Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-20 Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council meeting held at 7:05 p.m., June 2, 2020 in the Council Chambers of the Town Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W. A live cast of the proceedings through the Town's Facebook page and Zoom digital audio/video communication software were made available on-line. In attendance were: Mayor: David L. Clark, presiding Councilmen Present: G. Tyler Clontz; Brooks R. Dawson; Gregory C. East; Joseph K. Goodman; 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 Staff: Bill Pedigo, Town Engineer David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Staff Attending On-Line: Capt. A. J. Anderson, P.P.D. Chief Robbie Kiser, P.F.D. Rebecca Leeper, Finance Director Press Attending On-Line: Melinda Williams, Southwest Times-Facebook Mike Williams, PC Patriot-Zoom Others Present: Shannon Collins Ray Harnish Michael Reis 1. Call to Order Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Clontz. 3. Invocation The Invocation was given by Councilman Goodman. 4. Roll Call After the Invocation, roll was called. Present were Mayor Clark, Mr. Clontz, Mr. Dawson, Mr. East, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Penn and Mr. Radcliffe. Since all members of Council members were in attendance, a quorum was present to conduct business. 5. Modification of the Agenda Mayor Clark then requested a motion to modify the agenda to add Item 12g under"Old Business", Water Filter Plant, Filter#4 Update. Mr. East moved to modify the agenda as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye 6. Recognition of Guests and Visitors Mayor Clark thanked those who came out for the meeting. Council then conducted a hearing on a proposed disposition of property located at the intersection of Altoona Street and West Main Street. Page 1 of 14/June 2, 2020 • 7. Presentations There were no presentations scheduled on the agenda. 8. Public Hearings a. Proposed Disposition of Property at Altoona and West Main Mr. Utt reviewed for Council, information from last month's meeting concerning two town owned parcels located at the intersection of Altoona and West Main Street. The parcels he emphasized had no value to the Town and lay within a flood zone but were adjacent to the T.G. Howard Community Center property. The Center sought a grant through the Virginia Outdoors Foundation which was based on the area of land the Center owned. Donation of the property to the T.G. Howard Center would allow them to get some value out of the land. Even though the land could not be used, the Center would be eligible for a higher amount of grant funds. • Mr. Utt said that Council had scheduled a public hearing concerning disposition of the properties and referred Council to the maps in the packet showing their location. He emphasized the properties almost immediately dropped six to eight feet from the road to the level of the creek. While the land did not lie well, it did have some potential value to the T.G. Howard Community Center. The two lots that were called the T.G. Howard Community Center property were actually in the ownership of the Christian Citizens League and the Mary White Buford Women's Club. Legal work was in progress to get into the T.G. Howard property. Mr. Michael Reis, Councilmember-Elect said the work had been completed. Mr. Utt recommended following the budget public hearing guidelines to receive public comment. No action would be taken but electronic comments would be invited with action to follow at the July council meeting. He also recommended that the public hearing be opened since a member of the public was present. Mayor Clark then opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. With no comments received, he closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. mentioning the matter would be revisited on July 7th. Mr. Utt said the Town would make sure the issue was on Facebook and be advertised to get official comments. After the public hearing, Council considered the Consent Agenda. 9. Public Comment Period No comments were received from the public. 10. Consent Agenda a. Consideration of the March 31, 2020, Council Meeting Minutes Mayor Clark called for a motion to approve the Council Meeting minutes of March 31, 2020 and May 6, 2020. Mr. East moved to accept the March 31, 2020 Council meeting minutes as written. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion which was approved by unanimous voice vote. b. Consideration of the May 6, 2020, Council Meeting Minutes Mayor Clark then asked for a motion concerning the minutes of the May 6, 2020 Council meeting. Mr. Dawson moved to approve the May 6, 2020 Council meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penn and approved by unanimous voice vote. Next item for review was the Project Summary Sheet. Page 2 of 14/June 2, 2020 11. Project Updates a. Project Summary Sheet Mr. Utt asked Council if they had any questions. Mr. Penn asked what the Main Street project consisted of. Mr. Utt replied that it was the pocket park with lighting; fifteen (15)facades; and creek landscaping. Ms. Hair added that there would be lighting for alleys coming into the Peak Creek walkway. Mr. Penn then asked about the trees, sidewalks and crosswalks. Mr. Utt responded they were part of the VDOT project. He added that the Commonwealth Transportation Board had the project which was recommended for funding. However, they would not meet until later in June. Mr. Penn said he was under the impression that everything was all together. Mr. Utt replied that the sidewalks were funded by VDOT. The sidewalks cost approximately$600,000-$700,000 which exceeded available funds which was why the Town went to VDOT. Mr. Penn added that some time ago he asked for some drawings which were sent but due to the size of his phone he could not read them. Mr. Utt said he would print the drawings for him. Mr. Penn then asked how much the grant was originally. Mr. Utt