Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-17Minutes of the Pulaski Town Council meeting held at 7:00 p.m., December 5, 2017 in the Council Chambers of the Town Municipal Building at 42 First Street, N.W. In attendance were: Mayor: Councilmen Present: Councilman Absent Administration Press: Robert N. Glenn, presiding David L. Clark; Gregory C. East; Joseph K. Goodman; Lane R. Penn; James A. Radcliffe H.M. Kidd (excused) Shawn M. Utt, Town Manager Nichole L. Hair, Deputy Town Manager Spencer A. Rygas, Town Attorney Mike Williams, Pulaski County Patriot Brooke J. Wood, Southwest Times Staff Dave Hart, Director Parks & Facilities Bill Pedigo, Town Engineer David Quesenberry, Clerk of Council Rebecca Reece, Finance Director Gary Roche, Chief P.P.D. D.P. Barnes Ron Cole M.R. Jennings Suellen Palmer J.D. Saul Others Present Dana Bishop Dan Grim Sandra Miller Chris Phillips Angela Viers Caleb Dunford Michael Vaunda Jamie Brown S.J. Grim Jackie Morris James Puckett Derick Waddell Terry McPeak Mayor Glenn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Kim Caudill Mike Hudson J.D. Neice Wes Ratcliff Clark Payne Councilman Goodman led the Pledge of Allegiance and Councilman Clark gave the Invocation. Following Roll Call, Mayor Glenn explained to the audience the process by which persons may address or make comments before the Council during the Public Comment period. Mayor Glenn then asked if there were any modifications to the agenda. Mr. Utt said that an additional Closed Session under Va. Code 2.2-3711 a (7) was needed concerning zoning amendment litigation. Page 1 of 11 /December 5, 2017 Mayor Glenn then called for a motion for modification of the agenda to add a closed session. Mr. Goodman made the motion which was seconded by Mr. East and carried on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye After modification of the agenda, Mayor Glenn welcomed the members of the audience in attendance and said that if anyone had any questions, there would be an effort made to address all inquiries. Next item on the agenda under "Presentations" was Pulaski County Administrator, Jonathan Sweet (Item 7a). On greeting the Council, Mr. Sweet noted that the County Administration's philosophy was to have partnership with the towns, which had been strong and robust in the past, and that he desired to continue with that relationship. Mr. Sweet mentioned the Town and County were working on issues concerning the brush site, Pepper's Ferry and the Tow Board. He asked if there was anything of specific interest to the Council. Mr. Goodman mentioned the brush site and asked where that matter stood. Mr. Sweet responded that there had been materials placed in the brush that had resulted in damage to the chipper. In response, the Resource Authority said the site had to be manned due to the extensive damage to the chipper in the last incident. He added that there were not a lot of alternate sites available that could meet the criteria for the operation and that the County was looking to partner with the Town in finding the best location. Mr. Goodman said the that the Town had been without the service for a minimum of three years, and while he appreciated the County's issues, he felt the issue should be given a higher priority given the frequent complaints from citizens who felt mistreated by the County, since Dublin and Fairlawn have sites to deposit brush, but Pulaski residents have to go to Dublin. Mr. Goodman said he would like to see the issue resolved by spring since the current situation couldn't continue. Mr. Sweet responded that the matter could come down to having someone managing the site, but that work with the Town to solve the problem would continue. Mr. Sweet mentioned the new county initiative "Pulaski County Is" that was designed to give a fresh perspective on the County to produce a community experience initiative. He encouraged Council to connect online with the site and upload what they felt that Pulaski County was to them. He described the project as trying to "capture the minds and hearts" of the citizens and take that input to do a rebranding for marketing purposes Page 2 of 11/December 5, 2017 instead of using a consultant. He further encouraged the Town and its citizens to participate in the initiative. Mayor Glenn brought up the possibility of reviving meetings between the leadership of the both towns and the County. He asked Mr. Sweet if the County would entertain the notion of reviving quarterly meetings. Mr. Sweet said they would be interested and that it could be done collectively or by twos to get some work done before a meeting of the three boards. He felt it was a good idea and the Board of Supervisors would be interested in participating. Mayor Glenn felt exciting times were ahead for the community because of the interest and conversations in various meetings he had attended. He noted the movement generated by the "Pulaski County Is" effort as well as the plans for the new school which would result in a lot of opportunities. Mr. Sweet agreed