City Council Agendas & Minutes

City of Hampton, VA 22 Lincoln Street Meeting Minutes Hampton, VA 23669 www.hampton.gov City Council Randall A. Gilliland Joseph H. Spencer, II Ross A. Kearney, II George E. Wallace Angela Lee Leary Paige V. Washington, Jr. Molly Joseph Ward, Mayor Staff: Mary Bunting, City Manager Cynthia Hudson, City Attorney Katherine K. Glass, Clerk of Council Brenda J. Vaccarelli, Deputy Clerk Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:59 PM Council Chambers, 8th Floor, City Hall CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Molly Joseph Ward presided Present: Randall A. Gilliland, Ross A. Kearney, II, Angela Lee Leary, Joseph H. Spencer, II, George E. Wallace, Paige V. Washington, Jr. Agenda 1. 10-0011 Briefing on FY 2009 and 2010 Bond-Funded Capital Improvement Projects Ms. Mary Bunting, City Manager, made the following statement before Council. “As an introduction to this item, I would like to take a moment to set a context to the conversation we are about to have. Capital Projects planning is absolutely essential to any locality. All cities have assets that must be properly maintained, renovated and, at times, once their useful life has been exhausted, replaced. The investments that are made to accomplish these goals must be made but they are not necessarily required in any given year. It is very tempting to say we can postpone maintenance for a year to save money or delay a project until a better budget comes along. However, that is not always wise, for the delay in maintenance or replacement often brings with it a higher price tag. And, while we believe a better budget time will come along, the reality is that every budget is fiscally constrained with more needs/wants than available funds. So, capital projects planning is critical, it helps us to remember that we must maintain a steady investment in our assets and avoid the very real temptation to overly react to the “ups and downs” of the short-term economic environment. And yet, we do face unprecedented economic times. Our budget forecasts for the next several years suggest very austere times. So, we must balance this absolute responsibility to stay the course of our capital plan needs and simultaneously take the extra hard look to ensure that the investments we do make – and it would be a fiduciary responsibility or which have gone so far they could not be stopped without significant financial consequence. Back in October (2009), staff presented a presentation on our bond capacity and steps we would be taking to review all planned capital investments for the next several years. City of Hampton, VA Page 1 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes Since that time, staff has been using the criteria suggested at that October Council meeting to assess our projects. The review is being completed in two phases. The first is the subject of our presentation today. Last fall, we made the decision to delay the planned FY2009 bond issue to this fiscal year. Some of the projects that were intended to be funded with that issue needed to proceed and were advance funded with our fund balance and a resolution indicating our intention to repay fund balance was passed. We are now at the point in time when we must ready ourselves for the delayed bond issuance. We plan to be in the market in March (2010) and to execute that issue to both repay the projects already underway and to be ready for maintenance projects that must be done in the summer, we need to make final decisions about what we will do and what we will delay. Using the concepts I outlined just a moment ago, staff did not assume that we would proceed with the full $32 million of planned projects. Rather we objectively looked at the projects to determine whether they were core government responsibilities or whether some – as worthy as they are and as important as they could be to the community – could indeed be delayed. Ms. Lori Green-Braen is here to present the results of the staff work and our recommendation to you. I realize that our proposals for delay will disappoint many people. So let me emphasize that those projects which we are proposing for delay are not being denied or permanently discarded – we are merely trying to be fiscally responsible and only proceed with projects that are truly a core responsibility at this time or which have gone so far they could not be stopped without significant financial consequence. We plan and hope to bring the delayed projects back in a reworked five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which will represent the second phase of our work.” Ms. Green said the briefing she will present is an update of the work of staff to rebalance bond funded projects for FY2009 and FY2010 only. She noted the presentation and the work of staff is in response to the revised debt capacity model that was presented to Council by Mr. Karl Daughtrey, Director of Finance, at the October 14, 2009, Council meeting. Ms. Green said a resolution concerning the issuance of bonds to fund these projects will be forwarded to Council for action at the February 10, 2010, Council meeting, therefore staff wanted to allow Council some time to receive a briefing on the work that has been completed and to provide a response if Council chooses in between now and when the resolution comes to Council. Ms. Green asked Council to keep in mind that there is a public notice requirement for the impending Council action on February 10, 2010, concerning the bond issuance. She said the advertisement must be published on January 27, 2010, and February 3, 2010, and must also indicate the maximum amount of the proposed bond to be issued. Ms. Green stated the budget director presented to Council a few options for consideration in response to the new debt capacity model, to smooth out the borrowing plans by modifying the sequence of projects, revised the plans for projects with value engineering, or delay or decide not to go forward with the projects as planned. Ms. Green provided Council with an original schedule of bond funded projects totaling $31.9 million. She said along with the original schedule the original debt capacity was $81.8 million and debt service impact was $3.5 million. Ms. Green said although they were well within the original bond capacity for FY2010, the revised debt capacity model presented by Mr. Daughtrey affected the City’s capacity for future years. She noted that this, coupled