Board of Town Commissioners

MINUTES BOARD OF TOWN COMMISSIONERS Work Session March 3, 2018 Bel Air Armory PRESENT: Commissioner Susan U. Burdette, Chair Commissioner Philip L. Einhorn Commissioner Brendan Hopkins Commissioner Amy Chmielewski Commissioner Patrick T. Richards L. Jesse Bane, Town Administrator Rachel Deaner, Deputy Director, Department of Finance Trish Heidenreich, Director of Economic Development Steve Kline, Director of Public Works Michael Krantz, Director of Human Resources and Administration Charles Moore, Chief of Police Richard J. Peschek, Deputy Chief of Police Angela Robertson, Grants/Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Small, Director of Planning Patti Sterling, Grants Coordinator, Department of Economic Development OTHERS: Chandra Krantz, Town Resident Kathi Santora, Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER Jesse Bane called the work session to order at 8:30 a.m. and opened the meeting with a team building exercise. 2. BEL AIR ARMORY Mr. Bane continued the meeting with the first agenda item, which was a discussion about the Bel Air Armory and its utilization, revenue, short and long-term costs and management. Mr. Bane used four flipcharts to list four different options that the town could take to plan for the Armory’s future. They are: 1) Sell the Armory; 2) Lease the Armory; 3) Hire an Armory manager and 4) Keep the status quo. He requested that participants split into four teams and appoint a moderator. After a short discussion, meeting attendees decided to form the teams with a “count off”. He requested teams list both pros and cons and moderators be prepared to lead discussion. He plans to use the results to aid in his analysis and recommendations to the Commissioners. He gave each participant a sticker to be used for an informal “vote” on 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 1 of 11 his/her preferred option at the end of the discussion. He asked that the teams reassemble in 30 minutes. Mr. Bane resumed the discussion after the teams completed the assignment. He reminded the group that the purpose of this exercise is not to make a decision today, but rather to lay out all of the pertinent issues. He hopes to make a final recommendation before summer. He expects that there will be much work associated with any option. The final decision rests with the Commissioners. Group #1 led a discussion about “Keeping the Armory”. Mr. Einhorn was the moderator. He stated that he would focus discussion only on keeping the Armory, since the team offered no reasons in favor of selling the facility. The group offered these points:  The Armory serves as a community center.  Keeping the Armory preserves future options.  Owning the Armory supports the Town in applications for grants and community funding.  The facility serves as an emergency center.  The facility is a source of income.  The facility supports community partnerships with churches, nonprofits and recreation groups.  The Armory is a historical asset as well as a symbol of Bel Air.  It is a training and gathering center for Town staff.  It is currently used as office space for the Department of Economic Development and the Bel Air Downtown Alliance.  It is an event space and focal point for the Arts & Entertainment District.  Armory Marketplace supports incubator businesses.  The Armory provides Town presence on Main Street.  Armory Park provides open space for residents, workers and visitors. Mr. Bane asked for any additional discussion. Ms. Sterling stated that there has been considerable financial and personnel investment to bring the Armory to its current function. Deputy Chief Peschek added that the police department currently uses Armory space for both training and secure storage. Similar storage facilities would cost money. There is also a secure fax machine in this space. Chief Moore added that the Town would lose control over many aspects of the facility with a lease to another organization. Mr. Bane stated that, as a facilitator, he prefers to remain out of the discussion, but did want to point out that the Armory is a back-up meeting place in the event of a major disaster. There would be a large expense to replicate the needed technology elsewhere. 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 2 of 11 Group #2 led a discussion about “Selling the Armory”. Mr. Richards was the moderator. Mr. Richards stated that the group was not in support of selling but did want to be thoughtful about the option. The group offered these points:  Selling would generate income, though the costs, both financial and otherwise, are not known.  A sale would likely generate tax revenue.  There is the possibility of a creative, adaptive or residential reuse that would fill a town need and be consistent with the Master Plan.  A sale would mitigate a certain amount of risk, in terms of staff time and liability, Mr. Richards invited further discussion. Ms. Heidenreich stated that there was no sense of overwhelming support for selling the Armory, but that there are a few potential benefits. As for the “cons” Mr. Richards stated that there are several losses if the Armory were sold. They include:  The loss of any future use of the facility and the related potential.  Loss of control in maintenance and purpose, although the Town could look at the potential buyers’ plans for the facility.  Loss of community use and emergency center.  Sale of the Armory may be counter to the vision of the Comprehensive Plan.  There are legal complexities in reference to Maryland Historic Trust and similar considerations.  This sale could impact economic revitalization. For example, there was a concert the previous evening that was well-attended. He noted that many were people from outside the Bel Air area. Ms. Heidenreich asked to expand on the economic development issue. She points out that economic development costs money but is beneficial to residents in the long run, not just to the Town itself. The Armory gives the Town a setting to create future economic development. Mr. Richards agreed and pointed out that there is an excitement surrounding the potential, but future plans must avoid driving the Armory to become a liability. Mr. Bane stated that the event on the previous night was successful in part due to the efforts of Mr. Krantz, Mr. Kline and the DPW staff. They set up generators due to the widespread power outage caused by an historic wind storm. He led a round of applause. He also requested a round of applause for the Bel Air Police Department and the Department of Public Works for their response to this significant weather event. 