that there were exciting developments ahead, and noted that the Board of Supervisors and the School Board were meeting with financial advisors on financing for the new school the next evening. He felt that getting the financing in place could be accelerated to continue to remain ahead of any market rate "jumps" and cost increase of building materials. In referring to the bond referenda, Mr. Sweet felt that 65% of the voters in favor of the new middle school said: (1) they wanted a middle school; (2) they are in favor of the County borrowing $47 million; (3) they are in favor of consolidating existing schools; and, (4) they have a location where they want it to be built. He felt the referendum said a lot more than just the subject matter of a new school. Mr. East asked if there had been any conversations concerning the existing school buildings. Mr. Sweet said both he and the superintendent had worked on the agenda for the upcoming Supervisors -School Board meeting which did not include that issue as an item of discussion. He felt that the County would have conversations concerning all the other school buildings and more than likely the hope was to repurpose and reuse those structures as quickly as possible, but there was as yet nothing definite at this point in time. Next item on the agenda was the Downtown Parking Study (Item 7b). Ms. Hair introduced Mr. James Puckett, the Virginia Tech intern who analyzed the Downtown regarding pedestrian usage and parking. Mr. Puckett began his presentation with a brief overview of the economic shift which redefined the Town and found that there were more outdoor recreation and tourism opportunities than existed in the past. The overall goal of the study was to balance town and community interests so to bring more revenue to the Downtown. Mr. Puckett suggested several strategies to improve the parking situation in the Downtown. They were: Page 3 of 11 /December 5, 2017 •Increased use of signage for posted time limits. • Ordinance requiring that vehicles be moved 600 feet from its original space • Limit parking to a 4 -hours; vehicles would have to be moved 600 ft. from their original spot. • Main Street traffic redesign involving one of four suggested options with an eye to making the street safer for pedestrians and bikers. Those options were 1. Single lane traffic with bike lanes which would take one lane of the present street and accommodate two-way bike traffic. 2. Use of contra -flow bike lanes flowing against traffic with reduction of the lane for a share road. 3. Single lane traffic with two bike lanes, one going with traffic the other flowing against traffic. 4. Advisory shoulders which is the least expensive option using two dashed lines on the street which would give bikers the right of way. If there were no bikes present, vehicles could use the lanes. • Parking meter zone. Mr. Puckett recommended a parking meter zone be set up from Jefferson to Third Street. He suggested a parking meter kiosk (potentially solar powered and able to interface with cell phones) for each block, which would reduce the cost for purchasing parking meters. In addition, any revenues from the parking kiosks could be applied for operation and repair of parking areas, which would allow for ongoing repair as opposed to using Town funds. Parking rates would be set to generate the income needed to support the repair program. More kiosks could be added as needed for other streets or zones. • Bridge enhancements. Currently parking on bridges was seen as dangerous and not in line with best practices. He suggested that on Jefferson Avenue Bridge, a row of shrubbery could be on either side. For the Washington Avenue Bridge, an advisory shoulder could prevent parking on the bridge, yet be used as a bike lane that could connect with trails further south on Route 11, making it more attractive for traffic or recreational bikers to go through the Downtown, thereby boosting the economy. • Wayfinding maps. Special maps could be prepared showing the location of parking in the Town, or could be placed on the kiosks. Mr. Puckett suggested a three sided wayfinding sign would be the best way to display the maps. Given the experience of other communities recognizing revenues from the informational kiosks, Mr. Puckett said that revenue could be generated over time to pay for the investment. With information readily available to travelers within the Town, he felt that it would generate more foot traffic in the Town for all demographics. Mayor Glenn said there were many questions that he had and would prefer to delve into the issue during a work session. Mr. Goodman and Mr. East both suggested that a work session would be an appropriate venue for review. Mayor Glenn thanked Mr. Puckett for his work and for the presentation. Page 4 of 11 /December 5, 2017 There being no public hearings scheduled the next item on the agenda was the Public Comment Period (Item 9). Mayor Glenn recognized the first registered speaker, Mr. Terry McPeak. Mr. McPeak voiced his objection to what he