Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-21 Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council Work Session held at 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 19, 2021 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W. that included a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. The Town also provided a live-cast of the proceedings on the Town's Facebook page with one member of the Planning Commission and one member of Pulaski Area Transit participating via Zoom. In attendance were: Mayor: Shannon Collins, presiding Councilmen Present: G. Tyler Clontz; Brooks Dawson; Gregory C. East; Lane R. Penn; Michael P. Reis Councilmen Absent: James A. Radcliffe Planning Commissioners Chris Conner; Terry Hale; Janet Jonas (Zoom); Present/Participating: Kevin Meyer, Chairman Administration: Darlene L. Burcham, Town Manager Legal Counsel Spencer A. Rygas, Town Attorney Staff: Brady Deal, Planning/Economic Development David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Jordan Whitt, Social Media Director Others Present: Monica Musick Austin Stromme Jennifer Viers (Zoom) Luke Wilson 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Collins. 2. Roll Call. Following the call to order, the roll was taken. Present were: Mayor Collins, Mr. Clontz, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Penn and Mr. Reis. With a majority of Council members in attendance, a quorum was present for the conduct of business. Absent from Roll Call was Mr. East and Mr. Radcliffe. Mr. East entered the meeting at 5:01 p.m. 3. Modification of the Closed Session Agenda No modifications were noted for the Closed Session Agenda. 4. Closed Session Mayor Collins then asked for a motion to enter Closed Session for two matters: one item under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 3, discussion concerning acquisition or disposition of publicly held real property; and one item under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 7, consultation with legal counsel concerning probable litigation. Mr. Dawson moved to enter Closed Session on the stated items. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved on the following roll call vote: Page 1 of 15/January 19, 2021 Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Absent Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye Council entered Closed Session at 5:02 p.m. 5. Certification of Closed Session Council returned from Closed Session at 5:59 p.m. Mayor Collins then requested a motion that Council discussed only those two matters for which it went into Closed Session: one item under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 3, discussion concerning acquisition or disposition of publicly held real property; and one item under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (a) 7, consultation with legal counsel concerning probable litigation. Mr. Penn 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 James A. Radcliffe -Absent Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye 6. Modification to the Public Session Agenda Mayor Collins noted there were no modifications to the Public Session agenda. 7. Welcome to Guests and Visitors. Mayor Collins welcomed all guests attending either on-line or in person. 8. Joint Public Hearing of the Town Council and the Planning Commission. a. Planning Commission Case No. 2021-01-Zoning Amendment to allow Ground Floor Apartments in the B-3 Central Business District as a Special Exception Mayor Collins then moved on to the joint hearing concerning a zoning amendment to allow ground floor apartments in the B-3 Central Business District as a special exception. 1. Call Planning Commission to Order and Roll Call Chairman Meyer called the Planning Commission to order. Commissioners present were Mr. Chris Conner; Mr. Terry Hale; Vice-Chairman Janet Jonas (Zoom) and Chairman Kevin Meyer. 2. Staff Report and Applicant's Presentation Mr. Deal then gave the staff report concerning the Town's reception of a request from Aggregate Capital for a zoning amendment to amend the existing language in the B-3 District (Sec. 4.10.2-2) prohibiting dwelling units on the ground floor to permitting dwelling units on the ground floor. Both VHDA and DCHD had recommended that the project at 37 West Main Street use more of the buildings space for housing. The applicants had also received word that senior citizens had expressed an interest in living Downtown but could not because of issues and concerns involving the use of stairs in accessing second floor apartments. Page 2 of 15/January 19, 2021 In response to the state agencies concerns, the applicants proposed to construct three apartments on the south side of the building adjacent to the creek with a combined square footage of 2,775 square feet. Access to the units would be on the creek side of the building. The purpose of the hearing was not to grant applicant approval for the use but to approve or deny the amendment request. If approved the request for the apartments would have to be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and Town Council. The request could be subject to or limited by conditions imposed by the Commission. Mr. Deal then concluded his presentation. Mr. Luke Wilson and Mr. Austin Stromme of Aggregate Capital then addressed Council concerning their application. Mr. Stromme emphasized that businesses were expanding and locating in the Downtown area (e.g. Board Shop) and all four apartments that were part of their project were rented. He noted the regional demand for housing, due in part to over enrollment at Virginia Tech, and observed that Pulaski offered a great opportunity to have affordable housing. Regional, state and federal agencies had also taken notice of the Downtown efforts, which Mr. Stromme hoped would provide the momentum to grow Pulaski's Downtown into a destination for various activities. Mr. Allison said a lot had been learned from the