Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-20Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council meeting held at 7:00 p.m., February 4, 2020 in the Council Chambers of the Town Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W. 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 Press: Mike Williams, PC Patriot Staff: Lt. Mike Hudson, P.P.D. Chief Robbie Kiser, P.F.D. Rebecca Leeper, Finance Director Bill Pedigo, Town Engineer David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Others Present: Ann Hager Bill Hager 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, the roll was called. Present were Mayor Clark, Mr. Clontz, Mr. Dawson, Mr. East, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Penn and Mr. Radcliffe. Since all members were in attendance, a quorum was present to conduct business. 5. Modification of the Agenda Mayor Clark requested a motion from Council to modify the agenda to add one item to the Closed Session under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (A) 8 -Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel regarding a Pulaski on Main contract. Mr. Goodman moved to approve the agenda modification as stated. 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 6. Recognition of Guests and Visitors Mayor Clark welcomed all those attending the meeting. Following the recognition of guests and visitors, Council moved on to "Presentations" to hear comments from Ms. Ann Hager. Page 1 of 9/February 4, 2020 7. Presentations a. Mrs. Ann Hager, In Reference to 243 Second Street, S. E. Mrs. Hager said she understood that the matter (e.g. 243 2nd St., S.E.) had been resolved and initially she had asked to be removed from the agenda. She said that she asked to be put back on the agenda so she could show Council what the neighbors had been looking at for three to four years. Photographs of the structure at 243 2nd St., S.E were distributed to Council for their review. Mrs. Hager said she hoped when the issue was resolved, that the structure would be given top priority to be taken down because the neighbors had had enough. Mr. East asked about the background of the structure. Mr. Utt explained that the owner had offered to donate the property to the Housing Authority about a year and a half ago during the time the structure was being taken through the court process. At that point the Redevelopment and Housing Authority agreed to accept ownership/donation of the property with the condition that back taxes would be paid. Taxes owed at that time were less than $300. Mr. Utt noted as the process continued with little progress, the Housing Authority decided for the betterment of the Town and the neighborhood, to pay the back taxes to get ownership of the property to tear it down. Mr. Rygas was working on the documentation to get the matter closed in the next week or two. After that, Mr. Utt said Town crews would tear the structure down and clean it up. The goal was to get the property cleaned up and on the list of properties owned by the Housing Authority that would be listed in an RFP for developers to get some single-family infill housing built. Mr. Goodman emphasized that the Housing Authority did not like the idea of paying the back taxes on the property. The owner of the property should have contributed the funds since there were not substantial. The Housing Authority also tried to determine if the County would forgive the taxes if they took the property. However the County had a policy that they would not forgive outstanding taxes even for projects to the community's benefit. Given that it had been so long and the neighbors were getting frustrated, he said the Authority decided not to wait on it anymore. Mr. East asked could there have been progress if the back taxes were taken care of, then at a later time go to the owner after the fact reminding them they still had a liability. Mr. Utt responded the owner would not donate the property and at an earlier point the Housing Authority would not accept the property with taxes due. Mr. Rygas said the Town as a policy had not done that before. Mentioning the present "pocket park" (formerly the Renaissance Restaurant), Mr. Rygas noted the taxes were paid up, but in that case there was forgiveness of the liens regarding demolition. If there was not the complication of taxes, then a deed of gift could move forward. The tax payment issue had only come up lately in that the owner would not pay them (taxes) and the Housing Authority would accept them. In that case, the Town had to get a loan closing done or a property transaction done. Mr. Rygas said regarding a gift deed, if there was any consideration transferred, the transaction had to be overseen by an attorney. What started as a deed of gift, became something that was not a deed of gift that could be closed out in short order. The deed had to be restructured because it was not a deed of gift but something else which had set the process back. Mr. East ventured