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 3 of 11 Ms. Burdette stated that Mr. Krantz also put in a full day on Friday getting ready for today’s meeting and staying late for last night’s event to be sure all went smoothly. Group #3 led a discussion about “Leasing the Armory”. Ms. Santora was the moderator. She stated that the leasing option appears to be a combination of the first two options discussed. The “pros” include:  Operational expenses are covered.  The freeing of Town personnel who currently work on Armory issues to devote to other priorities.  Liability would be passed to the lessee.  Though this would need to be quantified, it might be possible to make a profit by leasing the Armory and applying proceeds to improvements or other projects.  Leasing would generate a guaranteed and predictable income. The “cons” include:  Town information technology and economic development departments may need relocation.  Town would lose control over the use or types of activities that may take place there, though the lease agreement could direct some of this issue.  Parking could interfere with parking for Marketplace business.  A lease could impact use of Armory Park’s public space.  A possible public relations issue with confusion by residents and visitors over who operates the Armory, a traditional town landmark.  There are regular users, Zumba and a church, who may need to relocate.  Improvements would still be the Town’s responsibility.  A lease may limit ability to apply for grant funding.  There may be a limited pool of lessees. Some may want to make alterations, which may not be allowed due to historic preservation restrictions.  Long-term impact of wear and tear. Deputy Peschek asked if it is possible to lease just a portion of the building. Ms. Sterling also inquired about the possibility that the Town would be required to pay back previous grants that were used to develop the current building. Group #4 led a discussion about “Hiring a Manager”. Mr. Krantz was the moderator. Mr. Krantz stated the concept of hiring a manager could take several formats. Such a scenario may or may not be similar to the current Rockfield Manor model. It could be a nonprofit relationship or an external contractor. It could also mean hiring a person with a salary plus commission. There could be several options or a hybrid. 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 4 of 11 The “cons” were:  Loss of control of the facility and events.  Loss of control over the already-identified vision and mission of the facility.  Responsibility for security of the building would need to be addressed.  Accountability and need for decisions about who is in charge of goals and processes.  Potential loss of current tenants and departments using the building.  Loss of the currently successful and known events that take place in the Armory, though they pay lower than market rate for the space. A manager earning commission would seek market rate users.  How to share/pay operating expenses.  There may be potential scheduling conflicts between Town and ongoing profitable events. The “pros” were:  There would be an expert totally in charge of sales, facilities management and event functions, driving the Armory to another level.  There would be possibly increased revenue.  It would relieve some town personnel of the extra responsibilities of managing the Armory and events.  Town maintains Armory ownership.  This model allows some negotiation to allow both sides to benefit from the Armory’s potential. For example, the Town currently does not collect money from ticket sales or other ways to share revenue from events and/or food sold. Mr. Einhorn asked if it were possible for Rockfield Manor and the Armory to be managed together. Mr. Krantz said that is a possibility. Presently, the Rockfield manager is an employee of a foundation. It could be a hybrid model, as previously discussed. Ms. Sterling observed that there is a lot of cross-over between all of the options. After listing all of the scenarios, it still also might be worthwhile to look at other alternatives that incorporate a combination of factors from all of these models. There may not be just these four models. Mr. Bane observes that some models require the Town to give up all control. Others have varying degrees of this. He added that the Commissioners will be making the final recommendations. He agrees there is overlap. His responsibility is to come up with a proposal that pulls in all advantages as well as to recognize the limitations. The final goal is to make a decision about the Armory so that it is not having a negative impact on the budget and Town operations. 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 5 of 11 Mr. Small asked Mr. Krantz if Cheryl Coulter, the current Armory manager, is doing a better job than her predecessor. Mr. Krantz replied in the affirmative. The Armory is almost consistently booked now. Though there is potential for her to take the Armory to higher effectiveness, she does not have the time and resources to market the facility for weekday use. Ms. Coulter is handling all of the responsibilities as well as attending most events. An effective operation of the Armory will need additional resources and/or a different management model. One of the most important resources needed is from an individual who has extensive contacts in event planning and sales. Mr. Small asked if the Town is able to pay someone as a commissioned employee and Mr. Krantz replied that it is possible. Ms. Burdette stated that the Town must be mindful of exactly what the Town and its facilities and personnel can and cannot do in order to arrive at a decision. She also believes that a higher rental fee may be in order, based on the amounts of money that some events are bringing in compared to the charged fees. However, she remains concerned that an outside events person may try to develop the Armory past its capacity and original mission of also serving the community and staff. Ms. Robertson noted that Rockfield