with other fiscal changes as the City Manager indicated, were not exclusive to Hampton and is really the thrust behind staff’s efforts to recalibrate the bond funded projects, thus reducing the debt service for the City in the years going forward. City of Hampton, VA Page 2 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes Ms. Green said it is customary during the CIP process to hold a citizens’ educational forum and this was done on October 22, 2009. She stated that because staff wanted to receive input from the community, a segment of this forum was dedicated to discussing, or explaining to the public, the City’s debt capacity and the subsequent need to rebalance the bond funded projects. She said they are working with their colleagues in the Neighborhood Office to complete a report that will be submitted to Council. Ms. Green stated that following the community forum, the CIP committee had a discussion with the various project managers and a series of questions were put forward to them to determine what the implications and feasibility will be to make changes to the projects as they were scheduled. Ms. Green said some of the questions were if the project could be deferred and if so, until which fiscal year, if not why not, and is the project sequence dependent upon another project being completed. She said the CIP committee also utilized the criteria established at the October 14, 2009, Council meeting which was to break the projects up into two levels or two tiers, Tier 1 or Tier 2, depending on the necessity of the project completion. She said the focus should be to take care of existing infrastructure as opposed to starting something new and to complete projects in progress as opposed to starting a new project. Ms. Green said the CIP committee ranked each bond funded project into two tiers. She explained the first tier includes projects which received advanced funding and those which are the City’s core responsibility. She said Tier 2 represents a group of projects which the CIP committee felt could very well be programmed into future years depending upon the economic conditions. Ms. Green said Tier 1 is reflective of the projects that either were advanced funded and projects which represent the City’s core responsibility. She explained the Tier 1 projects totaled $26.7 million. Ms. Green said Tier 2 projects totaled $9.8 million and these are projects which are not necessarily denied, as the City Manager indicated, but staff felt they could be reprogrammed into future years to smooth out the City’s debt capacity and subsequent debt service requirements. She noted that there is one project, the Hampton River Project side channels, and the Public Works Department has completed the permitting process for both the main and side channels. She further noted that letters have gone out to the homeowners seeking an easement or a hold harmless agreement because some of the area to be worked on is on their property or it is close to their docks or bulkheads. Ms. Green said the preliminary work that staff has done addresses both the main channels and the side channels. She said that currently, funding in the CIP is only for the main channels and that was done in FY2008. Ms. Green said once they are ready to proceed with the side channels, there is no preliminary work that needs to be done because staff is currently completing that work. Councilwoman Leary said she knows the preliminary work has been done. She asked if the permitting has been done. She asked if the bid has been put out on any of the work. In response, Ms. Green said they are waiting for the notices to come back from the homeowners and that is due in mid-March 2010. Councilwoman Leary asked if they could possibly look at the fact when it is put out to bid that they have the bidders give them a price on doing those side channels and in some way try to figure out something with the homeowners so they could pay for the opportunity and they wouldn’t miss the opportunity but there would be some way that they could put up the money to have it dredged from their point of property. She said she would rather give an opportunity like that to the homeowners in that area than to just City of Hampton, VA Page 3 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes completely ignore it. She said if there is any way they can set up some type of special payment or special way of doing this since they have already come this far, and spent this much money, she would like to see if there is a way they can make this happen. She said she would be willing to do it on her property. She said she hopes that this will give the homeowners along that area a little window of hope or an opportunity to work with them. The City Manager said the City can certainly put the project out to bid in a variety of different fashions to look at what it might cost if homeowners were to participate financially in the cost now, as well as to establish if the City is incurring some significant additional expense down the road. She said it wasn’t her intent today to suggest that the City permanently withhold the project, but rather to put it forward into a future year when hopefully the economy has recovered. She said they could bid it in a variety of different fashions and then consult with those homeowners and decide which course to take both in terms of their input and Council input as well. Councilwoman Leary said she wasn’t suggesting moving it from Tier 2, she is just looking at another way. In response, the City Manager said she believes it is a good suggestion and they will certainly follow up on it. Mayor Ward said something they should consider discussing is whether or not there might be some cost sharing opportunity like in terms of a special assessment. She said maybe there is a neighborhood that would agree to participate in some of the costs and they could see if it could be worked out that way. Vice Mayor Spencer asked if the public hearing for the CIP in October 2009 was well attended. In response, the City Manager said she was not sure how many people attended. Ms. Green asked if Vice Mayor Spencer was referring to the forum. In response, Vice Mayor Spencer said the meeting was held on October 22, 2009, at the Hampton Roads Convention Center (HRCC). Ms. Green said there was an estimated 40 to 50 people in attendance and the Neighborhood Office has those numbers and it will be in the report to be submitted to