said it was just under$700,000; about$696,000 he believed. Mr. Penn then asked how much of the grant money had been expended. Mr. Utt guesstimated $100,000 on the engineering side but that he could find out exactly. Mr. Penn expressed concern that the project had gone on for a long time but he saw very little. He felt that COVID-19 could not be blamed for everything. Mr. Utt said the good news was that four or five agreements were ready and that construction could be ready in a week to ten days. In addition there were an additional two facades in the works with fifteen (15)facades identified. Ms. Hair said the two buildings that West Main Development (WMD) had completed (85, 87, 89 and 94 West Main) were included and that they would be reimbursed for materials. Mr. Penn asked what"identified" meant. Mr. Utt responded that it meant there were persons who indicated they wanted to participate in the program although they may not have signed all the agreements because of unknown costs. Mr. Utt said that with downtown projects it often was hard to get owners to participate. He felt that was what happened with the last Downtown project. That resulted in bringing in anybody they could. Presently, Mr. Utt said there were 15 facades identified as ready and no others were being sought. He said it was now a matter of working though the cost estimate process. Mr. Penn noted the "pocket park" had been roped off for six months with a ditch down the middle, yet the target date was June 15t • Mr. Utt explained that the holdup was the brick pavers. Ms. Hair added it was the weather and the pavers, since suppliers were not producing. Mr. Utt said that June 15th was optimistic, while Ms. Hair said the date was provided by the contractors. Mr. Penn then asked how much of the project was bid out. Mr. Utt replied that the first phase of buildings had been done, so five buildings had been bid out along with the pocket park. He thought that this accounted for $400,000 of the $700,000 in the initial rounds thus far. There were contracts ready for that much or either already signed. Mr. East asked what the extension date was. Mr. Utt said the original completion date was October. They (the state)were doing automatic extensions but had not as yet told anyone what those extensions were. Mr. Utt ventured he thought it would be the end of the calendar year but the Town would push all it could for this summer because the community needed to see action. Mr. East then asked about the VDOT recommendation process. Mr. Utt said the applications went through VDOT's new"Smart Scale" grant process. Word had been received unofficially that the Downtown portion from Jefferson to Washington had been recommended for funding. However it was unknown if the funding was for one year or spread out over multiple years. Upcoming publication of the agenda for the Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting in late June should give a better idea on the funding. Page 3 of 14/June 2, 2020 Mr. Utt cautioned that did not mean that sidewalks would be done in the fall. The best case scenario was that the sidewalks would be removed with new ones poured in early 2021. The reason that the work would be bid out rather than being done by Town crews, was that a contractor was preferred who had the equipment to protect the glass on the structures. Mr. East ventured if there might be word from VDOT by July. Mr. Utt said yes. Mr. Goodman, noting the work would be on the West Main section between Jefferson and Washington, asked if anything was planned to be done on East Main Street. Mr. Utt responded that was the next step in the Downtown Redevelopment as to go down to the next block. He thought that step would be more intense since the historic streetlights did not go down far enough anywhere near Madison, in addition to catching the landscaping in that block. After that the next block would be west to Randolph Avenue. Mr. Penn asked if there was a deadline with respect to the grant. Mr. Utt responded that the original deadline was in October. The state did inform the Town that they would be giving extensions to all grantees but the length of the extension was not known. Mr. Utt then asked if there were any more questions on the summary chart. Mr. Dawson asked if there was an update on the VuhVanagon property. Mr. Rygas replied that one of the hearings was continued because of travel since the defendant was from New York. Currently, they were attempting to set the next date on that. What we had Mr. Rygas continued were two pending dates, one for matters from this year and a Circuit Court matter for the initial claim. The Circuit Court matter was still being set and the matter for this year was set for Wednesday, June 24th. Mr. Dawson then asked what was involved in setting the Circuit Court date. Mr. Rygas said when the court was available and when the attorneys were available. He added there was communications with them on Friday on potential court dates and were awaiting their response. Mr. Rygas felt there would be a response in a couple of days to select that date. Mr. Dawson said the update on the chart for the boundary adjustment mentioned a March meeting and, we were way beyond at this point. Mr. Utt thought that might have been the April meeting. There had been one "2X2" meeting but there had been several conversations with Mr. Sweet. He felt things were moving down the right path but that it would be a longer path. Chances were there would be a draft agreement submitted to the Board of Supervisors and Town Council by July, possibly as a July work session item after which the matter would proceed through the court and state system. The boundary adjustment itself would not likely happen until tax year 2021 which would be effective with the December tax billings. Mr. Dawson asked how long it would be before the matter was opened for public comment. Mr. Utt replied as soon as the agreements were brought up. He ventured that as soon