City Council Retreat

AGENDA City of Williamsburg City Council Retreat Tuesday, November 9, 2021 The City Council Retreat will be held Tuesday, November 9, 2021 in the Zable Stadium commencing at 12:00 PM. Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. WELCOME AND LUNCH 4. ARPA OVERVIEW A. 2-3 B. 4-9 5. THREE CATEGORIES OF PROJECTS A. Break the Box B. One Williamsburg/Strengthen Capacity C. CIP Accelerator 6. STEERING COMMITTEE A. 10 7. PUBLIC INPUT SURVEY A. 11 - 12 8. HOMEWORK A. 13 - 14 B. 15 9. ADJOURNMENT  CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS Eligible Uses Respond to the public health emergency or its Provide premium pay to eligible essential workers: negative impacts: - Healthcare, public health and safety, Public Health Response: Control spread, childcare, education, sanitation, enhancement of public health data systems, capital transportation, food production & services investments in public health facilities to meet - Restrictions on per hour rate, per worker pandemic operational needs, protective equipment, limit, and wage as a % of average annual behavioral healthcare (mental, substance abuse), wage payroll and covered benefits for public healthcare, human services, and public safety employees to the extent they work on the COVID-19 response Address Disparities in Public Health Outcomes: Provision of government services to the extent of facilitate access to resources that improve health the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 outcomes public emergency: Response to Negative Economic Impacts – must be - Formula based – for 2020 City of designed to address economic harm resulting from Williamsburg’s estimated to be $8.9M or exacerbated by the pandemic. - Provision of Government Services and pay-go - Assistance to unemployed workers funded infrastructure - Assistance to Households: food, rent, mortgage, utilities, counseling or legal aide to Necessary investments in water, sewer, or prevent eviction or homelessness, home broadband infrastructure: repairs, weatherization, internet access, job training - Eligible uses aligned to the Environmental - Improve the efficacy of economic relief Protection Agency project categories for the programs: data analysis, targeted consumer Clean Water State Revolving Fund and outreach, improvements to data or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund technology infrastructure, and impact - Examples include improve resilience of evaluations infrastructure to severe weather events, - Assistance to Small Businesses: adopt safer create green infrastructure, protect water operating procedures, weather periods of bodies from pollution, building or upgrading closure, loans and grants to support facilities and transmission, distribution, & operating costs, technical assistance or storage systems counseling for business planning - Broadband investments designed to provide - Aid to impacted industries: mitigation and services to the unserved and underserved infection prevention measures to enable households and businesses; projects must resumption of tourism, travel, and hospitality deliver reliable service with a minimum of services 100 Mbps download / 100 Mbps upload speeds (unless impractical) Ineligible Uses Equity-Focused Services - Deposit into pension funds A broader range of services and programs are - Contribution to financial reserves presumed to respond to the public health - Debt service payments or bond issue costs emergency when provided in Qualified Census - Legal Settlements Tract or to populations, households, or geographic - Cannot be used as non-Federal match for areas disproportionately impacted by the other Federal programs, unless allowed pandemic. Dates - Investments in public housing - Address educational disparities - Cover costs incurred beginning March 2, - Promote healthy childhood investments 2021 - Expend or obligate by December 31, 2024 - Complete and expend by December 31, 2026  ARPA Funding Planning Investing $18.4 Million in Williamsburg’s Future Staff Steering Committee Community City Council Recommendations Review Survey Retreat Break the Box Committee Shortlist Ask the Burg Making the Decision The ETeam has developed a A steering committee of 7 Using a closed survey we will The Council will use a retreat starter list of concepts including members will meet in two ask the community to rank format similar to GIO work to program support, grants and meetings to review the staff list the 12 concepts by consider the input of staff, the unique one time revenue to reduce and add projects for preference. committee, and the public as investments termed “break the 12 top contenders. they plan the investment. box” ideas.  