not zero. Mr. Clark said he had not seen all of the numbers. While there was no doubt that the Town could be more efficient, he said Council could not be more efficient tonight. All that was being accomplished was "butting heads" and making no progress whatsoever. To do what was proposed he continued, would take a lot more work that what could be done this week or next week. The Council needed to get started on it and started right now. He said Council was making a move to do it, but it was coming at the last minute where there was not enough time to do what was desired in that period of time. Mr. Clark said Council had to start now. Mr. East replied that the process was started in April and in the absence of two Council members a $140,000 pay increase was approved. Mr. Clark said that the money was there. Mr. Kidd added that the Town Manager put it on paper and showed Council that the money was there. Mr. East responded it was part of that moving of funds he talked about earlier. The bottom line was that the salary increase was $15,000 on this budget, but next year, it's $140,0004200,000. His point was that Council did not start looking at this harder until April when it decided to pull in the pay study which was going to be incorporated in January 2019. He felt that was why this discussion had taken place. Mayor Glenn called a halt to the discussion given the lateness of the hour. He suggested, since there was a meeting the following week, that Council review the information from Mr. Utt and Mr. East and call for any additional information needed. The Council would meet again at 6:00 p.m., the next Tuesday (June 12, 2018) to look at the budget. Mayor Glenn added he found out that the employees were nervous and assured them not to be nervous that the budget discussions were an exercise between the Council and the management team. Both Phase 11 and the tier system had been approved and raises had been given and health care had been taken care of. These things were done he explained, but the concern of Mr. East was that things were done for this year, but what about next year. Mr. Rygas spoke to the earlier matter of when the budget needed to be approved. His view was that the Council needed to be operating under the assumption that the budget needed to be approved by June 30tH He did not believe the Town Charter trumped the state code. In the Virginia Municipal League budget guide said pursuant to Va. Code 15.2-2503 that a budget had to be in place prior to a fiscal year starting. He concluded that he had not seen anything that allowed an extension of the approval of a budget beyond the fiscal year's start. Mr. Rygas said that other items researched dealt with preventing items of expenditure if a budget was not in place. There was some mention of certain debt service that was allowed to be paid but not spending ordinary funds in the ordinary course of business. He concluded that if dates had to do with Council's negotiating, he assumed that it would have to be done by the end of June. Page 9 of 12/June 5, 2018 Mr. East then made the following motion: "I move that we reduce the General Fund operating budget by 1.5%, approximately $148,000, excluding CIP reduction and that this be reflected in the 2018-2019 recommended operating budget." Mr. Radcliffe seconded the motion. On Mayor Glenn's call for discussion, Mr. Rygas said there was a minimum amount of time on notices before action on budgets. Mr. Utt clarified that the motion was for the proposed budget for which this evening's hearing had been scheduled. He added that the motion would be guidance for staff next week, but added the caution that seven days had to pass before there could be action on the budget. An appropriate motion he suggested, along with Mr. Goodman, was to direct staff to develop an alternative budget to include the reductions. Mr. East restated his motion as follows: "I move that we direct staff to reduce ...provide a General Fund operating budget with a 1.5% reduction, excluding CIP, for review at the next Council meeting." The motion was seconded by Mr. Radcliffe. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Nay Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Nay Mr. Clark -Nay Mr. Penn -Aye Mayor Glenn -Aye Mr. Radcliffe then made the following motion: "I would like to make a motion to eliminate Parks and Recreation over the next 90 days beginning July 1, 2018 to reflect the 2018-2019 budget. That would be my motion, Parks and Recreation, uh Parks and Facilities, I'm sorry, Parks and Facilities." Mayor Glenn asked if he was making a recommendation on the budget for the next meeting. Mr. Radcliffe replied that was correct. Mr. East seconded the motion which was not approved on the following vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Nay Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Nay Mr. Clark -Nay Mr. Penn -Aye Mayor Glenn -Nay Mr. Penn then made the following motion: 1 would like to move that we eliminate one of the vacant positions in the Police Department." Mayor Glenn asked if the motion was for the current budget and called for a second. Mr. East asked if the motion was not necessarily tied to the budget. After a short discussion, Council determined they could take action since the motion dealt with the current budget. Following the discussion, the language "effective immediately" was added to the motion by Mr. Penn. The motion was seconded by Mr. East and was not approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Nay Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Nay Mr. Clark -Nay Mr. Penn -Aye Mayor Glenn -Nay There being no further motions, Council moved on to the next agenda item. 13. New Business a. Town Charter Discussion Mr. Utt asked Mr. Rygas to review the results of his research on charter amendments. Mr. Rygas said the local government charter section in the Virginia Code, Chapter 2 of Title 15.2, outlined how to amend the charter. One method involved a vote of the locality by the citizens, the other (§15.2-202) allowed a public hearing in lieu of an election. There is a process by which the hearing would be noticed, but the notice has to be specific as to what the amendment is and how the charter is to be amended. Page 10 of 12/June 5, 2018 The notice would be followed by the public hearing and be voted on after the appropriate measures of the hearing. After that, there would have to be certifications done, with a local representative taking the measure to the General Assembly. The charter change would be placed before the Assembly in bill form and be voted on. If the measure did not pass, it dies, which requires the process to begin again. If approved, the change would engage on the following July 1 st. Following these remarks, Mr. Rygas concluded his review. Mr. Radcliffe said he had located four or five communities where the Council appoints some or all department heads. What he proposed was to get Mr. Clark or another Council member to go talk to other communities and find out the pros and cons. Realizing it was a long process, he said what he wanted to do was get another member of Council to go with him for a meeting and learn what were the benefits or the disadvantages (of Council appointment of department heads). All he wanted to do was to go to these jurisdictions and get some information and have the information ready for the September work session. Mr. Rygas commented that the information was at the dais on two previous charter changes in 1998 and 2000. He asked for clarification that Council was asking for department heads to be hired directly by Council rather than the Town Manager. That was the crux of the 1998 amendment while the 2000 amendment dealt with the number of Council members. Mr. Goodman added after looking into the issue he found a couple of things that were likely to happen. He suspected that if department heads were placed under Council, the General Assembly would probably consider it micromanaging. The state had encouraged a strong council-manager relationship, resulting in a movement from department heads reporting to Council towards a Mayoral form of government. Given his personal experience, Mr. Goodman told Council that they did not want a mayoral form because of non- professionals in a management role. Another concern he had was the General Assembly automatically working into charter amendments the movement of local elections to November in addition to forcing partisan elections on localities. He added he was willing to hear what other localities had to say, but there was a risk that the General Assembly would put things in a charter amendment that the Town did not request, but that they (the Gen. Assembly) had a right to do. Mr. Radcliffe said he would like to go to communities where this (Council appt. Dept. Heads) and ask if it was a plus or a minus. Mr. Goodman asked for a list of communities where some or all department heads reported to their Council and then arrange a meeting in person or through Skype to see if it is a successful or less successful form of government. Mr. Utt asked for clarification as to the size of localities for the research. Mr. East asked the Clerk of he had done previous research, to which the Clerk replied that he had not. b. Resolution 2018-20, Resolution for Relay for Life Mr. Kidd moved to adopt Resolution 2018-20, as written. The motion 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 14. Closed Session Mayor Glenn then called for a motion to enter Closed Session under Va. Code 2.2- 3711 (a) 1 for a personnel matter regarding retirement incentives and two items under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 8, consultation with legal counsel concerning a franchise agreement and a UDAG loan application. Mr. Goodman moved to go into Closed Session. His motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Page 11 of 12/June 5, 2018 1 1 Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council entered Closed Session at 9:15 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 10:11 p.m. Mayor Glenn asked for a motion that Council discussed only those matters for which it went into Closed Session regarding one item under Va. Code 2.2- 3711 (a) 1 for a personnel matter concerning retirement incentives and two items under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 8, concerning consultation with legal counsel concerning a franchise agreement and a UDAG loan application. Mr. Goodman moved for approval of the Closed Session certification. 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 15. Reminder of Future Council Meetings and Adjournment. Mayor Glenn reminded Council of upcoming meetings on June 12th at 6:00 p.m. and June 19th at 5:00 p.m. He then called for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Radcliffe and approved by the unanimous voice vote of the Council at 10:13 p.m Approv David L. ark Mayor ATTEST: David N. Quesenberry Clerk of Council Page 12 of 12/June 5, 2018