as the agreements were brought out, there was a 30 day public comment process, followed by action from the Council and the Board. The issue would then go to the Commission on Local Government and from there to a three judge panel. Public comments were received at each level in addition to hearings in the Town. Mr. Dawson asked if more could be expected next month. Mr. Utt replied if he could keep the conversations going. Mr. Goodman said he was hearing concerns from the larger property owners in that area. He asked Mr. Utt if he had made any effort to reach out to landowners other than Mr. Hagen. Mr. Utt responded that initially he had not in the last three months. His hope was to get an agreement as to where boundaries would be since that issue was up in the air as far as the comfort level of the County and what made best sense for the Town. The good news was the area was mostly farmland with few residents which would permit one-on-one conversations. Hopefully that conversation would take place before the July work session to get the boundary ironed out. Mr. East emphasized that every effort needed to be made to include the property owners and keep them actively engaged. Silence he said could be our worst enemy. Mr. Goodman concurred noting that was the Page 4 of 14/June 2, 2020 biggest complaint he had heard. Having heard only bits and pieces, the property owners felt like the Town would force the issue and would not talk to them. Mr. Utt said that was far from the case. There being no further comments or discussion, Council next considered budgetary matters under"Old Business" dealing with: a budget amendment for FY 2019-2020; increases in water and garbage rates; and, the FY 2020-2021 budget. 12. Old Business a. Resolution 2020-12, Resolution Amending the FY 2019-2020 Budget Mayor Clark then opened discussion on Resolution 2020-12. Mr. Utt said with respect to the next four agenda items, that he would be referring to an item placed on Council's dais concerning a survey response on the FY 21 budget. The Town had placed a "Survey Monkey" on the Town's website to solicit comments on the current year's budget amendment; the proposed water rate increase; the proposed garbage rate increase; and, the FY 21 budget proposal. Only one comment was received concerning all four matters which were placed before Council. Mr. Utt ventured that Resolution 2020-12 finished the current year's budget. In reviewing the revenues earlier in the day and the prior day with the Finance Director, Mr. Utt reported that the revenues were looking steady if not better, actually better, than were in the proposed budget. He added he felt better about how the amended budget was coming in. There being no further questions, Mayor Clark opened the floor to accept a motion approving Resolution 2020-12. Mr. Radcliffe moved to accept Resolution 2020-12 as written. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Nay Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Next item considered was Ordinance 2020-02, setting charges for water service. b. Ordinance 2020-02, Ordinance Setting Charges for Water Service Mr. Utt reminded Council that one of the requirements for the Brookmont/HAA5 Project through the Health Department required a 3% rate increase for three years, this being year two of three, which also coincided with the Davenport study. The increase was required by the Health Department grant. He reminded Council that there had been a public hearing and public comment session held earlier with no comments specific to the increase except for the one mentioned earlier. Mayor Clark then opened the floor for a motion concerning Ordinance 2020-02. Mr. Clontz moved to approve Ordinance 2020-02 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dawson and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Council next considered Ordinance 2020-03. c. Ordinance 2020-03, Ordinance Setting the Monthly Rate for Residential Refuse Mayor Clark opened the floor for discussion of Ordinance 2020-03. Mr. Utt said this was the ordinance for the monthly rate for residential refuse. The County PSA provided the service, while the Town did the billing and IIpaid the PSA while retaining 5% for the billing service. The PSA advertised for a public hearing for a dollar increase per month. The public hearing was held last month, while the public hearing on their overall budget would be next week so they had not taken action (on the increase). The Executive Director said he expected it (increase)to move forward. Mr. Utt recommended moving forward with the ordinance and if something Page 5 of 14/June 2, 2020 unexpected happened, action could be taken at the July meeting to reverse the cost to not affect billings. He recommended approving Ordinance 2020-03 as written. Mr. East asked if this was a "pass through"to which Mr. Utt responded that it was. Mr. East then moved to adopt Ordinance 2020-03 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Council next considered Resolution 2020-16 for the FY2020-2021 budget. d. Resolution 2020-16, Resolution Approving the FY 2020-2021 Budget Mr. Utt said this was the proposed resolution for the upcoming FY 21 Budget. Described as the "bookmark" budget that would be re-visited, Mr. Utt said there would be better numbers in August. There were delays in reporting for both sales tax(45-60 days behind) and meals tax(30 days behind), although Mr. Utt said he was pretty comfortable with where things stood with that tax. Again he mentioned that there should have a better idea on revenues by August if not sooner which no doubt would be discussed often. The resolution would give the Town a budget for the upcoming year that would allow forward movement with some level of comfort. He noted that the same process for public hearing and public comment was used for this measure as with the other three. Mr. East asked if there were any comments received. Mr. Utt responded there was just the one comment which almost