Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-211 1 1 Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council Meeting held at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 16, 2021 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W. The meeting also featured a general live cast to the public via the Town's Facebook page and participation of some presentations through Zoom. In attendance were: Mayor: Shannon Collins, presiding Councilmen Present: G. Tyler Clontz; Brooks R. Dawson; Greg East; Lane R. Penn; James A. Radcliffe; Michael P. Reis . Administration: Darlene L. Burcham, Town Manager Legal Counsel Spencer A. Rygas, Town Attorney Staff: David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Jordan Whitt, Social Media Manager Others Present: Chelsea Blount Cathy Hanks Lori Kroll (Zoom) Brian Sadler (Zoom) George Santucci Laura Walters 9. Call to Order Mayor Collins called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call of Council The roll was then called. Present for roll call were Mayor Collins; Mr. Clontz; Mr. Dawson; Mr. East; Mr. Penn and Mr. Radcliffe. Absent for Roll Call was Mr. Reis. With a majority of Council members present a quorum existed for the conduct of business. 3. Modifications to the Public Session Agenda Mayor Collins noted there were no modifications to the Public Session agenda. 4. Guests and Visitors Mayor Collins welcomed those in attendance both in person and on-line. 5. Consent Agenda -Minutes of February 2, 2021 Mayor Collins then asked for consideration of the minutes of February 2, 2021. Mr. Penn moved to approve the February 2, 2021 meeting minutes. Mr. East seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Absent Mr. Reis entered the session at 6:32 p.m. Council next heard a presentation from the New River Conservancy and the Friends of Peak Creek. Page 1 of 9/February 16, 2021 6. Presentation by Friends of Peak Creek and the New River Conservancy Mr. George Santucci and Ms. Chelsea Blount of the New River Conservancy updated Council on the six recommendations from the Peak Creek Flood Mitigation Task Force concerning measures to address flooding in the Town. They were joined by Ms. Cathy Hanks and Ms. Laura Walters of the Friends of Peak Creek. Mr. Santucci noted that at an earlier meeting six priorities were established and he had come to update Council on where work on the priorities stood. The EPA Implementation plan was a tool for impaired streams of which Peak Creek was one. DEQ and DCR had already conducted Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) testing for pollutants in the stream. Mr. Santucci stressed that there was money available through the Clean Water Act, Section 319. The funds could not be secured unless an implementation plan was done. The Dept. of Biological Systems Engineering (BSE) at Virginia Tech entered into a contract with the Town which allowed BSE to begin work. Under negotiation were frequency of meetings; what they could do in a COVID situation and how they might do water engagement. Once the final study was completed (possibly December 2021) it would be submitted to DEQ. If accepted, grant writing could start for Section 319 funds. Ms. Blount said the second recommendation was a Stream Channel Restoration Plan which had been completed. The sites in the channel needing restoration were identified and prioritized to improve water quality. Three sub -watersheds (Gatewood, Thornspring, Tract Fork) drained into Peak Creek. Even though the forested area in the sub -watersheds had increased, water quality in the creek still suffered degradation as a result of impervious surfaces, flooding, "doodle dust", and erosion. The area of the restoration plan began at the low head dam and extended two miles down to where the creek crossed under Route 99. Twelve sites were examined and prioritized with determinations made as to physical assessment and biological assessment. Water quality along with both the biological and physical assessments deteriorated the further one went downstream with one-half of the sites classified as high priority. The third recommendation was removal of the low head dam, which Mr. Santucci said was causing the channel to fill by impeding the flow of water leading to sedimentation deposits. Removal of the dam would allow the sediments to move on. The largest question was who owned the dam. Before stream channel work could be done, an agent authorization form had to be filled by the landowner which was unknown and could not be determined. Mr. Rygas suggested that if an owner could not be determined, the Town would go through a notification process to allow public comment, then would request the court to give the Town ownership. Searches had as yet found no references concerning the dam. Discussion continued about publication of notices seeking information from the public about the dam as well as possible legal procedures to either get the Town named as an interested party or to be awarded ownership of the dam. The fourth recommendation was storm water mapping, which Mr. Santucci said was necessary to gain information on the Town's infrastructure and locate all storm water outfalls. This effort was stymied by the lack of a trundle to create a storm water infrastructure inventory. and a mobile camera to judge the condition of the pipes. The goal