Council in another week. Vice Mayor Spencer asked if this is what the City Manager referred to when she talked about the public support for some of the projects. In response, the City Manager said she made reference in her preliminary comments that some of the projects they are recommending for delay had public support, but they are, nonetheless, from a professional standpoint, not a core government responsibility. Vice Mayor Spencer said he understands that but there was a well represented group of citizens who were concerned about the side channels as well. In response, the City Manager said this was rated very highly by the public in attendance. Vice Mayor Spencer said it has obviously been, because initially the staff recommendation was to do the main river channel. He noted that in better times, with better funding, they were looking to help with the side channels and the homeowners would do their so-called driveways and they accepted that. Vice Mayor Spencer said the City of Hampton, VA Page 4 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes people who worked really hard over the last years, but in recent times, the last couple of years, worked diligently to get their neighbors to come forward with a hold harmless agreement. He said he understands a lot of this was held up because of the permitting process the City had to go through, through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). He said it probably would have just about been finished by now. Vice Mayor Spencer asked the City Manager if there was a shelf life on the permits and on the hold harmless agreements. In response, the City Manager said she believes that is more a question for Ms. Cynthia E. Hudson, City Attorney. The City Attorney said the City has imposed a time period in which the property owners have to get back the completed work on the easement and the hold harmless agreement. She said that obviously it is the easement work that takes the longer period of time and she believes that the time the City has imposed is by March 15, 2010. Ms. Green said she believes that is the correct date. Vice Mayor Spencer said if this stays in Tier 2 and in three years from now, they do the side channels, are the permits the USACE issues today, are they still viable and will they still be viable three years from now or do they have to go through another process. He said someone could have moved from their home and decided that they don’t want to participate in hold harmless. He said it is a lot more complex, in fairness to everybody, that it is going to be something that is going to be revisited and still be a viable alternative in the future. Vice Mayor Spencer noted that just like what has happened in the economy, things can also change in this environment with permitting and also the hold harmless process that the City has established. The City Attorney said there are a couple of different issues to be addressed. She said Mr. James A. “Pete” Peterson, Assistant City Manager, is prepared to address the life of the permits from the Virginia Marine Resource Commission (VMRC). However, with respect to the life and vitality of any easements that are granted, if they are granted now they would run with the land and the question would be whether or not in all fairness, the City should terminate the easement interest that someone has given the City where a prior property owner gave it and a current property owner doesn’t agree that it should have been given because the project was delayed. She said that injects a number of variables. Mr. Peterson stated in reference to the permit from VMRC, as long as the dredge project remains as designed the permit has a life of five years. Councilman Wallace said he was going to ask a question for clarification because they were talking about the side channels, then he received the clarification when Vice Mayor Spencer mentioned the driveways. He said he was under the impression that the side channels were going to be a City expense anyway and they talked about the possibility of the beneficiaries of the side channel dredging would in turn pay for that dredging themselves. He said he guesses that is the opportunity they are presenting to them that would not necessarily be their cost anyway. In response, the City Manager stated that where things have stood heretofore, as Vice Mayor Spencer described, that the City was looking to do the work at the City expense for the side channels and then the homeowner would be responsible for their driveways to connect to the side channels. She said they previously explored the idea of whether they should cost share or not and if so, whether at what proportional ratio. But because the City was in better fiscal times, City of Hampton, VA Page 5 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes the Council at the time had elected to proceed with the City doing 100% of the side channel work except the driveways. Councilman Wallace said they need to make it clear to the individuals, if they opt to pay for the side channels and then subsequently do the side channels at public expense for the other individuals, that they probably will not get reimbursed, they will do this at their own cost in perpetuity. The City Manager said she believes what is being suggested by Mayor Ward and Councilwoman Leary, as she heard it from a staff perspective, is to revisit with the homeowners their willingness to expedite it to participate financially in the process. She said that is information they would be bringing back to Council for consideration whether they want to revisit Council’s prior position about 100% funding of the side channels by the City or some pro-rational share or they may choose to say they may wait until the future and not pay anything now. The City Manager said they would have to make that perfectly clear in the conversations. Councilman Kearney said he agreed with everything his fellow Council members have said at this time, but he said there is no item on either Tier 1 or Tier 2 that has been discussed or been in more public meetings than this issue and it has gone on for over 27 years, from the first meeting they had on the Hampton River. He said more recently, the last 18 years, they were meeting at the library in Willows Oaks to talk about these issues and it took a long time to get it to this point. Councilman Kearney said he would have a hard time casting the side channels out of this project because