has different tiers of employees with responsibilities that match their expertise level. Mr. Bane stated that he wished to step outside of his facilitator’s role for a moment and add some considerations. He stated that he has often said there is not enough staff to perform all of the duties and roles that need to be filled in Bel Air town government. The same applies to the Armory operation. Ms. Coulter’s good performance demonstrates that there is more potential to be realized in the Armory. However, she cannot do this alone. He added that Ms. Coulter currently has the bulk of the responsibilities. However, this cannot be placed on one person. This has been additionally highlighted by her recent absence for medical reasons. He asked the staff to note that Cheryl has no formal training in event management but has shown a significant increase in usage and customer service. Mr. Krantz also described Ms. Coulter’s high sense of customer service and data management skills. Mr. Kline asked if the Town can make profits from alcohol sales. Ms. Sterling stated that a foundation model can collect proceeds from alcohol sales, similar to Rockfield Manor. It can also drive many other creative ways to generate income. 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 6 of 11  Mr. Bane asked for additional comments. He asked staff to place a “sticker” on his/her preferred model on the flipcharts, understanding that no decision is being made today. The “sticker” exercise is just to get a sense of the staff/commissioners’ viewpoints on the issue. Each model would need further development in the future. Each of the participants placed a sticker on the flip board that described his/her recommendation for further evaluation. All stickers were placed on “Keeping the Armory”. 3. MUNICIPAL OWNED PROPERTIES Mr. Bane reopened the second discussion session with a teambuilding exercise. Mr. Bane then began a discussion about municipally-owned properties and invited Mr. Small to lead the conversation and to present an analysis of properties owned by the Town of Bel Air. Mr. Small noted that the staff and Commissioners looked at many town-owned properties at last year’s retreat, including Town Hall, Hickory Avenue Parking Lot, the Downtown Parking Lot (next to Tower Restaurant), the “Blue House” and the “Yellow House” on Rockfield Manor. Several studies have been undertaken in the past but “shelved” for various reasons. A current study is in the works to look at space needs, construction issues and improvements to the Police Department. Hickory Avenue Parking Lot: There have also been studies in the past about the disposition of this property. The Town has the right of first refusal on an adjoining property on the corner of Courtland and Hickory. There are also plans to consult with a financial analysis firm to estimate potential for revenue from this property if it were sold. The Town will also contact the Harford County Public Library and the Harford County Board of Education who both use the lot. Downtown Parking Lot: There are plans to approach Harford County and inquire about the future of the Sheriff’s Department building. The “Blue House” has been demolished and a parking lot is in use there, probably temporarily pending a decision on what else can be done with the property. The “Yellow House” future has been under discussion. In summary, these are the properties that were discussed one year ago. Mr. Small referred the meeting participants to the maps that he distributed. He created 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 7 of 11 this map and placed these small properties into one of four categories: asset, nominal, operational and park. Assets are typically properties on which Town buildings sit. Several of the nominal properties are too small for use or impacted by environmental issues. He asked participants to look at the list and recommend any actions. Mr. Bane suggested that the discussion start with renovations to Town Hall and/or a separate new police facility. In terms of cost containment, some of these less useful properties can be sold or used as leverage for the Town Hall/Police project. There is no need to discuss the properties outlined in green since they are functional town properties. He believes that most of the properties identified as nominal are those that can be sold. They may not even generate a lot of money. They may, however, be more valuable to adjacent property owners. There are properties identified in the Market Study that may be of interest to developers. Thus, those properties may have more potential to generate income. He believes that park land is of critical concern to the town now and in the future. This may require other purchases at some time. Consideration should also be given to existing surplus properties for potential park use. Mr. Hopkins posed a question about a piece of land at Shamrock and Broadway. He asked if the frontage on Broadway is usable. Mr. Kline noted that a tree fell on that parcel in the recent wind storm. Mr. Small stated that this is Major’s Choice Park. The parcel on Broadway is usable. Mr. Hopkins asked if it could be sold as a lot for development. Mr. Small stated this could be investigated or it can be developed as a passive park. Mr. Bane called attention to the Market Study, which focused on several pieces of prime real estate owned by Harford County and the Town of Bel Air. One is the parking lot on the other side of the Library from Town Hall. In preliminary talks with the architects for Town Hall, there was an option to save money by attaching the Police Department to Town Hall. This option would increase the cost because all electrical, plumbing, fire protection and other systems would have to be brought up to code. The piece of property between Town Hall and Lee street that was previously discussed is not large enough to accommodate parking and traffic flow. The other drawback to this option is the presence of the War Memorial, which is considered sacred ground. The feasibility study will look at all of these factors. 