was to avoid street flooding from backflow into the storm water drains. Page 2 of 9/February 16, 2021 Ms. Blount explained the fifth recommendation, flood plain buyouts. This strategy involved identifying communities impacted by flooding for which NRC and FOPC were working to identify parcels in those areas for possibly a high priority buyout. Other measures mentioned including gauging the willingness of communities for floodplain buyouts; identify and pursue appropriate funding from a variety of federal and state agencies; and enter negotiations with land owners. The last recommendation Ms. Blount mentioned was to implement storm water best management practices (BMP). This recommendation involved locating parcels suitable for storm water mitigation such as rain gardens or retention basins to capture storm water and slowly release it to avoid peak flows downstream. The presentation then concluded and Ms. Blount asked if there were any questions. A short discussion followed on the effect on the current flow with removal of the low head dam, sediment removal along with the dam; and adding the trundle (GPS) to the CIP. Mrs. Burcham reported on current efforts by the Town which included: the contract with Virginia Tech; discussions with the Engineering staff regarding setting up neighborhood meetings concerning relocation in areas prone to flooding; and receipt of the VDOT grants that would expand water lines and allow of use some techniques for storm water mitigation (e.g. tree wells). There being no further discussion the presentation concluded. 7. Presentation Concerning Brownfields—Draper Aden Council next heard a Zoom presentation concerning brownfields from Lori Kroll and Brian Sadler of Draper Aden, Ms. Kroll noted the Town had been involved with the EPA brownfield program before its first grant reception in 2009. The Town had previously received three EPA grants with a fourth grant underway since October 2020. She emphasized that Pulaski's brownfield efforts had been favorably received in national conferences across the country. At the request of the Town Manager, Draper Aden had compiled a considerable list of projects accomplished starting in 2008-2009 to the present for the Town Ms. Kroll discussed the Closing Report for the third grant cycle which ended in December 2020. She highlighted projects involving the Aust Property; the McCarthy/GCC site on First Street; the Lee Jeans building; the former Claremont School,; and the former Wastewater Treatment Plant on Dora Highway. She noted the County PSA had received a grant to complete additional assessments of the former treatment plant. Regarding the fourth grant cycle, which started in October 2020, Ms. Kroll said that activities were already underway. One project mentioned was the former Pulaski Hospital/Randolph House which had lead based paint and asbestos surveys performed in addition to a Phase I ESA. A Phase II ESA was planned to allow further investigation of that site. A state brownfields grant application had recently been submitted to leverage more funding. In addition more planning was anticipated with the owner who was interested in putting the property to use. However there were still environmental questions that had to be addressed. Other projects that were included in the current grant cycle were: West Main Property Transactions Screens (update study); Jackson Park West, (Phase I ESA at the corner of Commerce and Randolph); Jefferson School (update of Phase I ESA with asbestos surveys); Calfee School (Phase I ESA and structural analysis); and ongoing work at the General Page 3 of 9/February 16, 2021 Chemical Co. site. Additional sites under consideration for future work included the T.G. Howard Community Center; Coleman -Vaughn Building; and Peak Creek Mercantile. Mrs. Burcham mentioned the meetings between Draper Aden and the Economic Development Board (EDB) concerning properties the Board was concerned about. Ms. Kroll added the EDB had been involved from the first and were involved in brownfield discussions about properties they wanted added to the program. She felt their involvement was one of the reasons the Town's brownfield effort had been so successful due to the continuous community input from the EDB. Ms. Kroll then reviewed promotional material of 91 First Street, N.E. as an example of planned promotional materials to be used on the Town's website and Draper Aden's website. Draper Aden planned an Economic Development page where links would be provided to the Town's website with information on public or private brownfields that were on the market. The EDB would review the flyers at their next meeting. Ms. Kroll noted the total of the Town's EPA grants was $1,000,000 with an additional $517,000 being leveraged with two potential grants pending. A VBAF grant for $50,000 for the Randolph House had been submitted, while another VBAF grant ($50,000) was pending for the Magnox site resulting, by year's end, over $1.6 million in brownfields funding. EPA funds she added could be used as a match for the VBAF grants, which required a dollar for dollar match, freeing the Town from using its own funds for a match. Overall, Ms. Kroll felt the Town's program was very successful and then asked for questions. Mr. Reis asked if the proposed Magnox grant was for the entire property or a portion of it. Ms. Kroll