that initially the Town waited for certain things to happen, when it didn't the Town moved forward at a later date. Mr. Rygas said the Housing Authority finally made an arrangement to pay the taxes; something that it had not done before. Mr. Goodman said he did not want to make that a habit since this was a unique situation. Mr. Rygas said the amount of tax was not substantial, but that had held the process up. He added as a practical matter there were no other tools to get the property to the Town. Litigation could be used if the taxes due or the amount of liens exceeded 50% of the value of the property. However that took a long time for mowing liens or taxes to grow to that value (50%). If it had grown to that value on the "pocket park" it was because the cost of demolition was significant which put it over to the point of litigation. Mr. Rygas observed that what made it hard to deal with derelict properties was they could sit so long before there was a fast track measure to go to court. Liens and judgements stood against the property he said, but absentee owners had no incentive to do anything. That was why he thought it was a good thing that the Housing Authority stepped up in certain cases Page 2 of 9/February 4, 2020 to do something. If there was more funding available it would provide a tool to use. However, there was a potential of setting a precedent and of having to determine when to accept a property (for this process). Mr. East thought there was some value in having a fund for an extenuating circumstance. He suggested that only in extreme circumstances should the Town move faster with a small amount of money to cover these expenses. Mr. Dawson asked about the Housing Authority's budget. Mr. Utt responded that the Authority had approximately $11,000 available. Mr. Goodman added that it was in a checking account and that the Authority did not get little or any money from the Town, except in cases where the project required more funds than the Authority had or created too much of a drain on its funds. Only then would the Town be approached for funds. Mr. Dawson asked if a policy could be set for properties with tax issues under $1,000 that would not set a precedent beyond that, but allow quick movement on similar situations (e.g. 243 2nd St. S. E.). Mr. Goodman suggested looking at the issue on a case by case basis. If there was a situation that a property was derelict but not as bad as this (e.g. 243 2nd, St. S.E.) you could wait longer. He said that if anybody came to the Housing Authority and offered to donate property, the Authority needed to take a lot less time (regarding action) in the future. Mrs. Hager asked who was liable at this point, if someone got hurt. Mr. Rygas replied the property owner, who didn't have insurance and was reasonably judgement proof. He added that the landowner if anybody would be liable. Mr. Goodman said the structure would be torn down when the Town took ownership relieving it of any liability. Mr. East agreed with Mr. Dawson that there needed to be some set low dollar amount and admitted struggling with $300 standing between the derelict house being gone (e.g. 243 2nd St.) and sitting there for three years. Mr. Rygas suggested practically that a dollar limit wasn't needed and that you could go on a case by case basis. A dollar amount could be set, but factually he said, what kept the Town from doing anything was the Town had never taken a property, not even in litigation, when people owed taxes. Donations he added were rare, because owners wanted to monetize their property and would be favorable towards the Town paying for the property with taxes owed. Mr. Goodman felt the key to the issue was moving faster. Following the presentation, Council then conducted a public hearing concerning proposed financing for emergency repairs to the Water Filter Plant. 8. Public Hearings a. Proposed Financing for Water Filter Plant Emergency Repairs Mr. Utt noted a Letter of Commitment in the packet from Live Oak Bank, the banking partner of SERCAP. Mr. Utt noted that the loan documents, resolutions, etc. would probably be available at the work session, possibly by the March legislative Council meeting. The documentation was being prepared by the Bond Counsel and the Bank, who requested that the Town proceed with the public hearing. Mr. Utt said the public hearing would be informational purposes only regarding a loan of $290,000 for the repairs to the Filter Plant. The loan would "recapture" the engineering costs in addition to any expenditures between now and closing. This loan he continued was a Rural Development guaranteed loan which resulted in the bank moving a lot faster in the process with credit reviews and other issues. Currently the bank was waiting on the Bond Counsel to complete the bond documents. Mr. Utt said a public hearing was required since it was a revenue bond from the Water and Sewer Funds. Mr. Goodman noted the term of the bond was 15 years and asked if the plan