covered the four areas. Mr. Goodman, addressed the Mayor and noted this would be his last comment on the budget. He was concerned that the budget failed to recognize the serious issues moving forward, which was repaying the reserves. It showed zero intent for it. Mr. Goodman hoped that the Council coming forward would make every attempt to solve that problem as well as to continue to move forward on the emergency services complex without increasing the tax amount that would have to be paid for that$400,000 a year. Because it(budget) did not really recognize the need to cut more and repay the reserve funds, as would be discussed shortly, Mr. Goodman said he could not support it. There being no further comments, Mayor Clark asked if there was a motion regarding Resolution 2020-16. Mr. Radcliffe moved to accept Resolution 2020-16 as written. Mr. East seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Nay Joseph K. Goodman -Nay Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Next Council received an update on the status of the Emergency Declaration of 3/31/2020. e. Update on Emergency Declaration from March 31, 2020-Ordinance 2020-01 Mr. Utt informed Council that the ordinance had expired during the past weekend. He added there was no recommendation for an amended emergency declaration nor did he believe there could be since the County had not extended their own declaration. The region he felt continued to move forward in a positive direction and he was proud to have been a member of the New River Valley managers who had taken a lead in various measures to deal with the pandemic. Mr. Utt said he felt that the Town was in a good place compared to other localities and did not anticipate any further action on the matter other than notifying Council and the public that the declaration had expired. Next item considered was the Monte Vista Drive right of way extension. Page 6 of 14/June 2, 2020 f. Monte Vista Drive Extension Right of Way Extension After the May 5th meeting, Mr. Utt reported that Council had authorized staff to create the documents to consider bringing the Monte Vista Drive right of way extension into the Town system. Mr. Rygas was preparing the documents, while Mr. Pedigo was working on the survey plat prepared for the necessary easement. The last easement plat was an older one from the 1970's which required an updated survey. Mr. Utt added that he wanted to make sure the project did not"fall off the radar" because it was of importance to the County since the right of way was tied to the New River Trail Extension as one of the negotiating items for that extension. He expected there would be some action requested at the July Council meeting. Mr. Penn asked where the trail was. Mr. Utt said it followed the property line just north of the railroad, starting at Xaloy east and south of the railroad right of way. Mr. Penn asked where it was in progress. Mr. Utt ventured it was under construction, while Mr. Pedigo added that most of it was built. Mr. Utt guessed it was maybe 70% complete. With discussion concluded, Council next received a report on the repairs to Filter#4 at the Filter Plant. g. Filter Plant Repair-Filter#4 Mr. Pedigo reported that the project was going well and that the old filter bed was out and everything was ready for the new bed. However, he said the wall between Filter#3 and Filter#4 had some structural issues caused by the degradation of the rebar that must be fixed. The engineers had suggested coating the wall between the two filters to keep the water off of the rebar. Given the expense, a change order was needed on the order of$54,849 for Option #2 as described in the packet. This option was the least expensive and used the Tnemec coating which was recommended. The structural repairs had to be done Mr. Pedigo said, and emphasized it would be foolish not to coat this wall to prevent this from happening again. If it is not done with the filter bed out and the media out, the entire bed would have to be pulled down again. Mr. East said he assumed there were other walls within, to which Mr. Pedigo replied there were two. He added that he did not expect those two to be as bad and thought that a lot of this damage was caused by the "heaving up" of the precast concrete bed. Mr. East asked if there was a way of inspecting the others or would they have to be taken off-line. Mr. Pedigo said they would have to be taken off-line and pulled down. Mr. East asked if that was something that was planned to be done. Mr. Utt said the planning was underway while Mr. Pedigo added it would be done when Filter#4 was back in operation. Mr. Goodman asked if the recommendation from the engineer was that the Tnemec was the better option over Sherwin-Williams and what Warren Environmental was proposing. Mr. Pedigo said yes; the Option #2 Tnemec coating. He said the Warren Environmental proposal was one that the contractor had submitted but contact could not be established with references (product) and they were not familiar with that product. Concerning funding, Mr. Utt said the bond had been closed for$290,000 with $40,000 for engineering and permitting related matters and $250,000 for construction. In the current Fiscal Year in the Water Fund, there was $46,000 that was budgeted as a contingency/set aside that a portion of the cost could be taken from. Next fiscal year there was $63,000 in that contingency line item. Funds could be pulled from either one or split between both. The billings could come out of Water Fund Contingency without having to dig into reserves or other line items to take away from the water plant and its costs. Mr. Utt recommended, since the amount involved was less than 1% of the budget, splitting the cost between the two fiscal years and using the contingency funds. Mr. Dawson asked if there were any other line items that were already spending the contingency fund. Mr. Utt replied that no amount had spent from the Water and Sewer contingency funds in the last couple