City Council Meeting   10/17/2022

You can't hear that until you came in the room.

It's on the record.

Yeah.

So right now it's not too bad.

So when are you going to decide it's getting to be winter?

But it's not too bad.

Hamill is also by video, so I think that's all of the necessary parties.

Mr. Mayor, we had talked about getting the council involved earlier in the budget process.

I'll tell you what, we've got to call ourselves to order and go through the night cities first.

You're ready to go though, hey.

Thomas, will you please call the roll?

Councillor Payne?

Here.

Councillor Pinkston?

Here.

Mayor Snook?

Here.

Vice Mayor Wade?

Here.

Is there a motion to approve Councilor McGill's remote participation?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Welcome Councilor McGill.

Is there a motion to approve or to amend the agenda?

I move that we approve the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Hamill.

earlier, excuse me.

And we paid attention to that in the schedule this year.

Chrissy.

and we have penciled in a council community budget forum there were two dates being discussed but I don't think we've narrowed down a final date for those that one was Wednesday March 22nd or Thursday March 23rd so we do need to hear from council on those if there's a preference on the date so we confirm that up I don't know if you all want to talk about that now or keep going or

We're here, let's talk about it.

Okay.

I have a slight preference for a Thursday over a Wednesday simply because Wednesdays I've got choir practice, but that's a slight preference.

I'm fine with either of those dates.

Yeah, I'm inclined for a Thursday because Wednesday is C4K day for me.

Thursday works for me.

McGill?

Um, regretfully, I have conflicts coming up in April, but okay.

Can we coalesce on that?

Yep.

Okay.

This will be in advance of him presenting a proposed budget to council, and this will be held on Tuesday, January 10th at Carver at 6 o'clock.

And you're going to have to have that without any input from us because we should be at a Planning Commission meeting at that time.

Community Meeting That's right.

Okay.

Councilor McGill did you have a question?

I was just wondering it says the Meadow Creek Trail section 700,000 but I thought we were also recently appropriated ARPA money for the Meadow Creek Trail so I just want to make sure if this is an addition to that yeah so Sam can you speak to that you're still muted Sam

That makes it a fully funded project.

I reiterate so again none of this is written in stone yet these were just things that you all talked about as allocations again there would have to be a formal appropriation and vote in December with the year-end appropriation on that once the year-end is closed and the surplus is finalized

Just to follow up on that last matter, Mr. Sanders, do we have any idea when, assuming the $700,000 is in fact appropriated in December, when that trail might be built?

The goal is to have the trail constructed next year entirely.

Thank you.

The applications have been the process has been opened up the applications are due in November and we can come back to you at that point and give you an insight as to what the requests are in terms of total dollars but again would like some feedback on where you'd like to land in terms of total funding

I'm just kind of babbling at this point.

I believe I'm right about that.

Thank you for bringing that up because we are going to touch on that.

Stealing your thunder.

No, no, please go ahead.

And the ARP one-time funding, we have more funding available to us if we chose to use that, correct?

I don't recall the balance right off the top of my head, but there is some portion that is unallocated.

Got it.

Hey there.

I guess cost of living adjustment over the years so that we are increasing the amount into the vibrant community funds versus expecting the same amount of service for the same amount of money over years.

It was just, you know, that was what was in the budget, and so we just worked with that.

A holistic thing of if we are expecting someone to provide the same services for the amount of money they're asking for as they asked for 10 years ago or five years ago, we're not factoring in basically changing economy into what we are putting in towards our nonprofits that we're saying we want to support.

at the same rate we're looking at about 1.2 million so again that's a big jump and all of that is with one-time money and that's another question for council that we'd like some weigh in as to obviously that's not sustainable unless we are able to add more funding as part of the budget process

Yeah, I would appreciate a little more background on what the Pathways Program is.

Misty, do you want to speak to that a little bit?

Ms.

Oh, there she is.

The impact right now is that there's a lot of utility bill cutoffs, and that's another reason why we see just increase in expending on that.

I understand what Pathways is for now.

And the 84,000 has been the figure for FY20, FY21, FY20.

from the surplus from fiscal year 2019, we added $300,000 to that fund at that point.

Was that one time or?

It was one time, but then we had another one-time expenditure out of, I guess, CARES Act funds and then another one-time expenditure out of ARP funds or something like that.

That's correct.

So I guess the point of this is at some point we're going to have to think beyond these grants that we're getting and what we really want to fund this going forward, what sort of level of support we want to put in.

Well an 84,000 has been shown even pre-COVID wasn't enough.

Yeah.