was still to pay it off in four or five years. Mr. Utt said yes. Mr. Goodman opined there were no issues if it were paid off early. Mr. Utt replied there were costs to buy it down depending on which year of the loan you were in which goes down to Year 10. The bank was willing to refinance as the payoff got closer, but they wanted to get three years of payments. If the Town chose to refinance after three years, the prepayment penalties were waived and the payoff could be done if desired. A short discussion ensued on possible penalties related to payoff Page 3 of 9/February 4, 2020 Mr. Dawson asked about the benefit of using SERCAP. Mr. Utt responded the benefit was access to "quicker" money. If the Town had gone through Davenport he said because of the RFP process, it would be April or May before we would be at the step we are at now. He estimated the Town saved 30-45 days. Mr. Goodman said that money had been purposely transferred from reserves temporarily so that time would not be an issue with the loan. He said the interest rate was 4.3% which was high as compared with 2% to 3% with what was usually done. Mr. Utt replied that most loans were for the General Fund. Water and Sewer loans with 2%-3% rates were normally through the VRA or some of the revolving loan funds which were offered once or twice a year. Mr. Goodman said this was rushed. Mr. Utt responded that the funds were needed this fiscal year. Referring to the audit, he emphasized that if the funds were not replenished by June 30th then $300,000-$400,000 more would be spent this fiscal year than we had revenues. He added he was trying to keep everything in the same fiscal year. Mr. Goodman observed that Mr. Utt had been working on this for a month and given the six months of the filter issue, asked if a VRA loan could not have been secured in six months. Mr. Utt responded no, that the VRA only did their bonds once a year or twice a year. It was not an ongoing process. VRA waited (on issuing bonds) until they had a dozen or so projects submitted. Mr. Goodman asked about other loans from the state. Mr. Utt said it was the same issue, they made offerings once or twice a year. Mayor Clark then opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. With no comments received, he closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Following the public hearing, Council moved to the Consent Agenda. 9. Public Comment Period There were no comments received from the public 10. Consent Agenda a. Consideration of the January 7, 2020, Council Meeting Minutes b. Architecture Review Board Annual Report for 2019 c. Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report for 2019 d. Cemetery Trustees Annual Report for 2019 e. Planning Commission Annual Report for 2019 f. Redevelopment and Housing Authority Annual Report for 2019 Mr. Utt suggested that all of the items under the Consent Agenda be approved in one motion. Mayor Clark called for a motion to approve Items 10a through 1 Of of the Consent Agenda. Mr. Goodman moved to adopt the Consent Agenda and the items as proposed. The motion was seconded by Mr. East and approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council. Next item for review was the Project Summary Sheet. 11. Proiect Updates a. Project Summary Sheet Mr. Utt asked if Council had any questions. Concerning the boundary adjustment, Mr. Goodman asked if Mr. Utt had met with any members of the new board (County). Mr. Utt said he had some conversations with some Board members at a dinner the previous week. He expected the County would place the boundary adjustment on the February agenda, but now it looked like it might be March. So far Mr. Utt said, he had received a lot of positive input, but it was a proposal that the Town, not the County, would have to sell. Page 4 of 9/February 4, 2020 Mr. Goodman asked if a "2X2" meeting was set up with the County. Mr. Utt replied there was a meeting scheduled on February 18th with Supervisors Guthrie and Bopp. There being no more discussion, Council next considered "New Business" starting with the Draft FY21 Budget Calendar. 12. Old Business There were no items for consideration under "Old Business." 13. New Business a. Draft FY21 Budget Calendar Mr. Utt noted that in line with Mr. Dawson's inquiry at the work session, the calendar for budget sessions was considered at the February legislative meeting. This year budget sessions were to proposed to start on the second Tuesday of March, with following meetings on Tuesdays all the way through June. He mentioned that what had been done in the past was to adopt the budget calendar for implementation during the budget process. Mr. Goodman suggested moving the Council meeting in May from May 5th to May 6th because of the municipal election. Mr. Utt responded that they probably should. He added that the dates concerning the budget were noted in green on the packet's budget schedule. Mr. Dawson felt that the budget process was missing a step that would start