the side channels, for many, if you are in Willow Oaks and you are going from the Willow Oaks Shopping Center and crossing over to Elizabeth Lakes and you look to your right, at the mud pit which used to be six and one-half feet deep, that is a side channel by the definition that was put together by the engineers. Councilman Kearney further explained that it is not, but that is the way it was set up. He said a lot of hours and work went into the City and citizens in getting everybody on board. He said it is not Hampton’s fault, it is the economy and he believes they need to look at this issue carefully. He said he believes the City Manager is doing the job she is expected to do in looking at how to do the cost savings. He said there is no item that has been discussed more openly and in such great depth than this particular issue of the dredging and the side channels. Councilman Kearney said Hampton is the only community that he knows of in the Hampton Roads region that is actually looking at this and taking on the responsibility. He said it covers everything, environmental and people disagree, but he believes a lot of the flooding has to do with what has happened with the mud flats that have built up that used to flow the water out so easily. Councilman Kearney said he is going to have a hard time withdrawing the side channels from this particular item in order to meet the budget, and he doesn’t have an answer as to what to do to replace it. He said it is going to be a tough budget but he believes the side channels need to be included. Councilman Washington said he concurred with everything that has gone on, but stipulates that if they are going to put the proposal out as Councilwoman Leary indicated to incorporate within the specifications, those terms if they are going to subjugate the costs back to the individuals involved. He said it is going to be a tricky situation to say the least to try to get all of the approvals needed and then not have the capacity to dredge the side channels as well. He said he believes there has to be a cost sharing factor built into this process and the City would initially assume those costs, but at some City of Hampton, VA Page 6 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes point they would have to be returned back to the City. He said that is something he would agree to do at this point. Vice Mayor Spencer said as far as the main channel is concerned, there is no question about that, but if the City doesn’t do the side channels is there a propensity to fill in more rapidly. He asked if there had been any cost estimates. He asked if they are pulling something out of the process that potentially the main channels, along with the side channels would last ten or fifteen years without the side channels last seven years. He said he believes they need to look at the whole body of it if at possible. He said engineers can do remarkable things but that might be an answer everyone could use to validate the opportunity or non-opportunity. In response, the City Manager said she will make sure the engineering answer to Vice Mayor Spencer’s question. Councilman Gilliland said he hears from everyone on Council, and he agrees, that this is an issue that has been debated for a long time. He said Councilman Kearney is correct to mention that it has probably been as long a public participation process as any subject that he can recall in the City because it has been going on literally, twenty plus years and he believes the City needs to do whatever possible in light of the current economic environment to keep this thing moving forward. He said the navigable waterways in Hampton are one of the City’s most valuable assets. He said he believes the City has an obligation and responsibility, and it is in the City’s best interest, to see that asset is up to par and the expectations of the citizens and what navigable waterways ought to be. Councilwoman Leary said she has a couple of questions regarding Tier 1. She requested a schedule on the city-wide street resurfacing. She said regarding the maintenance of schools, $10,575,000, she realizes the City has 32 schools but it seems like more and more money is going into maintenance of buildings and it is logical. They are older and they need more maintenance and that type of thing. She said she has been here five years and she would like to see something that provides her with a general idea of how much is going to these schools on an annual basis. She said a roof at Tyler Elementary can be fixed one year and the next thing she is seeing it a year or two later when there should be some type of warranty or something else involved that would cover those things. Councilwoman Leary said she believes that the School Board needs to step up to the plate a little bit and provide Council with a broader picture of three to five years of what schools have received what monies out of these bond issues. Councilwoman Leary asked if the $300,000 was part of the $1 million for the New American Theatre that the City has already given to them. In response, the City Manager said that money was advance funded. She said this is just the repayment of the piece that they advance funded. The City Manager noted that it was not in addition to what the City gave or already committed, it is the fulfillment of that. Councilwoman Leary said that is what she needed to know. Councilwoman Leary asked what the pre-wiring of critical facilities on Tier 2 meant. In response, Ms. Green said it means that in preparation for different events, natural disasters, like hurricanes and things of that nature, certain public facilities would be wired for generator service so that in case it had to be opened up as a shelter, then it would provide the electricity and things like that for medical supplies, equipment and the safe preparation for food and sanitation. She said this would provide the wiring to accommodate the equipment which would then be acquired through a contingency. City of Hampton, VA Page 7 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes The City Manager said to more fully address Ms. Green’s answer, she explained the reason it was in Tier 2 is not because it isn’t a core government responsibility, it is because the City has monies on hand that they are doing some of that with and they also believe it is more appropriately a General Fund expense rather than a bond expense. She said perhaps the labeling was not