perceived as employees using Town vehicles for personal use. He noted that vehicles were driven to a number of communities and felt that if this was done, the Town should tax the car to charge the employee. He felt that the employees should support the Town if they are going to drive the vehicles. The issue he felt should be re-evaluated. Mr. Goodman replied that Council would begin discussion of Town employee vehicle usage at the next work session. Mayor Glenn then moved on to the Consent Agenda (Item 10). Mr. Goodman informed him that several errors were brought to the Clerk's attention, which were corrected. Mr. Goodman then moved that Council adopt the minutes in the packet (11/8/17) with the spelling corrections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penn and approved by the unanimous voice vote of those Council members present. Council then moved to the next item in the agenda, the Project Review Chart (Item 11 a). Mr. Utt reported that the CDBG audit of the Kersey Bottom/Case Knife housing project had been performed and that state was pleased with the outcome. This would allow the Town he stated, to move forward into Phase II of the funding cycle. Regarding Property Maintenance, Mr. Utt mentioned that there were several cases moving through the courts with both positive and negative results, but that the effort was proceeding forward. Mr. East asked if there could be a summary prepared of the cases. Ms. Hair said Mrs. Hodge would be present at the January meeting to give Council a six month update. Mr. Utt suggested a monthly report on property maintenance be prepared, similar to the Fire Dept. and Police Dept. monthly reports. With respect to the Fire Department, Mr. Utt reported that the Town was not awarded the grant for a ladder truck, but that the Town would reapply during the next grant cycle. Concerning the Gatewood RFP, Mr. Utt said that discussion was scheduled for later in the meeting. He added that work would begin at the Senior Center after installation of the sign at the "triangle" on East Main Street. On zoning matters, Mr. Utt informed Council that Vuhvanagon applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a setback variance following Council's decision not to vacate the Eastman Street right of way. The BZA did approve the variance request, which suggested the process, which would be monitored by staff, should move forward in January. Page 5 of 11/December 5, 2017 In addition, Mr. Utt noted later on in the agenda there were two resolutions concerning appointments to current boards and committees. He also suggested that the local media could be used to find volunteers for additional committee vacancies. Mr. East asked about town -wide paving noting that Mr. Pedigo and his staff had graded the streets to determine which were to be paved. He asked if Council could get a copy of the report for budget considerations. Mr. Utt replied that it could made available. Council then moved on to the Review of Short Term Goals (Item 11 b). Mr. Utt informed the Council that the letter of intent to the Army Corps of Engineers for the Peak Creek wall and the channel flooding would be sent to the Corps by December 15th. Mr. East asked about the wall and could simple repairs be started on damaged sections of the wall. Mr. Goodman asked if there were updates on the Post Office. Mr. Utt replied he had emailed Senator Warner's office, but learned that the Postal Service had not issued a response. There being no further questions from Council, Mayor Glenn moved to the next item on the agenda "Employee Compensation Study Recommendations" (Item 12b). Mr. Utt summarized the recommendations of the Springstead study. Each year of the study was assigned a salary scale to target a particular percentage of the market rate. Year 1 would get all employees to 90% of the market rate; Year 2 to 95% of the market All rate; and Year 3 would get employees to 100% of the market rate. Each year had three options that could be changed through the budget process each year. The first option was to get employees to the minimum of the salary scale; the second option was to get employees to the minimum of the salary scale plus 2%; while the third option was based on longevity by getting employees to the minimum of the salary scale plus adding credit for each year of service by the employee which helped the issue of salary compression. Mr. Utt then reviewed a funding strategy for the Council. He noted that there were four groups of employees: water, sewer, street, and general. Water and sewer employee salaries were funded by revenues, while street employees were funded by state revenues. The first three groups of employees, he felt confident, could have full implementation (100%) of the salary program from the existing budget. General Fund employees, (seventy-three (73) total) in light of Springstead's recommendation, broken out salary wise would result in the cost of first year implementation would be $106,000 for the last half of the fiscal year. That would get each