of fiscal years. Most spending from contingency funds came from General Operations. Page 7 of 14/June 2, 2020 • Mr. Penn said that under the original bids he noticed funds for permits. He asked what the permits were for. Mr. Utt responded that they referred to permits through the state Health Department which were mostly engineering costs to get the drawings, etc. in place for the permits which had been pushed through fairly quickly. Mr. Radcliffe asked concerning Option #2 that the filter wall would not receive coverage under warranty. He questioned about the recommendation for Option#2 when Option #3 said it was fully warranted. Mr. Pedigo said yes, but that Option #2 was the recommendation from the engineering firm. Mr. Radcliffe clarified that Option #2 was recommended even though it did not have a warranty and asked why that was. Mr. Pedigo responded they were not familiar with the Option#3 product and had never used it. In addition, they could not get any references on the product either good or bad and did not feel comfortable with it. The Town had used Tnemec on various past occasions. Mr. Utt added that when the Filter Plant was rehabbed seven or eight years ago it was with a new product with which there were now issues. The comfort level with the proven product (Tnemec)was much higher. Remaining with the Tnemec was why Option #2 was preferred. Mr. Goodman observed that the Town had a positive history with it. Both Mr. Utt and Mr. Pedigo replied yes. Mr. Goodman ventured that even though Warren Environmental said they could warranty the work, the only way you could truly warranty the work was to take the wall down and rebuild it from scratch. Once the cement was damaged there was always a risk moving forward. Mr. Pedigo replied there was risk, but that coatings had come a long way. Recoating concrete and rebar was done all the time. Mr. Utt added that there were some coatings that gave added structural value. Mr. Pedigo agreed that some did. What was preferred he continued was to protect the rebar which provided strength. Mr. Pedigo added that the mechanisms for the filter bed were to be shipped on June 22nd and should arrive in Pulaski on June 29th. Piping and other material would arrive June 5th. The critical factor with the coating Mr. Pedigo said, was to give it time to cure so the bed could be installed and the project kept moving. Mr. Goodman asked about the time to completion. Mr. Pedigo responded potentially the end of July or August. Mr. Goodman then moved that Council support Option #2 the Tnemec system, in the amount of$54,849 the appropriation for which will be allocated between the remaining contingency line item of this year's Water Fund, the balance of the amount to be charged to the contingency line item of the Water Fund of Fiscal Year 21. The motion was seconded by Mr. East and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Following action on the measures, Council moved to consider flood mitigation under"New Business." 13. New Business a. Storm Water and Flood Mitigation Discussion Mr. Utt said the direction he received previously from Council on this issue was difficult since there was not much "low hanging fruit"that could be captured especially with continuing rains. He said since March 1st, there had been fifteen inches of rain; while in the month of May there had been nine inches. Any flood problems that had not been apparent in the last two decades were certainly discovered. Mr. Utt said he had contacted a variety of groups. He reminded Council that the"Silver Jackets" group, which consisted of members from a variety of Federal agencies, liad done an initial flood assessment study as well as an interim report. Recent contact with the group indicated that a written report would not be available until possibly the end of June. The report would be a starting point which would have recommendations for the next steps to get grant funding to do. Page 8 of 14/June 2, 2020 The recommended next step was to map the storm water system in the Town so it could be learned where the water was coming from. Another issue was looking at areas upstream that could be utilized to slow the floodwaters down and, through the acquisition of property, to use them as a flood storage area. At the same time approaches could be considered to speed the floodwaters to get it out of Town. Norfolk Southern was contacted concerning the trestle behind the Speedway gas station and the Honeywell site. No response had been received, but efforts would continue to get them to assist with the engineering analysis of the trestle. Mr. Utt said that another group, the New River Conservancy had partnered with the Friends of Peak Creek and the Friends of Claytor Lake to create a restoration plan for Peak Creek. Part of that included an element of flood mitigation and flood studies. This group raised the possibility upstream flood catch areas. The New River Conservancy would have some recommendations for the"low hanging fruit" items which might include clearing out creek bottoms, getting water out quicker, and the use of riprap to slow the water down before it gets to the Town. The Conservancy had requested to come to Council for a presentation/discussion in July at the work session. Mr. Utt felt they would be integral to any flood mitigation effort because of their"reach". The Army Corps he noted did not get in a hurry unless pressured by Congress. Mr. East asked if the New River Conservancy would have any recommendations for its July presentation. Mr. Utt said they would. Mr. Radcliffe said that he was contacted by Delegate Rush who recommended that the letter to NS that Mr. Utt had written, be sent to him and that he would take it to Richmond. Mr. Radcliffe maintained the NS trestle was a huge problem and mentioned drone photographs showing the blockage of the trestle by debris. He said he would like for Mr. Goodman to contact Mr. Griffith, Mr. Chafin and Mr. Rush to stay on top of the