replied that at present a determination had not been made. Draper Aden had not worked on the Magnox property. A private party had approached the owners who had a different consultant. Draper Aden had held discussions with the consultant who probably would be doing the work. Discussions, Ms. Kroll added, were ongoing about the site which she described as "difficult" and "complex". Mr. Reis then asked if the former Pulaski High School/Pulaski Middle School was on the list in some manner. Ms. Kroll said some investigations were done when the site was under consideration for a public safety building. It was on the list as a site that could be promoted. Mrs. Burcham added that the building was owned by the County. The Town extended an offer to do the Phase I ESA for Claremont since it was under consideration for needed residential use. Recently the Town had been asked to submit an application for VBAF funds to assist the developer of the school. Mrs. Burcham said she had indicated the Town would not be willing since there were already two structures with which the Town had a direct relationship with. She suggested the County could submit the application to help the project. The school was ready to be transferred and she anticipated the Town might be asked, but felt the Town had plenty of buildings that needed help which directly impacted the Town. There being no further questions or discussion the presentation concluded. Council next discussed the rental inspection and vacant building registration programs. 8. Discussion of Vacant Building Registration & Rental Inspection Program Mrs. Burcham noted that in a previous meeting she had distributed to Council copies of the vacant building registration and the rental inspection program which the Town Code indicated were available in conservation and rehabilitation districts. Three redevelopment/rental Page 4 of 9/February 16, 2021 inspection zones (West Loop; Southeast Crescent; Downtown) were identified, but there had not been consistent use of the codes. She felt the codes were necessary for the safety of citizens living in older structures especially those that experienced frequent turnover with renters. She added that the Town had a responsibility to look at the existing aging housing stock. Mrs. Burcham said that the two codes could be coupled with the state's new ARS program which would allow the Town to engage the services of someone to acquire or rehabilitate/demolish substandard housing. The goal was to get owners to maintain their property in an acceptable condition in addition to informing owners of the Town's concerns about their property. The rental inspection program's goal was to ensure that tenants were living in safe rental properties within these districts. The check list for the properties was similar to a Section 8 HUD checklist. Mrs. Burcham hoped that the Council would indicate their interest in continuing/reinvigorating these programs. If approved, there were staffing plans using existing staff for these programs after data was gathered on addresses and property owners. A minor program change suggested was using code enforcement to administer the program. The changes to the code would be brought back to Council at a later meeting. She felt the codes either should be used or removed from the Town Code if Council did not wish to proceed. Mr. Reis asked if the three inspection districts would be used or would it be made town -wide. Mrs. Burcham responded that state code did not allow town -wide districts. The districts had to be created. She suggested that in going forward that the Town start inspections with one district the first year; a second district in the second year; and a third district in the third year. Recertification would be placed on a four year cycle in which re -inspections would go back to the first district. She also suggested that there were other areas in the town that should be looked at for possible designation as a district. Designation of districts required that the Council make a ruling that a specific area of the Town had deteriorated and had a significant number of rental properties. Using that determination, the Council could create as many districts as desired. Mr. Reis suggested an educational outreach effort to the landlords and indicate tothem the hope to provide state based funding for improvements. Mrs. Burcham anticipated it would be 60-90 days before full program implementation giving time for data collection and the education program. She cautioned Council that there was usually some "pushback" from landlords and she anticipated the Town would move into the program slowly, starting with one of the three districts. Mr. East commented that the three districts were set up because of the large number of rental units in the area while the vacant building registration was initiated due to a building collapse. He felt the program was good and supported proceeding with the program one district at a time and its inclusion under Code Enforcement. Mr. Dawson asked if the intent was to pick one section the first year and inspect every rental unit. Mrs. Burcham said the unit would be issued a certificate good for four years unless there was a complaint. The tenant would be informed that they could bring concerns to the Town. If a unit failed ispection, the initial re -inspection would