American Rescue Plan Act Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Priorities SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS October 2021 ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Priorities Survey  icma.org/arpa  surveyresearch@icma.org ICMA surveyed local government chief administrative officers (CAOs) in September 2021 about their priorities for utilizing the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)’s Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF). Nearly 600 town, city, and county managers responded. Responses include local governments with populations ranging from less than 2,500 to over one million; two- thirds came from communities of 25,000 or fewer residents, which fall under the U.S. Treasury definition of “Non- entitlement Units” (NEUs, i.e., local governments typically serving a population of under 50,000). Direct FRF recipients include counties and metropolitan cities. Key Findings Major Investment Priorities Management and Coordination  Of the broad eligible expense types as defined  Nearly half (47 percent) of overall respondents by the U.S. Department of Treasury, responding anticipate hiring or designating coordinators for local governments typically anticipate spending overall planning and management of these funds, within two out of five top-level categories. whether internal staff, external consultants, or  Infrastructure was the top investment priority both. Local governments are more frequently for communities of all sizes, prioritized by 84 looking at hiring or designating this role percent of respondents. internally, but 22 percent overall (more  Approximately half of all respondents (52 frequently direct recipients, especially counties, percent) anticipate replacing lost public sector and CAOs in ICMA’s Northeast region) are revenue. Direct recipients are more frequently considering engaging external consultants. considering this option (63 percent), as well as  Overall, one-third of respondents are considering addressing negative economic impacts of the regional collaboration on a project or investment. pandemic (54 percent) and supporting public Regional collaboration is expected most health expenditures (51 percent) than NEUs. frequently in ICMA’s Mountain Plains region and  Local governments planning on public health by counties nationwide. expenditures are overwhelmingly counties.  Fifteen percent of direct recipients anticipate  Within the infrastructure category, most transferring at least part of their allocation to anticipated projects and priorities concern water another entity. These tend to be local and sewer infrastructure—prioritized by 75 governments representing populations of at least percent of respondents. Water and sewer 100,000. investment is an even higher priority among ICMA’s Mountain Plains CAOs (89 percent), and What’s Driving Prioritization a lower priority among West Coast CAOs (59  Capital improvement plans are highly influential percent). in setting priorities for FRF spending, used by  Broadband infrastructure is being considered by three out of four communities as a part of their 45 percent of direct recipients and 25 percent of planning. smaller communities/NEUs. Broadband interest  Approximately 40 percent of NEUs and half of is especially high among responding counties. direct recipients are utilizing strategic plans  We observe additional differences between developed prior to the passage of the Rescue larger and smaller communities, notably in areas Plan legislation. such as COVID-19 mitigation and containment;  Half of responding direct recipients and a housing and neighborhoods; nonprofit support; quarter of responding NEUs have developed small businesses; and behavioral or mental new recovery/ARPA-specific plans within the health—all areas where larger communities are last several months. more likely to prioritize spending. Smaller  A quarter of responding local governments have communities overwhelmingly prioritize water conducted community engagement activities and sewer infrastructure and indicated fewer specific to pandemic recovery and ARPA additional priority areas. CAOs in ICMA’s West opportunities. Coast region were also more likely to prioritize support to small businesses and nonprofits. ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Priorities Survey  icma.org/arpa  surveyresearch@icma.org Survey Results ICMA Region Key MP, Mountain Plains: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming MW, Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin NE, Northeast: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont SE, Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia WC, West Coast: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington Q1. In which of the following categories of eligible expenses is your local government actively considering spending its allocation of funding? Check all that apply based on guidance issued to date. Treasury-defined Eligible Expense Non-entitlement Direct Recipients All Local Units Governments