employee to 90% of the market rate in Year One and include a longevity provision for length of employee service. Page 6 of 11 /December 5, 2017 According to Mr. Utt, in this year's budget $150,000 was set aside for salary study implementation and some room for "movement" in the budget was built in. For example he continued, the Economic Development director position was funded for a replacement if Council chose to do so. The retirement of Mrs. Cruise and combining duties of Clerk of Council and Asst. to the Town Manager resulted in more savings, giving the Town a total available amount for salaries of approximately $244,500. Mr. Utt said that he had asked Springstead to come up with some cost estimates to increase from 90% of market value in the first year to 91 % or 92% to see how far the town could go in the first year to maximize the benefit for the employees, yet maintain a comfort level in the budget. In reviewing the numbers, Mr. Utt suggested if the first year of the plan went to 92% of market value, it would increase the overall implementation cost Town -wide by $13,000 to $14,000 dollars. For the General Fund, the increase was about $10,000 over and above the Springstead recommendation. He asked Council to consider Year One implementation at 92% of the market value with a cost of $145,880 with a $291,760 annual cost. The cost broken out from the total for General Fund employees would be about $232,000. Mr. Goodman asked if that was the compression raise. Mr. Utt said that it was since this is Option 3 that begins to fix that issue. He asked for comments from Council concerning the 92% vs. 90% option. Mr. Goodman told Council that he and Mr. Utt had reviewed the numbers the previous Friday looking at the cost and the budget, and that the figure of $240,000 was correct. Mr. Utt said the data used the Springstead recommendation for Option 2 for calendar year 2019 which gets employees to the 95% market rate in addition to a 2% raise. Mr. Utt felt that Year 2 and Year 3 were not a concern other than what is proposed since Year 1 determines what can be sustained throughout future years. The amounts involved could be considered each budget year. Another issue that came up Mr. Utt continued, were internal inequities which involved several positions with many employees in a given position with little room for growth. Mr. Utt proposed to use a tiered system to deal with this issue and to return to Council in January with a plan to move forward on the issue including cost estimates. Mr. Utt reminded Council that some adjustments to the study, which would change the amounts listed, were needed because a particular job was inadvertently left out. He also mentioned an issue where Police Officer 2 and Corporal was at the same grade, which he hoped would be fixed by the Compensation Study. Mayor Glenn asked Council for discussion. Mr. Radcliffe said when the study was started, the goal was to target the lower end employees to raise them up. He complemented Mr. Utt and Mr. Goodman on a good job reviewing the data. What he Page 7 of 11 /December 5, 2017 wanted employees to understand was the problem was the result of many years of bad decisions that Council was trying to fix in three or four years. He said he also favored the tier system and was pleased with the job by staff. Mr. Goodman echoed Mr. Radcliffe's comments and that he appreciated staff putting up with the delays. Mr. East said that in addition to the tier system, he wanted to stress the compensation study's mention of pay for performance. In order to build the type of team the Town needs, pay for performance needed to be a part of the process. Mr. Utt mentioned that one proposal was a flat COLA and a pay for performance metric which seemed to be a better strategy. Mr. East added that he was struck by the Town being at 79%-80% of the market rate for any given positions, which makes it difficult for organizational success due to attrition. He mentioned being taken aback by the Fire Department being at less than 80% of the market rate for such a critical area. He felt that the plan was the right move and that Council would take the necessary steps. If it was not done right it would be a struggle. Mr. Goodman added that he and Mr. Utt looked at other fiscal years, proposed projects and other issues and it appeared the funds (for salaries) would be available in future years. Mr. East added that there needed to be a degree of flexibility to "grow the Town". Mr. Clark felt that the proposal was a better program and that it was the first time that he had been involved in employee raises to get the system where it belongs for the employee's pay and to compete with other localities. It appeared to him that the proposal was sustainable and could happen and should continue to happen. Mr. Penn said he was pleased with what he had heard so far. Mayor Glenn said that although a step system had been created, it failed over time due to a lack of implementation. He expressed some concern over the matrix system, but added that it