first project which responded to a great demand for smaller commercial buildings or apartments. Those apartments that had been built were both affordable and of high quality. However senior citizens and others with mobility issues were eliminated from considering residency in these second-floor apartments due to the access being by stairwell,. The apartments were ideal for those persons with mobility issues but they could not traverse the stairs to get to them. Mr. Stromme reviewed the participants in the public private partnerships (e.g. VHDA, DHCD, Pulaski County, etc.). VHDA had provided a letter of support for the proposed apartments and support had also been received from Mr. Sweet, Pulaski County's administrator. Investor support for the next project amounted to $3 million for 37 West Main Street which was one of the largest commercial spaces in the Downtown that could be a retail and housing attraction. He felt that it could help in boosting the Downtown population and foot traffic. Mr. Allison noted that conversations with other developers indicated a reduced demand for 5,000-20,000 sq. ft. commercial spaces which indicated that the traditional idea of a large commercial space is not as necessary as in the past. Given the size of this building, there was still adequate space for commercial and for three apartments in the rear. Mr. Stromme then reviewed the proposed layout for 37 West Main St. with the apartments opening onto the alley on the creek side which complied with the CDBG plan that the Town came up with concerning the "creek walk". He added that for access for ground floor apartments it would be preferable to have access off a neighboring alley or other thoroughfare. The presence of the pocket park and the neighboring alleyway would be perfect for potential residences, given the scenario that the entrances would not be on Main Street. Mr. Allison concluded that they were appearing before Council and the Commission for the amendment so they could have safe, accessible apartments for those in the community who otherwise could not be tenants Downtown given their mobility limitations. There was also the possibility, as in other communities, of restricting residences in downtown corridors but in some • downtowns it might not make sense to have these restrictions on that main street corridor. The Congress for New Urbanism proposed that to allow new businesses to thrive in a downtown, it would require an increase in foot traffic by having more people living in that area who would be Page 3 of 15/January 19, 2021 customers outside those businesses peak hours. With those comments the presentation concluded. 111 3. Questions from Town Council and the Planning Commission Town Council and the Planning Commission then questioned the applicants. Mr. Reis asked would the amendment for a special exception still require a special process and would not be by right. Mrs. Burcham said that was correct. Mr. Dawson voiced a concern that first floor residents would be in spaces intended for retail/commercial uses. He asked if it would be possible to have an exception that would define the intentions of that exemption to not have residences in a forward facing location. Mrs. Burcham responded that the special exception process, if the prohibition was removed, would require the group (Aggregate Capital) to come back. The Planning,Commission could stipulate not just rear access but other provisions allowing the request to be shaped (e.g. number of apartments). It was a fluid matter in which the Planning Commission made a recommendation and Town Council made the final decision, depending if the amendment was approved this evening. Mr. Dawson felt it was important to distinguish what the goal was and not leave it open for the exception to be in a negative fashion. Mr. Stromme responded that in talking with others it seemed that having ground floor apartments on the front would not be desirable, but having them in the rear was acceptable. Mr. East stated the amendment was to permit ground floor dwelling units as opposed to their being prohibited. He asked if there was a need to expand that slightly to eliminate the possibility of a store front apartment. That clarification he thought might prevent that since ground floor apartments on Main Street were undesirable. He asked if the matter could be left open for a special exception conversation or should it be added to the existing request to eliminate it from Main Street. Mrs. Burcham said the exception could be modified, and given the joint hearing the Planning Commission could consider and deliberate it after which they would make a recommendation. The recommendation may or may not have the additional conditions, but it was within Council's purview to modify it in any way to make it restrictive. As of today, if that language was changed as requested, nobody could put any kind of apartment on the first floor without going through the special exception process. She said it would be easier for persons to know in advance that it(ground floor apartments facing Main St.) would not be considered if it was something that Council was interested in. Mr. Penn said he liked the concept of ground floor apartments but asked if tenants using the long alley to reach the apartments had been considered. Mr. Allison responded they had been asked about use of the long alley. He contrasted the distance walking from a parking lot to taking stairs in that there was a safety factor. When it came from traversing a parking lot or walking to an apartment in back, the safety factor was different. Mayor Collins noted that even if apartments were facing Main Street, they still could not park right in front of the apartment full time so they would still have to walk. Noting the unusual circumstances of the meeting and since the Planning Commission had to look at the matter first, Mrs. Burcham suggested the Planning Commission be given the opportunity