Investing in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, 85% 81% 84% making necessary investments to improve access to clean drinking water, support vital wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and to expand access to broadband internet Replacing lost public sector revenue, using this funding 47% 63% 52% to provide government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue experienced due to the pandemic Addressing negative economic impacts caused by the 29% 54% 37% public health emergency, including economic harms to workers, households, small businesses, impacted industries, and the public sector Supporting public health expenditures, by, for example, 16% 51% 27% funding COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical expenses, behavioral healthcare, and certain public health and safety staff Providing premium pay for essential workers, offering 21% 27% 23% additional support to those who have and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical infrastructure sectors None of these at this time 3% 1% 3% n 402 187 589 Q1 Responses by ICMA Region Treasury-defined Eligible Expense MP MW NE SE WC Investing in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure 93% 80% 79% 89% 70% Replacing lost public sector revenue 38% 55% 52% 50% 70% Addressing negative economic impacts caused by the public health 31% 30% 38% 37% 58% emergency Supporting public health expenditures 32% 21% 33% 27% 23% Providing premium pay for essential workers 20% 17% 19% 37% 14% None of these at this time 2% 2% 6% 3% 1% n 121 148 90 153 77 ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Priorities Survey  icma.org/arpa  surveyresearch@icma.org Q2. Which of the following types of projects/priorities is your local government looking to support with ARPA Fiscal Recovery Funds? Check all that apply based on available information (i.e., including if you are actively considering but still waiting for final guidance on eligibility). Project/Priority Type Non-entitlement Direct Recipients All Local Units Governments Water and sewer infrastructure 78% 68% 75% Public safety equipment 31% 39% 34% Broadband infrastructure 25% 45% 31% Small businesses 21% 43% 28% Housing and neighborhoods 18% 42% 26% Other capital improvements 24% 29% 26% COVID-19 mitigation and containment 17% 41% 25% Nonprofit support 16% 41% 24% Tourism, travel, and hospitality Industries 18% 27% 21% Improving remote work capacity 19% 24% 21% Families and household assistance 10% 28% 16% Cybersecurity capacity 17% 16% 16% Behavioral or mental health 7% 29% 14% Other specific priority 9% 16% 11% Rehiring government staff 7% 13% 9% Educational disparities 4% 4% 4% n 386 184 570 Q2 Responses by ICMA Region Project/Priority Type MP MW NE SE WC Water and sewer infrastructure 89% 73% 73% 75% 59% Public safety equipment 30% 34% 41% 30% 36% Broadband infrastructure 34% 24% 28% 34% 41% Small businesses 16% 24% 26% 32% 51% Housing and neighborhoods 25% 26% 23% 22% 35% Other capital improvements 15% 24% 28% 30% 34% COVID-19 mitigation and containment 24% 20% 31% 23% 30% Nonprofit support 21% 19% 24% 21% 46% Tourism, travel, and hospitality Industries 18% 16% 14% 27% 32% Improving remote work capacity 19% 24% 20% 15% 31% Families and household assistance 14% 12% 14% 14% 30% Cybersecurity capacity 14% 15% 20% 18% 16% Behavioral or mental health 18% 13% 13% 10% 20% Other specific priority 11% 10% 16% 9% 12% Rehiring government staff 8% 8% 8% 5% 19% Educational disparities 1% 6% 5% 3% 5% n 118 143 86 149 74 ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Priorities Survey  icma.org/arpa  surveyresearch@icma.org Q3. Is your local government considering any of the following strategies related to overall fund management? Check all that apply. Non-entitlement Direct Recipients All Local Units Governments Hiring or designation of internal staff to coordinate 32% 46% 36% overall planning and management of funds None of these 42% 24% 36% Regional collaboration on a project or investment 33% 40% 35% Hiring of external consultants to assist with planning or 19% 28% 22% management of funds Transferring part or all of your allocation to another 4% 15% 7% entity Declining acceptance of funds 0% 0% 0% n 385 185 570 Q3 Responses by ICMA Region MP MW NE SE WC Hiring or designation of internal staff to coordinate overall 36% 32% 40% 40% 34% planning and management of funds None of these 35% 46% 30% 30% 40% Regional collaboration on a project or investment 45% 34% 35% 29% 34% Hiring of external consultants to assist with planning or 20% 14% 33% 26% 22% management of funds Transferring part or all of your allocation to another entity 4% 10% 7% 7% 7% Declining acceptance of funds 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% n 118 145 86 148 73 ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Priorities Survey  icma.org/arpa  