before the calendar. He suggested that there should be some overall review of direction consisting of a budget work session before the budget process started. The focus would be on getting Council's thoughts to department heads about any budgetary matter. While he acknowledged that the Town Manager may have a narrative for the department heads before the process started, he felt that the Council was not engaged in that narrative before the process was started. Mr. Goodman said that some members of Council had met with the Manager. Mr. Dawson acknowledged that but said that as a collective group a budget session was necessary to see if everyone was on the same page. Mr. Utt said in the conversation he had with department heads he told them to at best expect level funding. If cuts could be made for efficiencies he recommended that they start thinking about them now as opposed to considering them in April or May. Mr. Utt said it made sense to get Council's input as whole to make sure that everyone was hearing the same thing. He pointed out that it would not be as difficult to change numbers, after the fact. from the department heads before the March 10th meeting if another work session was added in February. Mr. Dawson said he understood there was a narrative coming from the Manager. He just felt there was a stage needed for Council to be told what the department heads would be told. Mr. Goodman agreed using as an example if there were budget cuts desired or projects to be emphasized, Department Heads would be aware of those factors as they began work on their budgets. Mr. Dawson said given the fiscal needs of the current budget and the conversations that were put off to the work session there was a need to know where we stood as well as thoughts as to the direction that should be taken. He said it spoke of the importance in future years as the budget calendar moved forward to have better communication about the narrative, which was driven by the Town Manager. Mr. Dawson felt the Town Manager needed to present what the narrative needed to be and hopefully all would be "on the same page." Any conversations coming out of that would be to make sure the direction would be what we thought it should be. Mr. Utt asked if the discussion scheduled for the work session should, in the future, be part of this process. Mr. Dawson felt it should be before January 10th. Mr. Goodman suggested having it at the December work session. Mr. Utt said the problem with having it that early was there was only five months of a budget and revenues don't come in causing difficulty in forecasting. Mr. Utt suggested that the revenue forecasting could be done at the January work session and the goal discussions at the December work session. Page 5 of 9/February 4, 2020 Mr. Goodman suggested having a budget retreat given the issues that needed to be discussed and the short amount of time of traditional meetings. Mentioning the upcoming discussions on the reserve fund issues he said there were deep discussions that needed to be done. Mr. Dawson agreed the work session needed to be tied to budget discussions but he didn't believe that there was time enough for those discussions. It could be done in a setting, but it was going to take some time. Mr. Goodman said he had many questions after the audit and concerns going into the next fiscal year. Mr. Dawson said he felt the budget calendar should have a date prior to the start of numbers being put together where Council can hear the narrative that will be presented to the department heads. Mr. Utt asked how he wanted to resolve it for this current year. Mr. Dawson responded at the work session. Mr. Utt asked if he wanted to add an additional budget session after the work session in February. Following a short discussion, there was general agreement that the discussion would take place at the work session. Mr. Goodman moved to adopt the proposed budget calendar with the following changes as well as moving the May 5th Town Council meeting to May 6th and further focusing the February 18th work session on budget and budget goals. 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 Following the vote, Council discussed flex -time policy and working from home. b. & c. Discussion Regarding a Policy Clarification on Flex -Time and Working from Home. Mayor Clark put items 13b and 13c together since he felt they were tied to one another. Mr. Goodman said he brought the subject up because he thought that flex -time had been abolished in its entirety until it was mentioned in a Weekly Update. He said that flex -time existed, because of some staff work 50-60 hours and are not eligible for compensatory time or overtime, as a means to help them. He felt the Town had a good leave system and sick leave system. Mr. Goodman preferred that flex -time be carried into the next week if the situation was appropriate and the Town Manager approves. Otherwise, he continued, there was no recording of flex -time, except by