Even remotely enough and it hasn't and it's been funded at the end of the year for surplus more than I think even this council's sitting and that we might want to look at a little bit more realistic number.

Did you have some?

If we've tripled, if the allotment has tripled for the year then at base we should be tripling this budget.

Otherwise, we're going to be looking at people who become homeless as a result.

So are we thinking considering like $250?

If there's no access going forward to those additional funds, then maybe we make it $500,000.

But I think we hear you that we want to make a substantial increase in this funding.

Okay, thank you.

Is that fair?

I think so.

This is part of a deliverable and a redesign from the HRNA report that you received late last year.

I guess that's the second row.

I don't know if you have a specific project in mind, Mr. Sanders might be able to address that, but those are not part of this process.

As you see, it says to be determined, and that will be to make it possible for us to receive a request and then bring those forward as they come in.

And the other three rows you say reflect the report by HRA?

and there will be a release of an individual RFP giving them a period of time to respond and then we will enforce review and come back with recommendations for council to consider.

Thank you.

what what gets the priority and how we can fit this in so it will be a fun exciting budget development process for sure just and I'm sorry

Is that the significance of the kind of cost increase you're seeing with those requests?

We'll be talking about increases on the school project as well as some of the bigger things that were in the CIP as well.

at a scale that's kind of budget changing for us.

Yes.

I confess I've missed that word thermometer of one-time funding.

you know at some point needs to get back to a level because the one-time money is gonna run out and so it was just something that she used to kind of as a visual to help talk about that and so that's that's the thermometer.

I just forgot we were still going to have to deal with that thermometer.

Yeah, it's a fever or something.

Get us an update at some point.

What's the timeline of when we would expect basically to be completed and kind of have the report that has the recommendations of the changes that are needed

before we are able to roll something out to council and tell you what we think the implications of the study are.

Yeah, because past budget cycles, I remember it was a very ballpark number, but it was estimated that that could easily be like a $10 million expenditure for the city if you were to fully do what it's likely to recommend.

That would be extraordinary and would really put us at a tough spot, but it's going to be much more than we would normally pay and spend in compensation, so it's going to be an increase.

Maybe that was like all our recurring expenditures that weren't baked into our budget or something, but either way.

Right, okay.

and you know we need to talk about what council's priorities are in terms of you know how you want us to address these items and that's really all we have for this presentation happy to answer any questions or any take any other feedback that you'd like to share

Thank you for that.

Yeah.

then maybe that's an approach and I think my last kind of question maybe to Christy and Chris is like what at this point anything about the budget that could potentially keep you up at night as we are beginning the planning process?

to have that direction from council is helpful as we go through the budget.

Thank you.

Do we have any sense from Mr. Divers of, not Mr. Divers because it would be someone else, but

with the revenue that we know, and then council will have some choices to make.

So that's really going to be a high on my list.

So you'll have pretty firmed up numbers on that school project by the end of November.

Okay, thank you.

And then I guess we get we have a meeting with the school board in February before the budget is actually coming from the city manager at which we meet with the school board and the school board and we basically start the process of hashing out a final request from them.

Enough said.

But at this point, I guess those are the only thoughts I have.

in December and what changes we have to make from there.

Sena?

Sena, got any comments for us?

And as I said last year, I don't think we're going to be able to make those increases without some significant tax increases.

Any other comments, Council?

I'm good.

City Manager, anything else you want out of us?

And it's going to take some work to get there.

I guess that wraps up our only item on the agenda for four o'clock.

Sure.

A1, and A8 for discussion or consideration of the current contract for city management services by the Robert Bob Group, for consideration of the appointment of a permanent city manager, and for consultation with legal counsel regarding those matters.

A picture of... A fire leader.

Oh yeah, Mike.

Do we have a motion on that?

I move that the City Council member is certified by a recorded vote that, to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thomas you take the vote please.

Councillor Payne?

Yes.

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Mayor Snook?

Motion passes and we are now back in open session officially.

Thank you.

Counselors, any announcements?

And again, individual feedback or feedback from organizations is requested by Wednesday, November 9th.

Any other announcements?

Mayor, did you receive my email earlier?

I don't know.

Regarding Mrs. G?

I did not.

We are grateful for Mrs. G's service to the community and send our condolences to her family.

So are there any items for recognition?

We do have the proclamation.

Okay.

Thomas, would you read the consent agenda, please?

Nine, resolution, Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act grant, $452,704, one of two readings.

Is there anybody who would like to speak to the consent agenda items?

Mayor Snook, I see no raised hands.

Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

I move that we adopt the consent agenda.