be done without charge, while charges would be applied for any additional re -inspections. Mr. Dawson asked if the Town received a complaint/concern on their rental property in any other area of the Town could the complaint be pursued. Mrs. Burcham responded that a rental inspection could be done only in the three Page 5 of 9/February 16, 2021 areas, but the Town could respond to complaints outside the areas. However the Town's ability I to do something about those complaints was more limited. Mr. Reis asked if it would be more of a code issue. Mrs. Burcham ventured that the Town could offer informational assistance to a complaint outside the districts, but the rental inspection gave the Town more ability to see that corrections were made. Mr. Dawson asked about complaints from another rental inspection district, not scheduled for inspection. Mrs. Burcham said a rental inspection could not be done but the Town could respond to a complaint and give materials to tenants on what their options were. Following a short discussion on the potential benefits of the program and the obligation to provide safe housing, Mr. Reis moved re -invigorate the rental inspection and vacant building programs and authorize the Town Manager to bring back any changes to the Town Code. Mr. East seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye Council next considered authorization to execute Main Street grant project documents. 9. Authorization of Town Manager to Execute Main Street Project Documents Mr. Dawson noted that the Town had a $200,000 obligation with these grants and asked Mrs. Burcham on her comfort level with the Town's position to do these grants. Mrs. Burcham replied that the resolution authorized her to sign the documents with VDOT. The Town had 4 years to do the project. The draft CIP budget had the match shown in two different years for the two projects. The first match was in next fiscal year's budget and the second was two years later. VDOT wanted to know if the Town accepted the projects which would not be done unless the match was identified in the capital budget. The matches were listed by the staff near the top of the CIP prioritization. Mrs. Burcham said Council would find in the CIP listing, not just one project to redo the streets, gutter and sidewalks but another to redo the water lines on Main Street because of limited capacity and the need for adequate fire flow for buildings that needed sprinklers. Monies would not be committed by the Town until the funds were appropriated. Mr. East noted a difference in wording in the VDOT documents between the two project area descriptions in each of the resolutions. Mrs. Burcham ventured it was a typo and she would have it corrected. a. Resolution 2021-02, Main Street -North Mr. East then moved to adopt Resolution 2021-02 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penn and approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye Page 6 of 9/February 16, 2021 b. Resolution 2021-03, Main Street -South Mr. Reis then moved to adopt Resolution 2021-03 with the understanding that the Manager will request the changes to the underlying documents as discussed by Council to extend the project from Jefferson to Washington. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll call vote: Lane R. Penn -Aye James A. Radcliffe -Aye Brooks R. Dawson -Aye G. Tyler Clontz -Aye Gregory C. East -Aye Michael P. Reis -Aye 10. Council Comments Mayor Collins then called for Council comments. Mr. Penn asked about the roll back sitting on Main Street. Mrs. Burcham responded that the rollbacks were checked to see if they were being used. The rollback in question had been filled up and emptied twice. As long as progress was made, the Town generally allowed it because there was no at better place to locate it. Mr. Penn then asked about the roped off area on Main Street (67&69 Main) noting that people had to walk out into the street. Mrs. Burcham said that the area was roped off because of the possibility of bricks falling from the parapet. Mr. Dawson and Mr. East had no comment. Mr. Radcliffe encouraged the cutting of brush on the roads and noted that Edgehill Drive looked good. He questioned as to why there had been no progress on the Dora Dumpsite and felt the issue should be pushed and wondered what the holdup was. Efforts to use the property behind the Sheriff's Department as well as the former sewer plant on Dora Highway were not successful. Mrs. Burcham responded that Draper Aden mentioned that the County had received an authorization to spend $50,000, to have them look at what it would take to clean up the Town's former sewage treatment plant for eventual use as a convenience center. She expressed reservations over the sewer plant site and said that the area behind the Sherriff's Department was too small. Repeated efforts to contact Honeywell were unsuccessful regarding getting them to donate or sell land to enlarge the site. Until the inquiry was performed on what it would take to clean up the old sewage treatment plant, the Town agreed to take a "back position" to allow the PSA to proceed with the Fairlawn site and complete that site. That would give the Town additional time to complete studies and find a better site. The Town was involved in the decision that it could not afford to remove the building at the sewer plant site