possibly emails requesting to carry that time ahead. That time would be something that would have to be carried on the books. Mr. Utt responded that actually it wasn't. Noting that flex -time was not tracked on the Edmonds finance system, Mr. Utt noted that the only ones subject to flex -time were himself and the Department Heads who were exempt employees. Each Department Head was allowed in the past to have their own method of tracking their flex time. There was no written policy other than the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). He did not know if any individual departments had their own policy. Mr. Goodman expressed concern over the tracking of flex -time in that a record was kept and that an employee could request a "pay out" of such accumulated time. Mr. Utt responded that under FLSA, flex -time had no value. The last two department heads who left he added, did not receive anything for flex -time. Mr. Goodman asked how long flex -time was carried over and mentioned an employee who had five months of flex -time on the books. He expressed concern that the issue had never been clarified and apparently flex- time still existed, when he had been under the impression that it had been discontinued under the leave balance drawdown. Mr. Utt replied that flex -time was not included in the drawdown because it had no value. The employee in questions could not take five months off prior to retiring. Mr. Dawson asked that only salaried positions were being discussed. Mr. Utt said yes that there were seven salaried positions. Mr. Dawson said his understanding was that salaried positions were tied to responsibilities not time and asked if the Town had a base hour requirement for salaried position. Mr. Utt replied that fell back on the FLSA which said it was expected that salaried employees would work an average or minimum of 40 hours. Page 6 of 9/February 4, 2020 Mr. Dawson felt it was unnecessary to track flex -time since salaried personnel were paid for a job. Mr. East ventured it was up to the managers, but if it were abused that was another issue. Mr. Utt said at that point it would be dealt with. Mr. Utt informed Council that flex -time was addressed in the Personnel Policy, but was referred to as "incidental time". Mr. Goodman asked if there were no value in flex -time, then what was the point in tracking it. Mr. Utt felt the department heads were of such character that they did not want to make it look like they were cheating the Town. Mr. Goodman said his concern was how long it was carried and how long it was tracked. If someone for example had sixteen hours, they might take a day off the following week. Mr. Dawson felt at that point in time it was an issue for how the Town Manager would handle it. Mr. Dawson asked how a request for time off would be handled. Mr. Utt said he expected exempt employees to average 40 hours a week. If a full day was needed, the employee would usually take vacation or a personal day. Flex -time tended to be "filler time". Mr. Goodman said the Town paid out for leave and sick time balances. If flex -time were used as opposed to annual leave, as an employee would be expected to do, a situation could arise where the employee could have a greater accumulation of leave and get a higher payout. Mr. Utt referred back to Mr. East's comment that it was intended as a benefit for being that supervisor. He opined that the Department Heads had less leave accumulation than non-exempt employees. Mr. Radcliffe asked if flex -time was the same as compensatory ("comp") time. Mr. Utt responded that it was not. "Comp" time he explained was for non-exempt employees. If you got overtime you would earn "comp" time. The County did give "comp" time for its exempt employees on an hour for hour basis after nine hours which also was paid out. In contrast incidental time had no value and there was no payout when the employee left. Mr. Radcliffe then asked if an employee retired and had 300 hours of flex -time that really did not mean anything. Mr. Utt responded affirmatively. Mr. Goodman commented that it took just one court case. Mr. Utt replied that it was clear for exempt employees that there was no value to the flex time. Mr. East said in his experience that there was a certain level of trust involved and there was an expectation that the job responsibilities were met. Mr. Rygas thought the issue would come up if there was a perception by an hourly person that someone was taking advantage (of flex time) and bringing it up. If that happened then the exempt employee would track the flex time to justify it. He added that he understood Mr. Goodman's point that recording something gave it weight, but to not have some idea of what is going on or maybe it was more informative to have a concept of what a person is doing, since a salaried person is not clocking in or out. Mr. Utt noted the non-exempt employees had to be paid overtime. While there were a lot of expectations for an exempt employee, one