Councilor McGill yes Councilor Payne yes Councilor Pinkston yes Mayor Snook yes Vice Mayor Wade yes motion passes five nothing to adopt the consent agenda Mr. Rogers is there a report from the City Manager's Office?

Congratulations.

Congratulations, yes.

Chrissy, you want to walk through this first quarter?

I'll share my screen again.

There we go.

the quarterly revenues as well as the quarterly expenditures on both of those you have the ability to drill down by department and take a look at the line items as well as a comparison of the 22 to 23 budget and with that I'm going to turn this part of the report over to our treasurer Mr. Vandemer

With that, I will stop sharing my screen and turn it back over to Mr. Rogers.

Those are all of the comments from the city manager's report.

Any councilors have any questions for the city manager about any of that?

Could you talk in more detail on whatever became of that?

So that's where we are currently.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

But I just don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we have vulnerable people there that need to be protected.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, please.

So thank you.

So is there anybody online who would like to speak to us?

Our first raised hand will be Tanisha Hudson.

Hudson.

Good night.

So yes,

But I hope you all put things in place where it could be better.

Do we have anyone else online?

Mayor Snook, I see no raised hands.

As I said, there will be another opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting.

Can't hear you.

Yes, I am.

Okay.

have joined in the recommendation for approval, and so we ask that City Council adopt this resolution, I'm sorry, this ordinance vacating the existing public utility easement.

Is there anybody online who would like to speak on the matter of this public utility easement on Maury Avenue?

Mayor Snook, I see no raised hands.

Council, what are your thoughts?

I mean I guess to me it just seems pretty straightforward Go ahead and make a motion Sure I would move to I'm trying to find it too

I think that we fell down on our duties and did not give you a recommended motion, but you can craft one easily by using the title of the ordinance.

Okay.

Thomas, will you take the vote, please?

Councillor McGill?

Yes.

Councillor Payne?

Yes.

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Mayor Snook?

That is taken care of.

Mr. Divers?

And if you have any questions, I'm happy to take them.

Anyone like to make it?

I would move to approve the ordinance to amend, reordain, and reenact section 14-19 of the city code to clarify the businesses subject to taxation at the rate specified within subclassification H of section 14-19 and also that city council adopt the ordinance by four-fifths vote effective on this first reading waiving the requirement for a second reading as allowed by city code section 2-97.

Thomas take the vote please.

Councillor Payne?

Yes.

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Mayor Smith?

All right that motion passes five nothing.

Next item also Mr. Divers dealing with the transient occupancy tax to incorporate various state legislative changes.

you know the lodging itself was subject to the transient occupancy tax but the change in state the changes in state code in the last two years have made it very very clear that all ancillary charges are also subject to sales tax and transient occupancy tax so we we're trying to to clarify some language in there that we had mistakenly left from sort of the prior regime I guess or the the prior way of thinking

Would that mean that cleaning fees for Airbnb would be taxable?

I don't know that anybody would try to take advantage of that, but if there was any effort to interpret that to mean that a stay in a hotel owned by an educational institution might somehow be exempt, we thought we should go ahead and clarify that to mean explicitly stays in dormitories, which I think was the original intent of that language when the Transunocracy Tax Ordinance was passed, however long ago it was passed.

Other questions, folks?

Mr. Divers, always a pleasure.

Likewise.

What additional revenue might come out of this or is that just kind of not not yet.

We just don't know how much.

when they build a hotel that wouldn't be tax exempt and then two, there's more that the city can tax on Airbnbs and other

Our position is that the lodging tax, I mean, yeah, transient occupancy tax will be applicable to stays in that hotel when it's built.

Well, I guess they could always just buy it with the UVA Foundation anyway.

Still going to be subject to transient occupancy.

But, yeah, but besides those things, is there anything practically that would change in terms of how the city is collecting taxes on Airbnbs, which I think has really been... Well, yeah.

So the legislation that passed in 2022 fixed that.

With all those changes you mentioned, does that kind of address that issue in any meaningful way, or is that going to have to be something else we work on later on?

But in the absence of those things, we won't be able to, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Sure.

That's for Reed Broadhead.

And I guess we'll just kind of have to see what happens and go from there.

And this may be something for your legislative packet when the time comes.

So anyway, that's a larger, bigger discussion, and I don't want to go down this hole right now, but it's something I think we do need to decide if we're going to address it or not, because I know it's a concern of a lot of residents that the neighborhood, the people, it's not everywhere, but they simply purchase a home for Airbnb business.