the best, but they are suggesting that they not borrow for that but rather take care of it within the City’s existing General Fund contributions to the Capital Projects Fund. She said they will be continuing their effort to pre-wiring all of the City’s critical facilities. She further stated that Council previously put some funds in place that have not yet been fully exhausted because to do each of those facilities, engineering work is needed that precedes it and the City is going through that process. Councilwoman Leary said that is what she needed to hear and that was the explanation that was missing for her because she knew about the other. Councilwoman Leary said under Funds Available for Reallocation, she saw that there was $84,000 on Pictometry software. She asked for more information regarding this because Pictometry software helps all of the City’s departments and she doesn’t know if this is for the update. In response, Mr. John Eagle, Assistant City Manager, said the City is not doing away with it, it is residual funds and that is now being taken care of because they have moved GIS into Information Technology (IT) and it is part of Public Works and Engineering. And it is being funded through other means through the IT budget, the technology fund and actually the State has taken a leadership role in providing those photographs. Councilwoman Leary said this is like a savings for the City. The City Manager said she would ask the School Board to provide the full schedule for Councilwoman Leary, but she wants it to be clear that the $10.575 million represents a two year commitment. She explained that half of it was advance funded for 2009 and the other piece is not yet funded, it is their 2010 allocation. She further explained that because they do the bulk of those projects in the summer, the City had to advance fund this past summer’s amount. She said they came up with a funding formula for capital projects, much as they have for the operating budget based upon a $50 million plus Rancor and Wildman study that had assessed each of their buildings and their needs. She said not all of that was due at one time, it was a twenty year look at their facilities, but to manage everything that was projected to be done over twenty years, they came to the agreement that roughly $5.25 million was going to be required each year between taking care of those needs identified by Rancor and Wildman as well as some of the sprucing up of facilities they want to do to enhance the curb appeal of some of the City’s schools. She said that Councilwoman Leary is right to want to see a detailed schedule. Councilwoman Leary thanked the City Manager. She said they have had quite a volunteer effort through the Clean City Commission to help with curb appeal at the schools and they have done a lot with great success. Councilwoman Leary asked about a maintenance fund for the City’s largest asset, which is the Hampton Roads Convention Center (HRCC). She said she knows it is in the works somewhere but she is not sure where. She said she believes there is something that needs to be done with that because the City doesn’t need to be hit with a $100,000 City of Hampton, VA Page 8 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes piece of equipment replacement while John Q. Hammons is only responsible for $5,000 maximum. She said she would like to see the maintenance schedule, particular on that one facility. She said if possible, she would like to meet with Mr. Peterson, between Council meetings to go over some other things that are on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Green continued with her presentation by stating that Tier 1 is staff’s recommendation for funding and even though staff went through the exercise of ranking the projects in two tiers, staff went further in their work and that was to revisit bond funded projects that were already on the books to see if there were perhaps some funds that could be reallocated. Ms. Green provided Council with a list of projects where the funds were reallocated either because there was a delay or because there was a residual balance and this totals $7.3 million. Ms. Green said staff applied the $7.3 million that was allocated to Tier 1 so the amount then is reduced to $19.4 million which is the amount that would need to be funded with a bond issuance. Ms. Green said staff recommends proceeding with Tier 1 at a cost of $26.7 million and this amount has been reduced by reallocated funds of $7.3 million and the amount which now needs to be borrowed is $19.4 million. She said the Tier 1 recommendation is scaled back from the original bond issue of $32 million and the original debt service for the recommendation is now $2.1 million and they have realized a savings of $1.3 million provided that Council proceeds with Tier 1. Ms. Green said staff also recommends that the projects in Tier 2 be reprogrammed into future CIP years based on the economic conditions. Councilwoman Leary asked Ms. Green to explain the costs for the $7 million in Tier 1 for the Circuit Court building. In response, Ms. Green said there is $5 million included in there and originally it was $2 million. She said $1 million goes for the design costs and they had to do a design cost not only of the building but of the parking garage structure and then there were right-of-way permits that had to be acquired. She explained the way the project is scheduled, they were informed by Public Works that they needed to go ahead and acquire that $5 million so they could proceed with the project scheduling as opposed to waiting and that would just delay the project. Ms. Green said the $5 million was always in the CIP but it was moved up a year in order to meet the project schedule. Mayor Ward asked the City Manager to explain. The City Manager stated Council advance funded $2 million to begin the design and construction document phase and some of the other issues like permitting and the like that Ms. Green noted. She said that piece was advance funded earlier this year so they could maintain the time table set forward. The City Manager said they promised to repay that because they took it out of fund balance and so the bond issuance would repay that $2 million and restore the City’s fund balance. She noted that the remaining $5 million that is associated with the garage piece of the construction, which is really the first phase of construction, is what would be required