of the benefits was the incidental leave. Mr. Rygas suggested there could be an acknowledgment signed in payroll ever so often, that flex time was not a benefit. Mr. Goodman said he had no problem with flex -time but he wanted to make sure that people understood there was no cash value to flex -time, that they could not sue for it etc. which would cover the Town. He said after watching the General Assembly and talking with VML officials that this was a concern. As long as the Town was covered he was content. Mr. Dawson ventured that the act of keeping track or quantifying the hours worked to performance, could actually run the risk of a perception of hours actually worked. Mr. East asked if there was a policy in place. Mr. Utt responded there was a personnel policy that allowed department heads incidental, time knowing they must average a minimum of 40 hours every week. Mr. East, alluding to Mr. Goodman's concern, suggested that a statement be added to the policy that there was no value (to the incidental time). Mr. Rygas said the policy could be checked to see what it said because it could already be in there. On the next issue, Mr. Goodman said he understood there were some employees that were now working from home on occasion. His concern was that so many of the employees needed to interface directly with the Page 7 of 9/February 4, 2020 public and should be working at the office to be available to the public. In general the jobs of the employees interfaced with the public and if you worked from home that could not be done. Mr. Utt agreed in general and estimated that there might be 3 or 4 employees that do work at home. Mr. Goodman said the issue had been brought up to him. His understanding was that there was not a policy that allowed it or denied it. If it was allowed, there had to be a policy to set expectations such as adequate work space in their home or acknowledgment that they are not covered under certain guidelines (e.g. fall at home while working from home). Mr. Utt said the only employees he could think of were the exempt employees but he would discuss it with whomever brought the issue up. Mr. Goodman restated his concern if this was going to be allowed, there needed to be a policy, a telework policy, outlining responsibilities. Mr. Rygas ventured that it would be good to see what that was because there was a question whether you are talking about a manager who was exempt as opposed to a telecommuter. Mr. Goodman said if you had someone working from home (e.g. a manager home sick who has to get something done) there needed to be an acknowledgment that they could not bill the Town for the internet, power, etc. That was happening now with telecommuting employees asking for payment of a portion of an electric bill. Mr. Goodman said he was looking at giving the Town Manager that authority when it was appropriate. Mr. Dawson opined that Mr. Utt already had the authority to decide/discipline if someone was or was not working at their performance. If there was an issue with someone, he already had the authority to decide if someone was or was not at work. If a decision was made that they were at work, then he also decided if it was or was not good performance. If he allowed someone to work from home and considered it work and further considered the work performance adequate, Mr. Dawson felt it was already within his ability to distinguish those issues. Mr. Goodman said he acknowledged that, but didn't agree with it. He said there was no policy in place to govern it. Mayor Clark suggested that what Mr. Rygas' said was a better solution and to him to review the policies and report back at a later date. After discussion concluded, Council moved on to 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) 8, consultation with legal counsel concerning a Pulaski on Main contract. Mr. Goodman moved to enter 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 8:04 p.m. and returned from Closed Session at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Clark asked for a certification motion that Council only discussed the single item for which it went into Closed Session under Va. Code 2.2-3711 (A) 8, consultation with legal counsel concerning a Pulaski on Main contract. Mr. Goodman moved to certify the closed session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clontz and approved on the following roll call vote: Page 8 of 9/February 4, 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 15. Reminder of Future Council Meetings and Adjournment. Mayor Clark reminded Council of the work session on February 1811 and the Police Department's Annual Dinner at 7:00 p.m. Friday evening. There being no further business, Mayor Clark called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Penn moved to adjourn. His motion was seconded by Mr. Radcliffe and approved by the unanimous voice vote of Council at 8:33 p.m. ATTEST: David N. Quesenberry Clerk of Council Page 9 of 9/February 4, 2020 PTavid L. Mayor