seemed fairer than the step system. He challenged all in attendance to work together in an honest system to decide what was best for everybody. Mayor Glenn expressed concern over Public Works, Finance, the Police and Fire Departments, because they formed the backbone of the Town. These same employees within the matrix he said may not be seen in quite the same manner. Mayor Glenn went on to say that if the system was reviewed annually, the system could be made fair for every single employee, so that the lowest paid person feels they are compensated fairly and that they are appreciated for the work that they do. He expressed concern that everyone should "keep their eye on the ball" to prevent this initiative from stalling and also voiced concern about future developments regarding health insurance. Page 8 of 11 /December 5, 2017 Following his comments, Mayor Glenn opened the floor for a motion. Mr. Goodman moved that: (1) the Council commit to a three year process through the Springstead study results and in year one implement a raise to 92% standard of market value, with compression raises and other adjustments as shown in Option 4; (2) that we recognize the changes for the corporal position from Grade 13 to Grade 14 and any other adjustments that are necessary; and, (3) that staff be directed to prepare for an additional tiered approach for positions creating a third tier, with staff to come back to Council within 60 days with that report for Council to address. Mr. Penn seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Penn -Aye Mayor Glenn then called for a five minute recess at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Glenn reconvened the Council at 8:22 p.m. Next item on the agenda was Resolution 2017-29 (Item 12b), appointing Melissa Thomas to the Planning Commission. Mr. East moved to adopt Resolution 2017-29 as written. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion which was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council then considered Resolution 2017-30 nominating Daniel Talbert, Jr. for a five- year term on the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. East moved to adopt Resolution 2017-30 as written. His motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council then considered the draft RFP for Gatewood Operations (Item 13a). Mr. Utt informed Council that the RFP's would be due at the Town on January 22"d and that there would be a pre -proposal meeting in two weeks. He hoped that the RFP met the expectations of Council. Mr. Goodman complemented staff on a good job. Mr. East asked how responses would be addressed. Mr. Utt said a review committee would have to be set up whose membership would be determined by the responses received. The committee would Page 9 of 11 /December 5, 2017 have to examine the track record of an applicant as well as their business ability. The next step would be to begin negotiations or conduct interviews. Mr. East asked what the expectation were. Mr. Utt responded that the expectations would be what an applicant could do for the Town of Pulaski at Gatewood to help the Town save money, and increase both programming and opportunities. Mr. East responded that basically everything was negotiable, to which Mr. Utt agreed, saying he thought that Council wanted to see what options were available. Mr. Hart added that some criteria and scoring were developed for evaluation of prospective applicants. Mayor Glenn asked if any action was necessary from Council. Mr. Utt asked for authorization to advertise the RFP. Mr. East then moved to authorize advertisement of the RFP. His motion was seconded by Mr. Goodman and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Penn -Aye Next item of business was the Closed Session (Item 14). Mayor Glenn asked for a motion to enter Closed Session under (1) Virginia Code 2.2- 3711 a (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body regarding Ridge Avenue site expansion; and (2) Virginia Code 2.2-3711, (A) 7, consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body for one (1) matter involving a contractual update; and one (1) matter involving zoning amendment litigation. Mr. Goodman made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye Council entered the Closed Session at 8:30 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 8:55 p.m. Page 10 of 11 /December 5, 2017 Mayor Glenn asked for a motion that Council only discussed those three items, one under Va. Code 2.2-3711 a (3) and two under Va. Code 2.2-3711 a (7) for which it went into Closed Session. Mr. Goodman made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Clark and approved on the following roll call vote: Mr. Radcliffe -Aye Mr. Goodman -Aye Mr. East -Aye Mr. Kidd -Absent Mr. Clark -Aye Mr. Penn -Aye There being no further business, Mr. Goodman moved for adjournment. Mr. Clark seconded the motion which was approved by unanimous voice vote at 9:00 p.m( ATTEST: T David N. Quesenber Clerk of Council Approved:" Robert N. GlenrP Page 11 of 11 /December 5, 2017 Mayor