Planning Commission Agendas & Minutes

AT A PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE HAMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2013 AT 3:30 P.M. ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gregory Williams called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ITEM II. ROLL CALL A call of the roll noted Commissioner Chris Snead was absent. ITEM III. MINUTES A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gaynette LaRue, seconded by Carlton Campbell, to approve the minutes of the December 6, 2012 work session and Planning Commission meeting. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Campbell, Young, McCloud, LaRue, Bunting, Williams NAYS: None ABST: None ABSENT: Snead ITEM IV. STAFF REPORTS A. Youth Planner Report Senior Youth Planner James Payne stated the Youth Planners and the Youth Commission have remained focused on their work throughout the holidays. They have been moving smoothly through finishing gathering information during their input phase. They have worked on refreshing the four steps of their process; a check-point meeting will be held on February 25, 2013 to make certain their goals are still good for today. The website is up and the survey can be checked out by going to www.hampton.gov/planning and then click on “Hampton Youth Commission.” The survey will also help in gathering information. The Youth Planners will begin working more closely with City Planners within the Community Development Department in the next couple of months. In working with the Hampton Youth Commission and participating in work that deals directly with the bettering of the city of Hampton, the Youth Planners will be prepared for future opportunities that involve improving their city. Commissioner Campbell stated for the Commissioners who may not have had the opportunity to attend some of the Youth meetings, it might benefit the 1 Planning Commission to meet some of the other youth involved in the Youth Commission at a future Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question by Commissioner Campbell regarding Youth Commission meeting dates, City Planner Rashida Costley-Clark stated the first Monday meeting of each month is a public meeting; the other meetings are work sessions. The meeting date and time will be listed on the website and the dates and times of the Youth Commission’s schedule will be sent to the Planning Commissioners. In response to Commissioner Young’s question as to how information is obtained for the survey, James stated information is spread by word of mouth through the schools, on their Facebook page, and there are plans to send out flyers. They want the Youth Commissioners involved and have the Youth Commissioners pass the information on to their friends. James stated they plan to use the school’s announcement system as well. In response to Commissioner Young’s question as to the level of success of the survey, James stated they are looking for quality over quantity. Terry O’Neill, Director of the Community Development Department and Secretary to the Commission, stated when these types of surveys have been done in the past the target goal for a valid sample was a minimum of 300 to 400 surveys. They would like to get double the minimum sample size if the demographic breakdown is correct. In response to Commissioner LaRue and to becoming a friend of the Youth Commission Facebook page, James explained one can “like” the page but could not be added as a “friend” to it. James stated he could contact Commissioner LaRue about upcoming events and meetings. This is something on which the Publicity Committee is working. ITEM V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS There were no public hearing items. ITEM VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT A. FY14 CIP Update Budget Director Gloria Washington presented a brief summary of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process, focusing on FY14. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five-year expenditure plan to finance acquisition of property and equipment and fund new construction and other major improvements to existing public facilities. Each locality establishes its own criteria for capital projects. The City of Hampton’s criterion for a capital project is that it must 2 have a cost in excess of $50,000 and a life expectancy of at least five years. The plan’s priorities and projects are revisited every year. Key objectives  Balance City’s need for new and/or enhanced economic development with existing development and capital renewal needs  Execute projects that support the Community Plan, including Master Plan initiatives  Maintain and protect the City’s current bond rating  Prepare the Capital Budget component of Manager’s Recommended Budget to Council The formal budget is presented to Council on April 15, 2013, but the Planning Commission and initial Council presentations are done during March. Challenges  Fund viable projects with limited amount of resources  Future funding requirements given the projections for economic recovery  Maintaining existing development and implementing planned projects A declining assessment base over the past three years has put a limitation on funding sources. There are maintenance type projects - critical for the city’s future economic development - that do not solely rely on the real estate tax base, that need to be looked at. Commissioner Bunting stated an additional challenge heavily reflected