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 8 of 11 The third option that they will examine is whether there is another piece of property in Town that would accommodate the new Police Department building. The feasibility study may show that the options are somewhat limited to build the type of facility that is needed. He asked that the group begin by identifying property that can be sold. He would like to discuss the options in a future work session. He believes that caution should be used since ground is a fixed asset. They may have a future use. Mr. Bane also added that the Town may own some pieces of property that were one- time alleyways. He recalled a piece of property on Baltimore Pike that was once a pumping station. The parcel was not in the records. There may be others that are not identified as Town properties. There will be research to look at this. Therefore, there may be additional parcels that will be up for discussion in the near future. Mr. Bane invited further discussion on these issues. Mr. Small asked that staff and commissioners look at properties to surplus as well as possible acquisitions. For example, the small parcels may become more valuable if the property next to them are purchased. Also, consider properties that can be purchased, developed and sold. Ms. Heidenriech inquired whether properties are free and clear of easements and other restrictions. Mr. Small said that this will be part of the research into the issue. Mr. Bane confirmed Mr. Richards’s observation that some of these items have been reviewed in the past. He added that the feasibility study changes the complexity of the review slightly. In addition, there may be other properties not shown. He also stated that research into the properties needs to be done for any future reviews. He wants a document of every single piece of town-owned property in order to consider all alternatives. He considers the yellow properties the “low hanging fruit” and these should be examined first. Mr. Richards suggested that, as the police station plans move forward, that the town should focus on particular properties that can be sold to offset costs of the new construction. He is able to recommend a real estate consulting firm that may assist in evaluating these properties for present and future value. They would do this without charge, with the hope that they would be considered for future town transactions. Mr. Richards added that he would recuse himself from voting and discussion if the company is involved. He believes that this type of consultation would help maximize future profits. 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 9 of 11 In summary, Mr. Richards believes that some of these actions need to take place simultaneously so as not to lose time. Ms. Heidenreich addressed some properties currently for sale in the vicinity of Town Hall and whether they should be considered in the mix of buying/selling property in order to find the best location for the new Police Department. Mr. Small believes that properties should be acquired with a clear idea of its use. This creates a comfort level with the taxpayers. Mr. Hopkins asked about properties on the north side of town that could be developed into recreational areas. Is there property in the vicinity of Corbin Fuel? Mr. Small said that these properties can be examined for this potential. However, that particular area may be environmentally compromised due to the nature of the businesses that have been located there. Mr. Bane remarked about the complexity of these issues. He added that Mr. Small will take about 10 minutes to review the upcoming feasibility study. Mr. Small distributed the scope of work for the consultants who will review the town hall and police department projects and make recommendations. He noted that the idea of renovating the police station and town hall has been discussed in depth in previous years. Several studies have been shelved for various reasons. Currently, action is needed now. The first step is to identify a location for the police department. Research will include interviews with police staff. The scope of work identifies three options: 1) improve existing space 2) improve and expand the existing space and 3) build in another location. A committee will review and decide on a recommendation. The consultant will then refine the proposal and create a cost estimate. Depending on the option selection, it may be necessary to conduct an environmental study of the current police space. The other needed item may be a topographic survey of all potential sites. Once these are done, the Town has the option to use the same group to create a refined construction drawing and send it to bid. Mr. Small noted that he wants the consultant to provide dates and timelines and then adhere to them. He prefers this approach to giving them a date. He expects that this will take 4 – 5 months. Final version could be in July and referred to the Town Commissioners. Project completion could be expected in FY 2020. The committee looked at seven Requests for Qualifications. They selected two to interview and did so in January. They also selected a cost proposal. This will be presented to the commissioners at a future session. Mr. Small is trying to balance the 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 10 of 11  cost of these studies with minimizing any unknowns that may come up in the planning and construction process. For example, they decided not to include geotechnical boring. This is a calculated risk in order to save money. Mr. Bane stated that he is ready to move forward on this without delay. Additional funding will be explored from several sources. The Town cannot continue in the current mode, especially with regard to the Police Department. He would like to accomplish this without property tax increases. First designs can be modified to contain costs. There are other ways to contain costs. For example, a service club has contacted the town about potential projects. Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Richards addressed the urgency of this project and the need to move simultaneously to balance costs with selling town property assets. Mr. Bane adjourned the work session at 11:56 p.m. and thanked the participants for giving up a Saturday to do this work. ADJOURNMENT: With no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 11:56 p.m. Approved: April 2, 2018 Signature on File Susan U. Burdette, Chair Board of Town Commissioners Signature on File Michael L. Krantz, Town Clerk 2018.03.03.MIN.RetreatWorkSession Page 11 of 11