But, you know, if there are bad actors to be found and, you know, brought to justice, I guess, there's one guy, you know, and he's up to his eyeballs.

So are we ready for a motion on this ordinance?

Reordain and Reenact Chapter 30, Article 9 of the City Code Transit Occupancy Tax to incorporate state legislative changes pertaining to collection of tax revenues from lodging intermediaries and to update definitions of terms used in Article 9 and the requirement for a second reading is waived.

Councilor McGill yes Councilor Payne yes Councilor Pinkston yes Mayor Smith yes Vice Mayor Wade yes okay that motion also passes five zero and finally on a roll with Mr. Divers to amend reordain and reenact the cigarette tax yes sir another sexy sounding ordinance yeah

And so it just kind of dots the I's and crosses the T's of what was started last fall.

If not, is there a motion?

I move the ordinance to amend, reordain, and reenact Chapter 30, Article 17 of the City Code Cigarette Tax to reflect the City's membership in the Blue Ridge Cigarette Tax Board.

Is there a second?

Second.

And is this one that we're also seeking to dispense with a second reading on?

Yeah.

Ms.

Robertson to clarify.

I beg your pardon?

Robertson.

Robertson clarify that.

Okay.

This one's not as urgent as Mr. Diver said.

I think this one just got it.

We just thought it would be easier to do them all as part of a package at once.

Was there a second?

Juan seconded.

Thomas?

Councillor Payne?

Yes.

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Mayor Snook?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Wade?

And finally, and that passes 5-0.

Finally, to amend, reordain, and reenact the real estate tax relief program for elderly and disabled persons, Mr. Divers again.

Mr. Rogers, I hope I'm not speaking out of school.

He may have an insatiable curiosity for this sort of thing.

All right.

There it is.

So, counselors, any questions?

No.

and eventually I think I figured out from not from the ordinance but from the memo that MFI basically equates to the AMI figure that we're used to using although it doesn't say that exactly.

and then you know we we create our structure from there so I you know if there's something better I'm I'm happy to use it but that's just an easily reproducible method and a number that I can look up every single year when I come back to you and you know well I mean and I

And I, anyway, I looked at it and I went around and around and around and I couldn't find it the way that, I mean, I'd love to know your secret.

But I've got it.

And I'm mainly interested in being able to define it with sufficient particularity so that year after year we know what we're talking about.

So did you see the link in my response?

Yeah, I saw that.

It goes on and on, but if you drill down on that, you can see how they derive that number and they use the same methodology every year.

It strikes me as a pretty amazing coincidence that AMI for a family of four happens to equal median family income for all families.

That's MFI.

And that's what has me puzzled because it doesn't seem... I mean, the odds of that being a pure coincidence seem rather improbable.

I can't answer you.

If not, let's use the same term.

it does address that and it makes clear it makes clear that we have added to the definitions the second paragraph now states that for purposes of this section the terms claimant applicant and owner of the real estate for which relief is sought are used interchangeably and refer to individuals applying for relief under the provisions of this section.

and you say, and I mentioned you referring to parenthetical soup, but it was confusion with not enough parentheses or too many parentheses or something.

So I've fixed that as well.

and if John Doe is the beneficiary of or the owner of an LLC that owns the property and he otherwise qualifies for tax relief, that's okay also.

An applicant for exemption under this article shall not... I see any other real estate, okay.

There is some other garble to it.

An applicant for exemption under this article or an applicant's spouse who resides in the dwelling for which relief is sought shall not own an interest in any other real estate either personally or by virtue of the applicant's or such spouse's status as a beneficiary or trustee of a trust of which the real estate is an asset or by virtue of the applicant's status as a member, single or otherwise, of an LLC or other legal entity of which the real estate is an asset.

in whatever version you've, whatever amendment you made today?

And then around or such spouses, there were parentheses and should have been brackets.

Is that issue addressed anywhere in this?

Let's see if I can find it.

Or at least that if it's going to be a problem that I know about it in advance and we can fix it.

Accounts, funds.

shall not exceed then we get into household income shall not own interest in any other real estate either personal or by virtue of the applicants or such spouse's status as a beneficiary or a trustee of a trust Todd let me let me jump in here for a second real quick thank you so in in general if you would

So it should apply both ways.

Positively and negatively?

That's how you've applied it over the years.

We have always, I don't know that we've ever had anybody come in with an LLC, but we routinely qualify trusts.

look at the facts of a given situation to determine how that title is held and whether it can be, you know, attributed to a specific individual.

The only thing that's confusing me as I think there is actually a stipulation in the CHAP ordinance that it needs to be a natural person.