in the CIP are several Federal and State mandates as they relate to environmental issues to which the City has to respond. An example is the entire Hampton Roads region is under a consent order decree from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to do major upgrades to sanitary sewer systems. That is why a large amount of money in the CIP goes to that type of work; it is infrastructure critical to the public health and safety and of which a portion would probably be done anyway, but these mandates demand a certain level of investment and take away the discretion the local government or Planning Commission would otherwise have. Ms. Washington continued: Guiding Principles  Use caution and insight  Focus on core responsibilities  Consider financial impact of delaying projects  Prioritize projects, prepare and seek other funding sources Grants would be a funding source to look at that could take some of the burden off the operating budget and taxpaying citizens. 3  Funding Sources:  General Obligation Bonds – Revenue from municipal loans issued  General Fund – City’s major fund  Dedicated Sources – Revenue from certain taxes/fees  State & Federal – One-time for specific projects An example of a one-time specific project would be street project resurfacing. Commissioner Bunting, for clarification to the general public, explained G.O. Bonds – General Obligation Bonds. They are called G.O. Bonds by the municipal financial market and are similar to a home mortgage where the product is paid for over a period of time. This is done for a long lasting capital investment, whether it is a road or building that will be used for a time period of over 50 plus years, but is paid for over a 20 year period. This is compared to a good debt. When speaking of financial parameters, conservative parameters are used to maintain the strong AA or AA plus bond rating to keep the City from going over its head. The policy is that no more than ten percent of the budget will be spent on debt payments which uses the debt mechanism is a responsible way. Ms. Washington stated Project Expenditure is the next item and has about 10 categories from Education to Streets and Infrastructure and is tied back to the various Master Plans and funding sources. A graph was shown which aligns Council approved CIPs from “FY08-12 to FY13-17”. The trend shows a decline over the years. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue about the possible stabilizing of the recession, Ms. Washington stated, as seen in the Kiplinger Forecast Letter, the national forecast is that we are at the bottom of the recession but it will be another year or two before we climb out of the recession. Commissioner Bunting stated real estate values drive local funding. If assessed values go down, funding will be cut back. The housing market lags behind the market in recovery during a recession. The Real Estate Assessor had stated a 5 to 6% decline in housing values could be expected in the next budget year and this may change. The Federal budget conversation will also determine budget impacts. The city will remain cautious. In response to a question by Chairman Williams on whether there are any other funding sources that can be tapped along with State and Federal funds received and, if so, were they earmarked for specific projects, Ms. Washington stated they are specifically earmarked. Commissioner Bunting stated the other funds referred to by Ms. Washington are user fees to fund particular projects, i.e., wastewater enhancements that need to be made are largely funded out of increases to the Wastewater User Fee so that the users of the system pay for the system. There are several stormwater quality 4 projects that are EPA mandated and those deal with stormwater runoff. Currently there is a Stormwater User Fee that assigns cost based upon impervious area. As Hampton is a sea level community it tries to tie quality improvement into quantity improvement management because of flooding issues. The General Assembly restricts the City’s ability to raise funds. The main thing that can be raised is the real estate tax rate. There is some latitude with personal property and meal taxes, as sales taxes are regulated in Richmond. In response to a question from Commissioner Young as to constraints against public/private initiatives, Commissioner Bunting stated the State has a procedure that the locality has adopted that outlines how a public/private partnership is done regarding a building, such as a school or other public facilities. This would involve private sector borrowing which is more expensive than public sector borrowing. Other potential public/private partnerships might be economic development projects that are not as regulated as how to compete those opportunities. A Council process would be involved for receiving unsolicited proposals. Ms. Washington stated the next steps in the process are the 10 planned “Road Shows” beginning with the Planning Commission. Following is the CIP Committee recommendation with consideration given to feedback/input received from the community; public hearings in March; and the first year of the FY14-18 CIP incorporated in the Manager’s recommended budget which may be modified by Council prior to adoption. Commissioner Bunting stated the City tries to get input from the community prior to the CIP public hearings in March, unlike how it was done in the past. Commissioner Campbell stated a question had been brought up regarding