issue. Mr. Radcliffe added that he had talked to the residents of Kersey Bottom and Loftier Bottom, who had taken another hit (flood). He expressed concern that a flood event could cut these areas of from emergency assistance. He again urged Mr. Goodman and Mr. Utt to make the appropriate contacts with state and federal representatives. Mr. Goodman said since the railroads were regulated more by Congress, he would reach out to Rep. Griffith's office and see if a conversation could be started at that level. Hopefully, Del. Rush could coordinate with that office to see what could be done. Regarding the flooding on Bell Avenue, Mr. Goodman said he had contacted the business owners in that area who he described as being very scared. He noticed there was a storm water pipe at the end of Bell Ave. which went straight into the creek which was adequate for regular storm water removal but allowed water to build back into Bell Ave. He suggested rethinking the line as to how it was done and adjust it so the water does not pond as quickly. In addition he asked about raising the bank to divert the water to a less utilized piece of land on Bell Ave and across the creek on First Street, N.E. Mr. Utt said the biggest problem was the land in that area was very flat and he hoped that several of the recommendations from the Army Corps would be a berm or something similar to slow the water down. Mr. East while recognizing the long term items discussed, felt the New River Conservancy was an immediate, result oriented group. He felt the Town should attack the issue from all angles to get actionable items and start down what he realized was a long road. Anything that could be done in the short term would be beneficial. Mr. Goodman suggested there be a detailed investigation of the water flow at Kersey and Loftier Bottom to see what could be done along Peak Creek to control the flooding perhaps stopping smaller floods with berms, etc. Mr. Radcliffe brought up the possibility of building an access road from Summit Street to Lotter Bottom to get access to those 10-15 homes in times of flooding or emergency. There had to be something done he emphasized to protect those people and be able to get to them. The alternatives he said were to either raise the bridge, which was expensive, or cut a road from Summit Street to Loftier Bottom. Mr. Radcliffe also complemented Mr. Mark Bentley and his crew at Public Works for a job well done in checking manholes in preparation for a flooding event. Page 9 of 14/June 2, 2020 Mr. Dawson suggesting getting pictures by drone of the railroad trestle to send to lawmakers, which he felt would better illustrate the situation and hopefully get faster action. Mr. Utt said he wished pictures were taken of the trestle during the last flood. Mr. Goodman proposed talking to the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech and looking at some of the senior design projects. He thought a project could model the flow of the water which would help a lot of people understand the depth and topography of what was being dealt with. Another issue which Mr. Goodman mentioned was the"doodle dust" because the deposits went into Claytor Lake, which was the County's water source. The goal whatever was done would be to preserve the water quality. Mr. East asked that the flood mitigation effort be added to the Project Summary Sheet. Next issue discussed was the unappropriated funds spending. b. Unappropriated Funds Spending Mr. Utt said Mr. Goodman asked that this item be placed on the agenda. Mr. Goodman reminded Council of the shock, as he described it, back in January that the reserves were nearly halved. He said it affected the Town from the standpoint of the audit and potentially impacted the ability to get loans by affecting the interest rate. Mr. Goodman said several citizens had approached him with the question as how that was done without a budget amendment or anything else. His reply was that he thought that was under the authority of the Council which he added that apparently it wasn't. Mr. Goodman said he asked the Clerk of Council to reach out to other communities to see if that was the norm or were there fiscal policies in place to prevent such actions. It appeared that most of the neighboring localities were unaware of what a reserve fund was or there were strict rules in place. He hoped that Council would talk about what those rules should be and maybe for the July Council meeting have an ordinance that could be adopted. He highlighted sections from the "Principles of Sound Financial Management", which was placed in the budget the last six years, that stated that the reserves should never be less than 10% percent and should strive for a goal of 15%. Funds taken out the reserves were to be paid back in 36 months which in this case amounted to $265,000 per year for the next three years to get the funds at the previous level. Mr. Goodman used as an example if the Fire Truck was paid from the reserves instead of a loan, then there would have been three years to pay the reserves back. His hope for the future was that by putting this policy in place, which was apparently the norm in other localities, that there would be no more surprises and that reserves would be built back up where they need to be. Mr. Dawson said in conversations with people he had heard two different sides. Some say there was a policy in place that would require approval, but sounded like we don't have a policy in place that would require approval. Mr. Utt responded that we did have a policy. Anything that exceeded the budget came back to Council for approval. What happened, he proposed was not so much expenditure related as revenue related; where we had the loss. Coming up with policies that would be more restrictive with more access or more eyes on the ongoing revenues would be just as important including Mr. Goodman's areas, which he felt had been done a lot in recent months. Mr. Dawson said he would be in agreement with putting