in addition to the $2 million the City already advance funded which brings us to a total of $7 million. She said that is the first phase of a total $30 million project. The actual construction of the court house itself City of Hampton, VA Page 9 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes is roughly $23 million and that would be borrowed in FY2011. She said they don’t need those funds on hand right now because of the sequence of the schedule and they generally do not borrow before they need the funds available. The City Manager said these are the first couple of phases of the project that would honor the schedule that Council committed to. Mayor Ward said the City has already borrowed $2 million from itself. Councilwoman Leary said that is what the public needs to know and that is why she asked the question. New Business Civic Engagement Meetings Councilwoman Leary said she is sure all the Council members have had meetings with the new City Manager, Ms. Bunting, and she explained to her something that she wanted to do, for a variety of different reasons. Councilwoman Leary said what she has done, and she just finished it before entering the afternoon session, and Ms. Katherine K. Glass, Clerk of Council, printed it out, she took the time yesterday (January 12, 2010) to sit down and arrange meetings throughout the City that we had talked about. She explained that she has prepared eight meetings and she has scheduled eight meetings for the different libraries. She said some of the meetings are in the daytime and some are in the evening and she is calling it “Citizen Engagement Schedule” so that she can get feedback from the community about some of the things the City is doing and what they feel are their critical needs. Councilwoman Leary said these are just the opportunity for citizens to have a Council member to speak to. She said she has set up for so far is a five minute limit on questions and statements and she is going to have a very short questionnaire with four questions that she will be handing out. Councilwoman Leary noted that the questionnaire is still in the planning stages but she does want comments on the up-coming budget and any stormwater or those type related questions. Councilwoman Leary said the meetings are open public meetings and anyone is welcome, including her peers because she will be in some of the areas and neighborhoods that they live in. She said she needs to give this a shot for herself so that she knows that she is hearing directly from the citizens and they don’t have time to do it in a regular meeting. Councilwoman Leary said she is willing to avail herself of these times. She welcomed City Manager participation or anyone else that she would like to invite. Councilwoman Leary said she was going to ask Mr. Brian Gordineer, City Assessor, to come to one of the meetings because they are going to be giving people an opportunity to ask about the use of assessment forms. The City Manager said in the Council’s work session on January 27, 2010, staff is going to propose a series of citizen engagement efforts as well from the staff perspective. She said she doesn’t want there to be any confusion because Councilwoman Leary is proposing to do these meetings for her own benefit and is offering for us to participate, which they will be glad to do, they will still have a Council and staff initiated public engagement process around the budget. She said she doesn’t want people to think or be confused about Councilwoman Leary’s efforts versus the effort staff normally does as a staff and Council collectively. City of Hampton, VA Page 10 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes Councilwoman Leary agreed with the City Manager and stated that her meetings were not in lieu of staff’s efforts. Vice Mayor Spencer asked if Councilwoman Leary coordinated her efforts with the City Manager. He asked if she had a discussion or conference before today (January 13, 2010). In response, Councilwoman Leary said not before today. Vice Mayor Spencer asked if Councilwoman Leary had talked to the City Manager about this at all. In response, Councilwoman Leary said she talked to the City Manager about it a couple of weeks ago when they met right after the New Year. However, she did not ask her to commit any staff to this. She said she explained to the City Manager that these were meetings that she wanted to hold on her own. Vice Mayor Spencer asked if Councilwoman Leary’s question today, in public, is to ask her for staff, but it was not asked in private. In response, Councilwoman Leary said if the City Manager wants staff to be included, that is fine and it will be the City Manager’s decision. She said she was not denying anybody to attend the meetings. Councilwoman Leary said what she wants to do is to make it part of the record that she is going to have these meetings and she intends to give this to the press in the hopes that they will advertise the meetings. Vice Mayor Spencer said that was fine and Councilwoman Leary can do all she wants to, but she is asking now, in public for staff, when during the private meeting she didn’t request staff. He asked Councilwoman Leary if that is what he heard. Councilwoman Leary asked Vice Mayor Spencer to repeat his statement. Vice Mayor Spencer said his question was if Councilwoman Leary coordinated these events with the City Manager in her discussions with the City Manager. In response, Councilwoman Leary said she told the City Manager that she would give her a schedule of the meetings. She said she believes, from what she remembers, that she would give the City Manager a schedule of the times that she would be having these meetings and if she wanted to send a staff member, or could send a staff member, that would be fine, if not, she doesn’t think she would need anybody and that would be up to her. Vice Mayor Spencer said he just heard Councilwoman Leary ask for a staff person just a minute ago. In response, Councilwoman Leary apologized, she didn’t mean to mislead anyone in any way, it wasn’t intentional. Vice Mayor Spencer asked if this was discussed with the Clerk of Council, because her name is listed. In response, Councilwoman Leary explained that the Clerk of Council’s name was listed because she was the contact person for her to use for Grundland Park. She further explained that contact information is simply for Council’s use and the City Manager’s use, not for publication. She