ask questions of the applicants since they had to issue a recommendation. She thanked all who came or logged in to participate in the discussion. Page 4 of 15/January 19, 2021 Mr. Allison asked to add to his comments on the elderly, mentioning that those using a cane, wheelchair or walker would find it impossible to live in the Downtown due to the stairs. Mrs. Jonas commended the applicants for a great job on their explanation concerning the proposed amendment, but asked the question as to why ground floor apartments were not allowed in the first place and what other concerns might be considered. Mr. Stromme responded that parking was an issue and had been discussed before the hearing. There were parking areas available but they were spread out. Regarding Main Street, new parking signs were installed, but parking was not being enforced. Mrs. Burcham responded that not only was there enforcement but some vehicles had been towed. Mr. Allison noted the importance of small businesses and that they constituted the fabric of a downtown and a vibrant main street. The original code was put in to prevent ground floor apartments facing Main Street, nor should there be. That was his explanation for the prohibition in the first place. Mrs. Jonas thanked him for his comments. Mr. Deal commented that the purpose of zoning was to (1) maintain the character of various districts; and, (2) separate incompatible uses. The Downtown area was not intended for residential uses facing Main Street, but for retail and commercial businesses. In this regard he thought: (1) keeping apartments in a certain part of the building was one issue; and, (2) if having first floor apartments that do not face Main Street change or are detrimental to the character of the district. Chairman Meyer ventured that part of the reason that ground floor apartments weren't originally included was that there was upstairs housing which had access from Main Street. He expressed concern over ground floor apartments being located in the Flood Plain and having people living on the first floor caught in a flood at night. Mrs. Jonas said that in the time she had lived here, there were ground floor apartments in buildings in this district. There was a precedent there which she felt would be another consideration. There being no further questions, both bodies moved to the public hearing portion of the agenda. 4. Open Public Hearing for Public Comments-Town Council Mayor Collins opened the public hearing for Town Council at 6:22 p.m. 5. Open Public Hearing for Public Comments-Planninq Commission Chairman Meyer opened the public hearing for the Planning Commission at 6:22 p.m. 6. Close Public Hearing-Planning Commission There being no comments, Chairman Meyer closed the Planning Commission public hearing at 6:33 p.m. 7. Close Public Hearing-Town Council Likewise receiving no comments, Mayor Collins closed the Town Council public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Page 5 of 15/January 19, 2021 8. Planning Commission Retires to Discuss Issue The Planning Commission retired from the joint hearing and began discussion of the application at 6:33 p.m. 9. Consent Agenda. a. Consideration of December 15, 2020 Council Meeting Minutes Mayor Collins then asked for a motion regarding consideration of the December 15, 2020 Council meeting minutes. Mr. Dawson moved to approve the December 15, 2020 Council minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved by a roll call vote of Council as follows: Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Absent Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye 10 Memorandum of Understanding-Calfee Community and Cultural Center Mrs. Burcham next reported that the draft Memorandum of Understanding placed before Council (MOU) had been reviewed by the Town Attorney. An amendment had been made adding the Housing Authority to the signature page since they had title to the building (Calfee School) and would transfer the structure per the MOU. An effort to have a Housing Authority meeting before the end of the month was being made. Mrs. Burcham reminded Council that the vacancy on the Housing Authority had Mr. Penn appointed to serve in that position. As soon as the Authority could be convened, according to the State Code a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary would be selected if necessary. She hoped that the officials would be in place to be a signatory to the MOU, if Council was prepared to approve it this evening. Mr. Reis moved to approve the Memorandum of Understanding as written having been approved by staff and the Town Attorney. Mr. Penn seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Absent Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye 11. Council Comments. Mayor Collins asked for comments from the Council while awaiting the time for the PAT presentation. Mr. Penn said he had no comment. Mr. Dawson asked if there were regulations for the alleyway behind 37 West Main since it appeared to be a tight fit relative to the creek wall and it was under discussion for pedestrian use. Given some uses he noticed, he asked if the alley was still drivable. Mrs. Burcham replied that the garbage trucks used the alley for collections. There were buildings that had rear access since she had noticed people using them and walking the alley. She suggested that markings might be used to mark pedestrian use from driving usage. The alley was open with the Page 6 of 15/January 19, 2021 exception of that part behind Mr. Jeanes property which is in his ownership and is not technically used. There was minimal traffic there with the primary traffic being the garbage truck. Mr. Dawson in looking at the long term concerning redevelopment, asked what the alley use would be. If the hopes were to have pedestrian use of that area, it might require considering possible changes to the garbage pickup location to make the space for pedestrians through study