that in as a written way of doing business that it would not just be expenditures but include revenue losses. Mr. Goodman said that the Code of Virginia talked about it, but barely. The way the Code of Virginia read, he continued, talked about the responsibility of the Council to designate the use for funds. This was the point of the budget process, as why a budget had to be adopted today, to follow the Commonwealth of Virginia Code. When he looked at this it was for undesignated funds. For these funds to become designated funds it required Council authority. The role of elected officials was to make that designation. Page 10 of 14/June 2, 2020 The other thing to consider that was mentioned in reference to the City of Salem and other communities, was that they had three types of funds. They had a reserve for economic uncertainty; an emergency reserve; and, working capital. He felt it was important to learn as to how that would work out. As an example, if the Town _ had $200,000 in bills but only had $100,000 in the bank, the Finance Director could take $100,000 from reserves, pay the bills, and repay the reserves 30 days later when taxes are due. He added that he did not know if it was covered here or was more of a fiscal policy, but that was his advice. In another approach he mentioned limiting the use of reserves to a percentage (e.g. 5%) of the budget, which could not be used if reserves dropped below that set percentage. Mr. East said Mr. Goodman raised some good points that had been touched on previously. He felt there was a need to insure that there were established guidelines on the transfer of funds from unassigned reserves to something else. Mr. East said he was very much under the impression that there had been a previous discussion of this concerning overspending on certain line items. At the time, Mr. East attributed it to expenditures not being reconciled. He asked Mr. Utt if that was an accurate statement. Mr. Utt responded that some of it was, but there had been overspending for a variety of reasons mentioning employee payout for retirements and paving. The Town he explained always over paved. Because at the end of the year, if VDOT for example said that a $20,000 expenditure did not qualify, the Town would make sure to overspend by$20,000 so it would not have to pay VDOT back. Mr. Utt said that he thought that$20,000 was the maximum overage done now. Mr. East noted that paving was significantly over$20,000, while Mr. Goodman ventured it was $100,000. Mr. Utt responded that there were a couple of parking lots paved that were reimbursed this fiscal year(e.g. First Street parking lot). Mr. Goodman said he did not believe VDOT reimbursed for parking lots. Mr. Utt responded that came out of the in-eligible (Street In-Eligible)funds. In looking at the unappropriated fund balance and what affected it, Mr. Utt said that both expenditures and revenues should be considered. If revenues are underperforming there needs to be a check on that early on. Records were now set up to allow revenues to be checked on a monthly basis for the past four years. This would allow staff to better anticipate how the budget was performing. Mr. Penn said what he thought happened was that money was approved from the reserves, but they did not know how much money was in the reserves. Mr. Utt thought that with any request(undesignated fund balance) would have to be clarified with the Council. He said that the audit was a "snapshot" in time of June 301h. The Town could have as much as $2.2 million or$1.1 million in reserves. With a $15 million budget, it was expected to spend $1 million each month, which was a large swing. It was something that needed to be closely watched. Mr. East asked if the Town had a better idea how things stood since the audit. Mr. Utt said he did and the figures he had were "post-COVID". Regarding meals tax Mr. Utt said if June saw 60% collections (with collections normally running 85%-$85,000 to $90,000 per month)with current collections at$70,000-$75,000- $78,000 per month, collections could go as low as 40% and the Town would still meet its budget and exceed the revised budget approved this evening. Concerning real estate, Mr. Utt reported real estate collections were at$1.3 million out of$1.4 million. Sales tax he noted ran behind a little bit. In February(2020), sales tax totaled $60,000 which fell to $45,000 in March and April, yet rebounded to $57,000. Mr. Utt estimated that even at $40,000 per month the Town was well ahead of sales tax revenue projections. With BPOL, he emphasized, the Town had already received nearly $500,000 out of a budget of$440,000. Mr. Utt said as to what would happen next fiscal year was unknown until more "COVID" data could be gathered for comparison. Mr. Utt opined that any issues would be taken care of with the Town's revenues running ahead of projections coupled with the cost cutting; hiring freeze, and the spending freeze. Mr. East asked Mr. Utt if he foresaw returning monies to the reserve. Mr. Utt replied he did not have a good grasp on that, but he thought that money would be put back in, but he did not know how much. Mr. East said Page 11 of 14/June 2, 2020 he agreed with Mr. Goodman that was one of the most important things to be done. He remarked that when he and others came on Council the reserves were uncomfortably low. At one time reserves were approaching $1.5 million-15% but that had fallen off. Mr. East said he would like to see the reserves at 20% and felt that needed to be a priority. With revenues available in the budget, Mr. East felt they should be returned to the undesignated fund balance. Mr. Goodman said the GASB standard was 15% for reserves and that the Town's reserves were 10% or lower when most current members came on Council. The main reason for reserve drops was that governments made poor financial decisions. It was Council's responsibility to step up in the next few years and that reaching 20% undesignated reserves would