referred to the contact information of different individuals that she spoke with and made the arrangements with. She said that information was strictly for Council’s use and record. Vice Mayor Spencer asked if the information she provided to Council was for public consumption. In response, Councilwoman Leary said the other part, with the times and location is for public consumption but that will be a different document. She said she can take Ms. Glass’s name off of it because that has been done. City of Hampton, VA Page 11 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes Vice Mayor Spencer said he is trying to think about it because most of the time what they like to do is clear it with the City Manager, the Mayor, and the Clerk of Council so things can be worked out so everybody has a heads up of what is going on. He said he is trying to find out if that was what was done in this case or not, that is all he is asking. In response, Councilwoman Leary said she didn’t see any sense in taking up everybody else’s time to see if their schedule could suit hers. Vice Mayor Spencer said that was not what he was saying. He said he is talking about being courteous enough to say he is going to present something in an open meeting that has your name on it as a point of contact and he would want to let you know what he is doing, that is all he is asking. He said that wasn’t done. In response, Councilwoman Leary said she thought she had done that earlier. Vice Mayor Spencer said it doesn’t appear that it was done that way. Circuit Courthouse Councilman Kearney said he would like to take a moment to discuss the Circuit Court House as they prepare for the budget. He said he was in full support of the Circuit Court House, a 100 year old building that has been added on to three or four times, he believes, during his lifetime. He said it is not safe. He said he was not talking about structurally falling down, although he is not an engineer, but it is not safe if you are a participant, either as a witness or as a victim with the hodgepodge of those involved in the court case sitting next to each other and it is not a safe situation. Councilman Kearney said he liked very much what came from staff with regards to its location where it is, and he believes it is a great idea. He said he is worried, in his discussion with people in the City of Hampton, about the parking garage and he believes there is a growing discontent that they are going to build a parking garage here. He said then what they do will tie in the court house with it and all of a sudden you have this opposition to the Court House. Councilman Kearney said he believes they need to separate that in some way and they do it by figures, information, etc. He said he would like them to look at it, if the City Manager and Council agree, as an idea of maybe somehow incorporating some of the parking into the design of the Court House, possibly with two-tiers of parking above, below, or what for Court personnel, judges, or whatever. He said to do that and take the parking garage issue and move it so the two are meshed at this time. He said he believes the Court House is too important to lose it in sight of the parking garage. The City Manager said she and Councilman Kearney had a conversation and she asked Mr. James A. “Pete” Peterson, Assistant City Manager, to explore some of the different garage configurations and whether there was some ability to put some of it underneath or on top of the building and in working with some of the security protocols that are necessary in court houses today. Councilman Kearney said if they could save two or three million dollars in that whole approach then they would have money that could go to things that there is a clear support for and they don’t jeopardize the actual court house. He said it has been put on hold for many years also. He said Councilman Gilliland talks about discussions of what City of Hampton, VA Page 12 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes needs to be done, Councilman Kearney said the court house may take the cake over the river project. Mayor Ward agreed with Councilman Kearney and stated that there should be no stone left unturned for a creative way to do this. She said she believes it is a great idea. Councilman Wallace said he believes they need to also emphasize that there are possibly some economic benefits from the proposed garage as they were proposing to put public space for businesses or other kinds of entities on the first floor of the garage that will be facing Eaton Street. He said there are potentially some public business benefits that would accrue from that, so when they are telling that story they need to tell that as part of it. Mayor Ward said Councilman Wallace made a good point. Councilman Kearney said he had cleared this through Mayor Ward and the City Manager and he spoke to Mr. John Eagle, Assistant City Manager, about this. He explained that under the Consent Agenda, Item #2, is a resolution to authorize the reallocation of $74,000,000 funds previously allocated to VTEC Grant now to go over to E-Commerce Grant. He said VTEC is somewhat dissolved and they are going through some situations on the board of the campus and he would like to know what this means. Mayor Ward apologized to Councilman Kearney because he told her that he wanted to bring this topic up for discussion. Mr. Eagle said in 2004, the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) partnered with VECTECH which is the Virginia Electronic Commerce Technology and Education Center that was affiliated with Christopher Newport University (CNU) to create a program where small businesses could apply for grants to share in the expense of creating a web presence for them. He said many small businesses today, if they don’t have a website, a lot of people will not do business with them for credibility reasons. Mr. Eagle said the program was fairly successful for some period of time, however as things evolved they were not getting as much business as they felt they could get if they opened it up because VECTECH was the only one doing the web development. He explained the IDA created another program which is this program, the Hampton E-Commerce Program where VECTECH is one of about a dozen companies that can bid on these projects that small businesses are interested in. Mr. Eagle further explained that originally what Council did, at the request of the IDA, was