But the CHAP program now.

Yep.

tax relief on one of them based on these income guidelines that that's not the you're making a policy choice that that's not the person you're intending to serve.

So in paragraph six, we're just going to add a parentheses at the end of is an asset period.

It was too late to add it to your back.

What was the other change?

And we made that change before I responded to your email this morning for this afternoon.

No.

I have one clarifying issue now.

Yes.

So when it comes to, we're coming back to the MFA.

MFI?

So when you're looking at it, are you, as you can see on the chart provided here, the bold is highlighted under the persons in family four.

Let me get there.

Okay.

Oh, hold on.

So it says it highlights the family of four there and gives you in bold the listing.

You're talking about on the HUD document?

Yes.

Yeah.

It says very low income persons in family for $53,400.

I'm looking at the $111,200.

I mean, that's what I'm reading at this HUD documentation.

And this is, and what documentation is that?

I wish I could show you my tablet.

This 111,000 is based on a four-person household.

That's not what we've been using for the chat program.

It's been basically a negotiated number that comes out of the budget cycle and counselors say, well, how about we use this or how about we use that?

There have been income parameters before if somebody qualifies.

Yes, they're just kind of spitballed.

But I always thought we used AMI for the chat program that somebody within this AMI.

It was based on

persons and families of low and moderate income used by VHDA in their single family mortgage loan program.

I'm not dismissing its importance, but I'm wondering, Mr. Divers, if it might make more sense for Lloyd and Sena.

I don't know if Michael had any follow-up questions.

Clearly, these are important details.

It just needs to be clear what that is, as the mayor pointed out.

Even if it's derived from Ouija boards, as long as it can be determined every year reliably, that's what I'm getting at.

And that's what this is.

I mean, that's what it says on the HUD website that MFI is.

Sure.

for person households.

Well, when I asked a moment ago whether people were comfortable even with the two issues that we've been talking about and two counselors said no, I think that's a good indication that we ought to come back and look at it in two weeks.

That's fine.

I think we're very close, but I'm always very nervous about asking people to vote for something they haven't actually seen.

Robertson, but I do think this is, it's like 95% there, but that last 5% would probably be good to come back.

What's that, be the November, what's that, the 7th?

Unless there's some, like, compelling reason from a schedule perspective that that

Does this have any schedule issues?

Well, I just would rather not go any later than that because we've got to get the program ready and start getting mail out.

We'll mail down the details November 7th.

Is that okay, Mr. Divers?

Okay.

Good.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda.

Michael Goddard.

So if we were to stay with the fuel card system, we're gonna incur additional costs starting at year seven.

Questions, counselors?

Is that correct?

That is about right, yes.

That seems like essential, correct?

That is correct, yes.

And the total cost to do that is $700,000?

Right.

My question is, what would the total cost be to just decommission that site?

Okay, so if we were to just spend $300,000, we would not spend a million, it sounds like.

The seven-year payback that you were talking about, was that for the million dollars or was that for the 700,000?

If we were to just do the close down, yeah, much, much longer then.

I guess my point is to the city manager's office, is this like an essential thing that we have to have to function as a city or is there another way to do it because this is a million dollars that we're talking about?

Okay.

Okay.

Other questions, counsel?

Yeah, I mean, I'd still be interested for Mr. Vandiver afterwards to understand the payback.

We'll take a look at that.

Yeah.

Do we want to continue this to the November 7th meeting for the second reading?

I'm all right with that.

We want to continue to the consent agenda or we want to talk about it more?

I would, though, just appreciate from Mr. Sanders and Mr. Rogers some more explanation, maybe even a site visit.

And Councillor Payne, if you wanted to discuss more, I don't know if there's really an opportunity to save money here, but I'm happy to discuss it because I'm always down for ways to not spend a million dollars.

Particularly on gasoline.

But, you know, I acknowledge there may not be that opportunity there, but if you want to, I'm happy to continue the discussion.

Okay.

I mean, it doesn't slow things down.

All right.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks, Mr. Goddard.

And in the meantime, if anybody does want a site visit, I'm happy to help out with that.

I'd like that.

Okay.

Mr. Sanders.

But since we're simply just asking for a five-year renewal of the agreement, the goal would be to preserve this series of affordable housing at the current agreement as initiated by council at that time.

Council have any clarifying questions?

Yeah, just I think that the notion would be to substitute the motion that's in the packet with a new motion.

Right, slightly different wording.

But we can do that after discussion.

We would first need to have a motion to substitute a different resolution.

Okay, I'm happy to do that.

All right.