be over next few years. In addition there were other issues (e.g. equipment, etc.)to be considered. He felt finances should be addressed as personal finances were. While the audit was a "snapshot" he questioned why it was so off and wondered if there was something fundamentally flawed in how things were done. He felt the proposed policy for undesignated fund balance would encourage this outlook. Mr. Dawson felt that nobody was completely happy with the budget that was just approved with the condition that discussions on it would continue until Council was happy with it. The most important thing to be done he said, was to make sure the discussions about policies concerning communications on fund spending or revenue losses were tied to the same discussions that would be held at every meeting until Council was satisfied. At this point in time he noted, no one had said they were satisfied. He felt the budget needed to be on every agenda and continually updated with the current status with any changes or discussions that were felt were needed until resolved with a plan that everyone was comfortable with. There should be a line item on every agenda moving forward until Council finds itself at that point. Mr. Goodman moved that Council instruct staff to come back with a draft policy for the July meeting for Council to review that requires authorization from the Council for any expenditures of funds unappropriated than also looks at the options of"rainy day"funds, emergency reserves, and working capital options as laid out by the Town of Vinton as well as looking at some of the other communities for best options. The motion was seconded by Mr. East and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Following the vote, Council then considered Resolution 2020-17 endorsing construction of a bridge on West Commerce Street. c. Resolution 2020-17, Resolution Endorsing Reconstruction of the West Commerce Street Bridge Mr. Utt said this was another VDOT grant received by the Town awarded a year to fifteen months ago. Being a multi-year project, engineering funds were awarded to come out of FY 21 with construction to start in FY 22 and to be completed with FY 23 funding. Mr. Utt said the construction may finish up sooner, but that was where the grant funds would come from. The RFP process for an engineer was initiated with Schwartz and Associates being chosen, who were familiar with the needs of the bridge. Project documentation was in front of VDOT for review. What was needed now was the enclosed resolution verifying that Council still wanted to do the bridge and begin the engineering process. Mr. Utt said the project was being paid 95%-96% by grant money with the Town's portion at$42,000 over the life of the project. Recommendation was to approve the resolution to get it to VDOT tomorrow. Mr. Goodman observed that the proposal was "a steal"for the Town. Mr. Goodman moved that Council adopt Resolution 2020-17, Resolution Endorsing Construction of the West Commerce Street Bridge Structure#8008 Project as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penn and approved on the following roll call vote: Page 12 of 14/June 2, 2020 Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Council next considered Ordinance 2020-04 on a proposed property tax waiver. d. Ordinance 2020-04, Proposed Property Tax Waiver Mr. Utt said the County adopted this ordinance pursuant to their real estate collections which held if you could not afford to pay your real estate taxes due to the pandemic there was a delay of penalties to September 5th Taxes were still due, but there would be no penalty until September 5th. Mr. Utt said the Town was close on real estate collections with $1.5 million billed and $1.3 million collected. He thought it was a good faith effort if Council would consider this as written. Mr. Goodman asked if the proposal was if the taxes were not paid by September 5th, then the late fees would start. Mr. Utt said that was correct and that the Town would not go back 90 days and start collecting (the penalty). Mr. Goodman moved to adopt Ordinance 2020-04, Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia Providing Relief to Town Taxpayer by Reducing to Zero the Interest and Penalties Assessed on First Half 2020 Taxes Paid Between June 5, 2020 and September 5, 2020 and Enacted Pursuant to Sec. 58.1- 3916 of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended, as proposed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dawson and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye With discussions concluded, Council then moved to matters under the Closed Session. 14. Closed Session Mayor Clark then requested a motion to enter Closed Session for one item under Va. Code. 2.2-3711 (A) 1, a personnel matter regarding the Town Manager's quarterly evaluation. Mr. Goodman moved to enter the Closed Session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Council entered Closed Session at 8:29 p.m. and returned from Closed Session at 9:12 p.m. Mayor Clark asked for a certification motion that Council discussed the one items for which it went into Closed Session under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (A) 1, a personnel matter regarding the Town Manager's quarterly evaluation Mr. Goodman moved to certify the closed session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dawson and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye Joseph K. Goodman -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye 15. Reminder of Future Council Meetings and Adjournment. Page 13 of 14/June 2, 2020 There being no further business, Mayor Clark called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Goodman moved to adjourn. His motion was seconded by Mr. Dawson and approved by the unanimous voice vote of Council at 9:14 p.m. - Approved: 9/ . ' ----•--------:".*4 W. Shannon Collins Mayor ATTEST: #4,-//7 -VdAdedA.chy David N. Quesenberry Clerk of Council • I Page 14 of 14/June 2, 2020