of possible conflicts with other area residents. Uses appeared to be conflicted in possibly an unsafe way. While there was not much use presently, given the property owner and tenants using the alley, that was something should be looked at. Mr. Dawson's second concern was that parking was not supposed to be on Main Street, yet the developments needed viable, attractive parking lots that someone would want to use. While there were marked parking lots in several locations, as noted by Mr. East, all of those lots are marked as prohibited use (e.g. permit parking only). This would be noticed by persons intending to do business Downtown. The one lot flagged for public parking is not striped, not lit, had poor paving, etc. and was he felt, the poorest lot the Town had. He suggested that improving the parking had not been discussed very much. Mrs. Burcham said there were a couple of items in progress. One item was Downtown lighting of which an inventory had been done. Both P.D. and Public Works believed there was a sufficient number of lights, but not the right kind of lights. AEP she noted was getting ready to do a massive overhaul of lighting which would use replacements with higher lumens. She suggested it was not that more fixtures were needed, but better lights. Regarding parking, Mrs. Burcham said there was adequate parking currently on-street and in parking lots, which were inherited from the former Parking Authority, which were available and charged no fees. If development efforts were successful, a time would come when there would have to be charges for parking or creation of more parking. In addition to signage and enforcement, options were being reviewed for Downtown residents (e.g. residential permits). Problems appeared to involve residents having shift work or irregular hours. Parking problems she added indicated that the community was growing. The Town was aware of these issues during discussion of the loan subordination with Mr. Critchfield as he sought permanent financing for another building. The Town did have to certify that parking was available in Downtown spots. With more development, Mrs. Burcham said she expected more developers may request something similar. A time would come she thought, there would have to be charges for parking. If these issues were not discussed in advance they would cause future problems. Hopefully the Planning Commission in its review of the Comprehensive Plan would look at the future needs and suggest how to approach those needs. Mr. East brought up the need to understand what was required for fire access if someone came back with a special exception. Mrs. Burcham responded that she thought that travel on the alley was one-way. Questions had been asked if the alley between the Fine Arts Center and the Jeanes property was one way or two way. Mr. East noted his concern with fire vehicle access. Mr. East, mentioning his work with the Friends of Peak Creek (FOPC) and the New River Conservancy (NRC), mentioned their efforts to find the owners of the low water dam at Duncan Bridge and First Street, N.E. He asked the Town Manager and Town Attorney if they could either identify the owners or the path to take if ownership could not be established by the February 16t work session. If the dam could be dealt with it would improve the flow in areas where sediment had built up. Page 7 of 15/January 19, 2021 Mr. Rygas said his original understanding from Engineering was that a title search was required and a firm was contacted. The issue was that unless there was a specific grant of property underlying creeks, rivers in the Commonwealth were owned by the state. The next issue was who would you deal with at the state since nothing had been found indicating a specific owner. Contact was made with the Dept. of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), who FOPC had contacted earlier in the summer. Mr. Rygas was informed DCR had been contacted earlier in the summer on the same manner and said the dam was not of the size and height that DCR regulated. He was told to contact the Dept. of Environmental Quality and search local land records. Unfortunately, since local land records do not have a tax identifier number, it is likely that nothing would be found. Mr. Rygas said the next step was to look at the owners of the banks and see if they had any issues with it. After reviewing some of the probable owners, Mr. Rygas proposed that the plan going forward would be to make contact with those parties owning the banks and have a publication to see if anyone else had an interest. This would be done in light of the uncertainty in searching for something that did not lend itself to normal research of a particular parcel of land. In discussions with the New River Conservancy, Mr. Rygas found out that this was what the Conservancy was asking for in the first place in identifying an owner that they could go to and attempt to get approval from them or if not, try to identify people who would have objections. You might not be able to find the owner, but you could find those who would object. Mr. East noted that the flooding issue obligated the Town to do what it could. He asked regarding notifications would the Town be responsible. Mr. Rygas said if the Town was removing the dam, then it would be up to the Town to make the notifications. The governing body and the other organizations would most likely be the ones to move forward with it. Although the Town was not the owner, it would be stepping into that role even though there was nothing that said the Town had to do it. Mr. Rygas said it sounded possibly that the Va. Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) might be the recipient of the necessary documentation, if permits were required which they would review. They indicated that they were not involved in determination of ownership or who needed to be involved. Ultimately since the area was in the Town, the Town could take the lead in going through the processes. It was unclear who owned the dam. Mr. East proposed that there would be notification of property owners followed by public notification which was a process that could be started now. Mrs. Burcham added that Council had heard a presentation from the groups and agreed that certain things should be done. While resources were available to assist, she could not suggest removal of the dam was the Town's responsibility. This might be the impetus for groups to secure funding that might be available. Mr. East agreed. Mrs. Burcham suggested continuing with the idea but not to expect the Public Works staff to do that. The Town could not go that far. Mr. East agreed and said he was more interested in the documentation and legal aspects and how to assist movement past those issues, then consider funding. He was interested in clearing that first threshold. Mrs. Burcham informed Council that the Planning Commission was prepared to share their recommendation. Page 8 of 15/January 19, 2021 Mr. Deal reported that the Planning Commission recommended to permit the zoning amendment and submitted a signed resolution to the Clerk which detailed the recommendation which did not have any conditions. Because it was a special exception use, Mr. Deal said per project basis it would be best to go through that special exception process. If there was an application, it would be subject to limiting conditions. Mr. Reis felt the recommendation made sense, since the Commission or Council could change things. No statute could cover all circumstances but he felt that Council could rely on the staff and professionals to vet the proposals appropriately. There could be an occasion where a ground floor apartment would be appropriate. Mr. East did not disagree but felt when the time came that could be discussed. Mrs. Burcham suggested that Council could delay action until after the other presentation to allow time to consider the recommendation and not feel hurried by it. While an ordinance that approved the recommendation was being prepared, it would be ready in a few minutes. Council thanked Mr. Deal as he concluded his presentation. 12. Presentation by Pulaski Area Transit. Council next heard a request for funding from Monica Musick, Transit Manager for Pulaski Area Transit. Ms. Jennifer Viers joined the presentation via Zoom. Following introductions, Ms. Music gave a brief background summary of the history of PAT including switching to route based service in 2015. Consultants had been hired to add a feeder route in. The effort was behind due to COVID which did not allow public meetings to be held which were postponed until the summer. The apartments on Bob White could not be added but DRPT did allow a small change to add an additional stop at DMV that would allow the apartments on Bob White to be reached by ADA. The change was to begin February 1st Mr. East asked for clarification when the service to the apartments would begin, Mrs. Musick said February 1st COVID regulations allowed only four persons on a bus at one time. To maintain ridership, drivers were to instructed to drive off at the place where the next person is going and get back on the route. There were no fares charged during this fiscal year. Passenges work masks and drivers were protected with shields around their seat. CARES Act funding would support the program 100%for the current FY 21, but there was no promise of CARES Act funding for FY 22. Grants would be applied for from DPRT through February 1St. Mrs. Music hoped that state funding would be the same as in the past and requested level funding of$70,000 from the Town. Mr. Dawson asked if PAT had 41 vehicles. Mrs. Musick replied that PAT had 12 vehicles, with Senior Services and Pulaski Transit together totaling 39 vehicles. Mr. Dawson asked if funding was separate from the Senior Service vehicles. Mrs. Musick said that was correct since they were two separate programs. Mr. Dawson asked if the Town did maintenance on the Senior Services vehicles. Mrs. Musick said some were serviced by the Town, but servicing for vehicles was done in locations throughout the service areas the vehicles were in. Mr. Dawson asked if the $70,000 contribution was in addition to maintenance costs and fuel throughout the year. Mrs. Musick responded that payment was made on the vehicles each month. Page 9 of 15/January 19, 2021 Mr. Reis asked how the ridership of PAT had changed over the last 3-5 years. Mrs. Musick responded that it had changed significantly since the change to a fixed route service. Twenty111 dollar monthly passes had been instituted to increase ridership and options to reach outlying area were being considered. Mr. Reis asked about the ridership change to which Mrs. Musick said that ridership had dropped from 7,000 per month to 2,000 per month due to the fixed route change. Mr. Penn questioned if the ridership dropped so much, why was the request being made for the same amount of money. Mrs. Music responded that PAT was using the same amount of drivers. She thought the stop at DMV would be huge considering the apartment complex on Bob White would be able to get ADA service. Mr. Reis asked about the breakdown between accessible and non-accessible passengers. Mrs. Musick responded she could supply the percentages. Mr. Reis asked if there was a way to have a hybrid system with regular routes and some demand service to get persons in outlying area. He noted that Norfolk had overhauled its system and asked if something could be considered here. Mr. Musick responded that PAT was looking at going from two routes to one large route loop with "feeder routes"from outlying areas. The ADA vehicles are used to get people to the routes. Mr. East stated that ridership dropped when the system stopped on demand service and was not due to COVID. He asked if the goal was to maximize ridership as inexpensively as possible. Mrs. Musick said yes and that it