a list of contingent projects that have not yet been funded and can be found on the website under the Budget Tab. In response to Commissioner Campbell regarding the difference in the amount of funding for the General Fund Balance Transfer (pg. 4 in the CIP documents for FY-14), Commissioner Bunting explained that the General Fund Balance Transfer means there is money in the City’s saving account. It is one-time money and the financial policy is that the City should have at least 10% in reserve at all times for City and Schools which will provide cash flow for the city since most revenue are received in a delayed fashion. This also provides funds in case of an emergency (i.e., hurricane). Any funding above the 10% in fund balance is available for use; Council’s policy is to use that funding only on one-time capital investments. That amount can usually be bumped up slightly in the first year of a CIP. It is not known how much can be added in any given year. In response to Commissioner Campbell’s question as to why the Economic Development Fund is $250,000 for this year and then nothing for the next 4 years, Commissioner Bunting stated the Economic Development Fund is funded out of land sales and leases the city has which are one-time revenue sources. Once a piece of land is sold it is not available for sale again. In the 1980’s, Council created 5 the Economic Development Fund that said any land sales or leases would go in that fund and could be used for Economic Development Fund investments. In response to Commissioner Campbell’s question on item #6 of Project Expenditures of $3M for an animal shelter when there is the Peninsula SPCA and another animal shelter in Hampton, Commissioner Bunting stated the City will not have to borrow the $3M as thought when the budget and CIP were developed last year. The Peninsula SPCA has historically taken Hampton, Newport News, Poquoson, and York County’s animals, but decided a year ago they did not want to take a region’s animals in that cooperative venture as they want to be a no-kill shelter and will not put animals down. Since there are animals that have to be put down (sick, vicious, feral, disruptive, or pose potential harm to property) they could not be made to take those animals. Enough notice was given by the SPCA so the four localities could do a new shelter which will be in a regional fashion. When the CIP was done last year the City’s contribution was to have been $3M to be paid up front. It turned out Newport News went to the bond market before the other localities and they will fund the shelter. Payment will be made annually toward that debt for the city’s loan. The City is legally required to have an animal shelter. In response to Commissioner Campbell’s question regarding the Motorola lease payment, Commissioner Bunting stated that still has to be paid for several years, but the plan is to phase it out of the CIP and put it in the debt service category. It is a recurring payment and not a one-time payment. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Bunting stated the City will no longer use the SPCA but will continue to accept the same types of animals as were accepted in the past. Feral animals (such as feral cats) are taken now, but wild turkeys or raccoons are not taken because they are regulated by State Wildlife regulations. She stated she would check into this question further. In response to Chairman Williams’ question regarding projects that have not been funded over the years, Commissioner Bunting stated the contingency list is a list of projects that the community feels are worthy but there is inadequate funding for them. There were questions about the length of time a project is on the list and about ensuring there is communication back to the groups that have submitted projects so the status of these projects are known. Some projects, such as road resurfacing or drainage issues, can possibly be combined with other projects and may not be seen as a separate project at that point. If there comes a point where a project needs to be revisited, or is no longer feasible and needs to be removed from the list, then that communication is also made. Director O’Neill announced there will be a special meeting of the Commission on January 17, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. in the Community Development conference room on the 5th floor of City Hall regarding a worksession on the Phoebus Master Plan. The meeting will be a worksession only with no public hearing or action items. The meeting will be a walk-through of the draft of the Phoebus Master Plan update. The anticipated schedule is to hold a formal public hearing to consider the update of the Phoebus Master Plan with action to be taken at the 6 February 7, 2013 meeting; it should go to Council for their March 13, 2013 meeting. The Commission will get the final working draft delivered at the end of this week. In response to a question by Commissioner LaRue, Mr. O’Neill stated the copy of the document will be the plan adopted by Council in 2007; it will be a marked up copy that will show any changes that may have been made. ITEM VII. ITEMS BY THE PUBLIC There were no items by the public. ITEM VIII. MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION There were no matters by the Commission. ITEM IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Terry P. O’Neill Secretary to the Commission APPROVED BY: ___________________________________ Gregory Williams Chairman 7