at this time and preferred to look for a better site. Mr. Radcliffe asked about a site near Budweiser. Mrs. Burcham said she would check on it. She added that there was a creek and a trail that ran to the rear of the old sewer plant. Some cleanup was done around the old drying beds and some safety precautions taken to secure buildings and lock the gates. A conscious decision was made to proceed with the Fairlawn site to give the Town time to reassess both the current planned site and locate another site. Mrs. Burcham said she would look at the newly suggested site. A short discussion ensued about the possibility of contacting Honeywell. Mrs. Burcham said the convenience site effort would continue. Mr. Clontz had no comment. Page 7 of 9/February 16, 2021 Mr. Reis suggested partnering with the County to share costs regarding the GPS unit and drone unit mentioned during the New River Conservancy presentation. Mrs. Burcham said one piece of equipment was in possession of the County. Overtures to use the equipment were made by the NR Conservancy and the FOPC but they were told it was not possible likely given the equipment's complexity. Mr. Penn suggested that the Town may have better luck with the School Board. Mr. East suggested contracting the work out. Mrs. Burcham said the issue was an equipment issue and a manpower issue. As budget work proceeded, she ventured that Council would see the Town was operating slimly. As Council reviewed the capital program, she thought the staff could inform them better regarding additional manpower resources as opposed to contracting out. As an example she mentioned work on some buildings which would have to be contracted out. After the capital listing was reviewed, there could be a discussion attended by Department Heads who could go into greater detail for Council. Mayor Collins commented on the NR Conservancy presentation and noted that he did not favor the creek meandering within the channel but felt it looked better full. He asked if there was any way to have a replacement dam that could be opened when it was flooding. A short discussion followed regarding sedimentation from the creek flow and how changing flows might affect the channel. As far as cleaning the channel, Mrs. Burcham noted it would require going involve various agencies and the matter was not as simple as it used to be. Council next considered the Manager's Report. 11. Manager's Report Mrs. Burcham reported on the following items: • On Tuesday, February 23`d at 6:00 p.m. at Memorial Baptist Church, a neighborhood meeting was scheduled to invite neighborhood comment about MacGill Park. While a request for proposals had been issued, Council expressed interest in what the citizens thought. COVID precautions on the ten person limit would be observed. • Mrs. Burcham requested feedback from Council about the Weekly Summary. Draft Five -Year Capital Improvement Program schedules were distributed to Council. Mrs. Burcham said that a six to ten year timeframe was considered to add needed projects which could not be considered in a five year timeframe. The CIP effort had been underway for about a month with Department Heads looking at each other's proposed projects for prioritization. She encouraged. Council to review the material and contact her with any questions. Budget number were not yet available to indicate how much funding would be available for the CIP. Some projects could be financed by debt, lease purchase, or push projects out to other years. Council would adopt the five-year plan but would only approve the first year for funding. At the end of the list were Capital Outlay items that were funded in the operating budgets. A short discussion then followed regarding adding playground equipment and potential projects for the Water & Sewer funds to the CIP. Mr. Dawson suggested linking budget projections to funding for CIP projects. Mrs. Burcham suggested prioritization would lead to a dollar amount for projects which could be rethought as necessary. Page 8 of 9/February 16, 2021 • Mrs. Burcham reported that the budget was going well, but there would be a couple of necessary budget adjustments which were: adjusting for $94,000 in transfers from the Water Fund to the General Fund, which the Water Fund could not do this fiscal year; and, dealing with a severe underestimation of the budget for the joint dispatch center. Council would also shortly receive Department goals for the next two years which Council could use to gauge further goals. • Mr. Whitt showed Council the new wayfinding signage which could accommodate smaller detachable signs for special events or other community announcements. The Manager's Report then concluded. 12. Reminder of Future Council Meetings and Adjournment Mayor Collins reminded Council of the upcoming Council meeting on March 2, 2021, with the Closed Session beginning at 5:30 p.m. and the Public Session beginning at 7:00 p.m. along with the Work Session on March 16, 2021 with the Closed Session beginning at 5:00 p.m. and the Public Session beginning at 6:30 p.m. There being no further business, Mr. East moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by multiple Council members and approved by unanimous voice vote at 8:41. p. Approved: Br oks R. Dawson Vice -Mayor ATTEST: David N. Quesenberry Clerk of Council 1 Page 9 of 9/February 16, 2021