was realized that with demand service the transit had grown such that more drivers and vehicles were required which would increase the costs. This was why PAT had approached DRPT who suggested going to the set routes. Mr. East observed that the contraction was made to allow PAT to live within its means. Mr. East asked what the goal of the organization was. Mrs. Musick responded that the goal was to reach people in the town who could not reach bus stops. Mr. East asked if there were a certain number of riders as a goal. Mrs. Musick was not certain. Mr. Dawson thought he remembered that the route change was a forced decision for the funding from the state or the federal level. He asked was it not required by them for us to be on that system (fixed route) or was it a choice of ours. Mrs. Musick responded that most public transportation was not on demand, but discussions had continued with DPRT concerning demand service growth and Council had received complaints on long wait times for service. Those factors were part of the process. Mr. Dawson then asked if the fixed route system was not required to get funding from the state or federal level. Mrs. Musick said she was not sure about that but DPRT said it was rare to operate the system, the way we were. Mr. Dawson said he understood that there was a negative aspect as to how it was being used and was under the impression the change was forced. Mr. Dawson questioned if there was some flexibility available without losing funding to make changes. Mrs. Musick responded yes, but there had to be public hearings and public meetings before that could take place. If not for COVID, that could have already taken place. Mr. East asked about state funding and observed both the Town and County had appropriated level funding. Mrs. Musick said she hoped state and federal funding would also remain level. Mr. East, given Mr. Penn's question noted that expenses had also remained level. Mrs. Musick noted that despite the route change, the number of drivers was not reduced nor were the number of vehicles to keep wait time to 35-40 minutes. Page 10 of 15/January 19, 2021 Mayor Collins asked if someone could use a special process to be picked up. Mrs. Musick said they could file an ADA application. Mrs. Burcham asked if there was a notice requirement for the ADA. Mrs. Musick responded 24 hours was needed. Mrs. Burcham then asked if someone gave a time for an appointment(e.g. 2:00 p.m.), how was a return visit arranged. Mrs. Musick said the client would have to give a time they might be finished, but if they weren't ready they would call in. Every effort was made to get the client back. Mr. Rygas asked what were some of the routes with the Senior Center vans and other vehicles; where did they go and what did they do. Mrs. Musick said Senior Service vehicles were used to take people 60 and older to medical appointments, friendship cafes and deliver homebound meals in the New River Valley. Mr. Rygas ventured there was an overlap of services for seniors qualified under ADA and served through the fleet through the transit service. Mrs. Musick said once PAT went to the fixed route, those persons could call the Agency on Aging and get transportation to the doctor. Mr. Rygas observed there were multiple resources for people over 60 and for those under 60 needing special services that required the ADA application who might experience difficulty due to the use of transit vehicles. Mrs. Musick discussed how evaluation of requests for transportation was done. Mr. Rygas understood there was an internal process by which requests were evaluated as to what program was applicable. Mrs. Viers said there was a mobility coordinator who worked with those under 60 and that Medicaid paid for those under 60 who qualified. Mrs. Musick said the mobility coordinator worked with persons of all ages who could be referred to the appropriate option. Mr. Rygas said that the use of the Senior Center, Pulaski Area Transit, and Medicaid transport, appeared to shrink the number of persons who needed the ADA service, but provided different services for different needs. There being no further comments, the presentation concluded. Mrs. Musick then asked for a motion for level funding before she sent out her grant application on February 1St Mr. Reis moved that for Fiscal 2022, the Town would continue to provide the same level of funding (for PAT) as had been done in the past. Mr. East seconded the motion. Discussion followed with Mr. East wanting to see in the future a breakdown of activities and goals. He added that he was uncomfortable since the Town was going "status quo" but understood the current events with COVID, etc. Mr. East said in the future that he wanted to see information such as where the organization has been; where it is headed and what the goals are, an overview of expenses and an understanding where the $70,000 went. Mrs. Musick said she wished to provide quarterly updates. Mr. Reis also suggested information be provided on ridership levels; number of customers who have mobility problems; a general sense of expenditures, large expenditures (new vehicles); and maintenance costs through the Town. He suggested a one page document that could be refined as needed. Mrs. Burcham commented that during earlier meetings with Monica and Jennifer in December, that there were two issues that needed to be looked at. The first was that the fares had not changed since the program was started. The reason given was if fares increased then there would be a reduction in the federal and state money. She felt it was unreasonable not to have fares increased and only one option was explored which was the monthly pass. Page 11 of 15/January 19, 2021 The other issue she mentioned was that the drivers actually stop at the stops. She mentioned complaints from citizens that the drivers slow down and if there are no persons present continue on. This prevented determining the true number