to take $30,000 from the VECTECH program that wasn’t being used to provide seed capital for this new E-Commerce program. He said it has been fairly successful and there are well over a dozen businesses that have gotten websites up as a result of that and there are another dozen companies that are doing the web development. He said things have changed out of VECTECH because they are no longer affiliated with CNU and they are undergoing a lot of changes including leadership. He said they are still on the list of vendors and they are still doing some work in this arena. Mr. Eagle said they are asking to take the money that is residual in the VECTECH program, which is the $73,000 and move it over to the new program, the Hampton E-Commerce program, and in effect doing away with the old program and closing it out and funding the new program. Mr. Eagle said they believe at that level, it will last at least a couple of years and it keeps the program going. City of Hampton, VA Page 13 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes Councilman Kearney asked if this was aid to small businesses that are start-ups in the community. In response, Mr. Eagle said that was correct. Councilman Kearney stated he asked the question for the record. Councilman Gilliland said VECTECH has moved under the banner of the Virginia Manufacturer’s Association. He said VECTECH was one of the leaders in getting in all of this, but he is glad that it has expanded to a number of other vendors who can work in the program. He said one flaw that he has heard though is to get the grant funds you have to go out and get at least two or three bids from those various companies which makes plenty of sense. However, he said he believes the emphasis is too heavily on which one of those happen to be the low bidder and that might not be the best fit for the company. He said the impression from the people who are doing it is that they can only hire the low bidder but it may not in fact be the best solution for them, from the company’s experience base related to their industry and that kind of thing. Mr. Dan Giourard, Asset Manager, said he assists with the implementation of the E- Commerce Grant program. He said the applicants are allowed to go ahead and get a bid from 18 certified providers and the list is constantly growing as more and more companies hear about it. He said they only ask that the applicant complete a one page form and attach two quotes from the list of certified providers and they can pick any vendor they want. He said it is not subject to the price. He said the only thing they review the applications for is whether or not they are legal and valid services. Councilman Gilliland said, for the public’s benefit, they may say if it involves taxpayer dollars they want the lowest price. He said the pricing doesn’t pay for all of it anyway, it only pays for a percentage of it. He said regardless of what the price is there is a cap on the maximum grant and it’s a percentage up to a maximum amount. Mr. Giourard agreed with Councilman Gilliland’s statement. Councilman Gilliland suggested that should be noted on the front end somewhere, because he has received that feedback from people thinking that they are not going to get the firm they want to hire that fits their needs the best. He said obviously lots of people can build websites but there are lots of different industry sectors that require lots of different skill sets. Mr. Eagle said they can certainly take that feedback to the IDA and look at the document. Closed Meeting 2. 10-0002 Closed session as provided in Virginia Code Section 22.1-3711A.1 and .7 APPROVED Motion made by: Councilmember Ross A. Kearney, II Seconded by: Councilmember Paige V. Washington, Jr. Ayes: 7 - Randall A. Gilliland, Ross A. Kearney, II, Angela Lee Leary, Joseph H. Spencer, II, George E. Wallace, Paige V. Washington, Jr., Molly Joseph Ward Nays: 0 City of Hampton, VA Page 14 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes . 10-0007 to consult with legal counsel employed or retained by the City regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. NO ACTION REQUIRED . 10-0021 to discuss a personnel matter regarding the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads and a matter concerning the Interim City Manager NO ACTION REQUIRED . 10-0004 to consider an appointment of a individual to serve on the Board of Advisors of the Hampton Roads Film Office, a project of the Hampton Roads Partnership. . 10-0005 to consider appointments to the Industrial Development Authority. . 10-0019 to consider an appointment to the H2O Community Development Authority. . 10-0020 to consider an appointment to the Building Code Board of Appeals . 10-0022 to consider an appointment to the Clean City Commission . 10-0023 to consider appointments to the Coliseum Advisory Committee . 10-0024 to consider appointments to the Hampton Federal Area Development Authority . 10-0025 to consider an appointment to the Purchasing and Procurement Oversight Committee . 10-0027 to consider an appointment to the Wetlands Board . 10-0028 to consider an appointment to the Hampton Senior Citizens Advisory Committee . 10-0029 to consider appointments to the Towing Advisory Board City of Hampton, VA Page 15 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010 City Council Meeting Minutes Certification 3. 10-0003 Resolution Certifying Closed Session WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hampton, Virginia, has convened a closed session on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote made in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712D of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the City Council of the City of Hampton, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hampton, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed session to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered by the city council of the city of Hampton, Virginia. ADOPTED Motion made by: Councilmember Joseph H. Spencer, II Seconded by: Councilmember Paige V. Washington, Jr. Ayes: 7 - Randall A. Gilliland, Ross A. Kearney, II, Angela Lee Leary, Joseph H. Spencer, II, George E. Wallace, Paige V. Washington, Jr., Molly Joseph Ward Nays: 0 _____________________ Molly Joseph Ward Mayor __________________________ Katherine K. Glass, CMC Clerk of Council Date approved by Council ________________ City of Hampton, VA Page 16 of 16 Printed on 2/17/2010