of stops. There had been problems at the Senior Center where members could not get out in time to get to the-bus. Mrs. Burcham said if the location was called a "stop", then the buses needed to stop and give people the opportunity to ride it. In other transit systems fare increases were usually resisted, but it did not necessarily have a negative impact on ridership and there were costs that could not be contained indefinitely with level funding. Mrs. Musick asked to be advised of any complaints received. She again mentioned that a fare increase would result in a loss of state/federal funding which might result in the need for more local support. Mr. Reis mentioned that many transit systems were moving to zero dollar fares. The idea was that it increased efficiency and increased ridership. Transit was an economic driver which would hopefully generate more than the Town's $70,000 investment. Transit was known for giving more dollars back in tax revenue than rates. Mr. Dawson said his concern was the transit was at 7,000 people. Yet now it had the same expense and driver's hours, yet reduced ridership, which was not a forced change and the system could handle it. If the change was not required, what was the benefit for changing the system if it reduced ridership? In simplifying the system for ourselves, something was lost from the goal of getting people to use the system. Mrs. Musick said she would get back to DRPT and get more guidance from them. Mr. East said he recalled the cost per rider was $3.80 with the ridership up. He speculated that the cost per rider was through the roof, which was not serving the people as well as they could be served. The idea was to get more riders for less and maintain a certain level of quality service. Mrs. Musick said she would look atthat. Mr. East added the quarterly update would be appropriate. Mr. Rygas asked if the annual date for filing was February 1St. Mrs. Music confirmed that. Mr. Rygas ventured that it would be better for Council to have this meeting in December since they were now in the situation where they could not do much of anything given the February 1St deadline nor had time for feedback. Referencing Mr. Dawson's comment, Mr. Rygas noted the concern that the routes were changed to decreasing ridership 50% yet expenses remained the same. Mr. Rygas recalled that using the service as a cab service was not in the scope of how the funding was to be. Going back to a route service was to make it comply with its funding basis. The high ridership number was a fictitious number in the first place since the system was not to be administered that way (demand service). Mrs. Musick said a previous Town Manager gradually changed it without going through the steps and it got to a demand service. Mrs. Musick said when she had a compliance review, it was questioned why routes were not used. Mr. Rygas asked if Pulaski Area Transit or a Town Manager made the change. Mrs. Musick said the Transit Manager made the changes. Mr. Reis suggested that the Town could make the case that(demand service) was a viable model unique to this community. Mr. Dawson observed that it would not cost more money. Mr. Reis suggested given the way the law was written, the Town may have to request some form of exception and demonstrate its case within reason. Page 12 of 15/January 19, 2021 Ms. Viers noted that Mrs. Musick's proposed plan was a combination of the demand and route approaches. Mr. Reis understood that if a person could not get to a stop, they could be taken to the route. Mrs. Musick said stops and scheduling for ADA requests were under review. Mayor Collins asked that Council be kept updated. Mr. Reis said the Town would be glad to assist however it may. Mayor Collins then called for a vote on the motion to approve the $70,000 contribution to Pulaski Area Transit. The motion was approved by Roll Call vote as follows: Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Absent Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye 13. Council Comments Continued After the PAT presentation, Council resumed its Council Comments. Mr. Clontz said he had no comment. Mr. Reis noted budget preparation was starting, and that he was trying to understand the context of expenditures, where they went, and the metrics used by departments. He inquired further about the context of expenditures in budget approval. Mrs. Burcham said the rationale was reflected in the weekly report to Council to let them know what employees were doing. She reflected that Council did not have an appreciation for what staff was working on. Some of this could be refined as the budget progressed. Mr. Dawson thought that the Town Manager's role was to run the Town. The detail were in her work. What he felt Council should do was create a better framework for her to work within (e.g. CIP; Financial Plan, etc.). The Council would set the goals for the money, while the Manager presented a budget that matched up with where Council wanted to go. Mr. Reis stressed the role of metrics in setting goals Mrs. Burcham felt the community did not understand how few people the Town had and what they were responsible for. She felt Council should be given a sound basis of understanding and any changes in the budget. If more was requested, Council should know why and what it would accomplish. Her job was to make sure funds were spent as well as can be, so that if more funds were requested they could be justified. She felt it was unfortunate that Council received an out of budget request before it had a look at the whole budget. Mr. Reis then asked if the employees were getting vaccinated. Mrs. Burcham reported that approximately 30% of employees had requested vaccination. If they had not signed up they would have to wait for a later time. Mr. Reis then inquired if there had been any outreach for a mass vaccination event in town. Mrs. Burcham said that some had been held in other communities, but that the Senior Center had been taking seniors for vaccination. Mayor Collins said he had spoken to the Chamber last Monday, and made a presentation outlining the activities of the Town. Despite the circumstances of the past year, he said he felt that the Town had been going very well and thanked Mrs. Burcham for her work. He wished people would realize that not everything was visible but a lot went on that was not seen. He complemented Mrs. Burcham on standing up to the hard questions that had been asked. Mayor Collins asked for people to give her a chance; give the staff and Council a chance; and pray for Page 13 of 15/January 19, 2021 the Town. He likened Pulaski to a phoenix, down but then ready to rise from the flames. Mayor Collins thanked Mrs. Burcham, all the employees, and felt the Town had a good crew. . 14 Consideration of Planning Commission Recommendation-Continued Council returned to consideration of the zoning amendment. Mr. Dawson asked for clarification that the quoted section of the zoning ordinance was for special exceptions. Mr. Reis said it was and that the proposed amendment was one of several special exceptions. Mr. East said that in lights of other comments apartment living on Main Street was something that was not desired. Leaving the door open was something that did not have to be done. If the amendment were approved the door would be left open for future debates on apartments on Main Street. Mr. East said he would feel more comfortable to amend the section to permit apartments on the off Main Street ground floor or some variant. He wanted to "box"the issue in so there would be no expectations for place a dwelling on Main Street. Mr. Reis suggested adding a provision to the language that the dwelling units would not face Main Street. Mr. Clontz felt that, being a special exception, future Councils could amend it again. Mr. Reis said it was not a use by right but was subject to special conditions. Mr. Dawson mentioned that both the Planning Commission and the Council would have to be fine with a special exception. Mrs. Burcham reminded the Commission they were free to reject or amend at any time the Planning Commission's recommendation as well as approve it After extensive discussion on existing ground floor apartments, concern over application to the entire B-3 district, as well as potential negative effects on retail business development, and possible future amendments and recommendations from the Planning Commission, Mr. Reis moved to approve the ordinance (Ordinance 2021-01) as drafted and that the Town Manager get proposed language from the Planning Commission to limit that application in the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Nay James A. Radcliffe -Absent Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye 15. Manager's Report. Mrs. Burcham said she felt the community often misunderstood the roles of all persons present. The Mayor because of his ceremonial responsibilities was seen out a lot. Because of the Town Manager's role in implementing the Town's policies, it was not generally understood that the Manager didn't do anything that the Council doesn't support and approve. In that there was a decision making process, Mrs. Burcham said she would be interested in the Council at a future date sharing with her and Mr. Whitt ways in which the public could be educated in a better way to understand what the process is since it is a Council-Manager form of local government, where the Council functions as the legislative body. Council may have met citizens or groups that it could assist with getting the message out, because it involves all members working together. She added she was pleased with the Mayor mentioning the staff in his remarks and felt the staff had been responsive to a lot of changes that had been made and would be made. Changes mentioned included direct deposit for new employees and automation of the check writing function. Page 14 of 15/January 19, 2021 Mrs. Burcham said that the new Human Resources person would report on February 1St with the first possible task being the rewriting of the Town's personnel policies. In addition, she hoped to have a draft Capital Improvement Plan for Council's review for the February 16th work session. Concerning the pandemic, Mrs. Burcham said the Town buildings and staff had been prepared to make them safe and highlighted the recent cleaning of the Municipal Building ductwork. The Senior Center had to be temporarily closed because of problems encountered with the heating system. Under consideration was relocating the Senior Center activities to an alternate site once a determination of what work was needed was made. She noted that the Senior Center Director, Ms. Hopkins, had called every senior to apprise them of developments. There were staff who were extending themselves to ensure the Town was as responsive as possible in this environment. Mrs. Burcham also expressed her appreciation to the Council for the support she had received. Mr. East said that having served for some time he thought operations were the most efficient he had seen in his time on Council. It had been a pleasure so far and it was appreciated. Mrs. Burcham responded that we would keep working on it. 16. Reminder of Future Meetings and Adjournment. Mayor Collins reminded Council of the upcoming Council meeting on February 2, 2021 with the Closed Session starting at 5:30 p.m. and the Public Session starting at 7:00 p.m. and the Council Work Session on February 16, 2021, with the Closed Session starting at 5:00 p.m. and the Public Session beginning at 6:30 p.m. There being no further business, Mayor Collins called for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Reis, seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved by unanimous voice vote at 8:45 p.m. Approved: \El — W,Shannon Collins Mayor ATTEST: / J/ ? David N. Quesenberry Clerk of Council . Page 15 of 15/January 19, 2021