surveyresearch@icma.org Q4. Is your local government using any of the following tools/approaches in planning for use of fiscal recovery funds? Check any that apply. Non-entitlement Direct Recipients All Local Units Governments Capital improvement plan 75% 69% 73% Existing strategic plan (i.e., developed prior to passage of 41% 52% 45% ARPA) New ARPA/recovery-specific plan 26% 45% 32% Community engagement activities specific to recovery 20% 35% 25% needs/ARPA opportunities (surveys, focus groups, etc.) None of these 12% 11% 12% n 385 183 568 Q4 Responses by ICMA Region MP MW NE SE WC Capital improvement plan 75% 70% 72% 77% 66% Existing strategic plan (i.e., developed prior to passage of ARPA) 49% 41% 35% 52% 42% New ARPA/recovery-specific plan 31% 26% 38% 34% 38% Community engagement activities specific to recovery needs/ARPA 24% 22% 29% 22% 31% opportunities (surveys, focus groups, etc.) None of these 12% 14% 10% 9% 14% n 118 144 86 146 74 Q5. Is your local government a... (select one) ICMA Region All Local MP MW NE SE WC Governments Non-entitlement Unit (NEU), receiving funds through 68% 66% 74% 66% 67% 65% your state Direct recipient of Fiscal Recovery Funds 32% 34% 26% 34% 33% 35% n 589 121 148 90 153 77 ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Priorities Survey  icma.org/arpa  surveyresearch@icma.org  STEERING COMMITTEE Mayor Doug Pons, Vice Mayor Pat Dent, Finance/Audit Committee Member Bob Taylor, W&M President Katherine Rowe, CW President Cliff Fleet, City Manager Drew Trivette, Assistant City Manager Michele Mixner DeWitt Operating Benefits Impact Cost Funding Early Win Broad-based Enhances Creates ongoing No other Early wins that equitable quality of life infrastructure easily make the benefits that and economic with a viable identifiable, strength of the will appeal to vitality path to funding near-term collaboration a wide variety sustainability funding source visible of citizen (including via interests collaboration) 70% ARPA Public Input Rankings 1.0 60% 1.5 2.0 50% 2.5 40% 3.0 30% 3.5 20% 4.0 10% 4.5 0% 5.0 Percent of Voters Who Ranked This Concept AVG Ranking for Those Who Voted For It  City of Williamsburg List of Potential ARPA Projects Estimated # Project Title Cost Funding Pool Brief Description Notes 1 Hotel Acquisition with Affordable $ 1,000,000 Restricted Fund Purchase housing units for transitional housing program for families and staff to manage program Redevelopment 2 Capitol Landing Road Hotel to Affordable 5,000,000 Restricted Fund Purchase existing under-performing hotel properties to offer through PPEA as sites for mixed use/mixed income development Acquisition opportunities for private investment 3 Childcare for Qualified Employees of City 10,000,000 Restricted Fund Create a child care program center for workforce employed by businesses in the city to allow recruitment for best Business employees/businesses 4 Internet Subsidy for Qualified Residents 1,000,000 Restricted Fund Provide a subsidy to qualified residents to pay for Internet service 5 Blayton Building Redevelopment 6,000,000 Restricted Fund Pursue the redevelopment of the Blayton Property in support of the Downtown Vibrancy Plan and Affordable Housing Initiative 6 Waller Mill Workforce Affordable Housing 7,400,000 Restricted Fund Purchase housing units for transitional housing program for qualified families. Cost includes staffing 7 Tiny House Subdivision for Affordable Housing 2,500,000 Restricted Fund Design and construct a tiny-house neighborhood 8 Restaurant and Retail Incubator 2,500,000 Restricted Fund Construct a restaurant/retail incubator as a destination element on city owned property Total Restricted Projects 35,400,000 9 Create Queens Creek Park w Connection to 14,000,000 Unrestricted Fund Create a multi-use path connection between the two parks (Queen & College) which also connects to Boat trail College Creek 10 P 3 Park Conversion 750,000 Unrestricted Fund Convert parking lot to outdoor downtown park 11 Expand W&M baseball facilities for coastal 2,000,000 Unrestricted Fund For summer league to succeed expand seating and concessions 12 baseball league Foundation Start-up Kimball Theater 1,000,000 Unrestricted Fund Reactivate performing arts center with Public-Private Foundation 13 Gateway Investment 2,000,000 Unrestricted Fund Soliciting, designing and installing at each of the entrances of the City 14 Lake Matoaka Beachfront 10,000,000 Unrestricted Fund Develop a public access beachfront at Lake Matoaka as a new City park 16 Regional Amphitheater Project 5,000,000 Unrestricted Fund Multipurpose event building providing space to hold concerts, performances, STEM lectures and events, culture exhibits, culinary presentations, and conferences. 17 W&M Research Village 2,000,000 Unrestricted Fund Total Unrestricted Projects $ 36,750,000 Total $ 72,150,000 18 CIP Offset (see other side) 7,000,000 Unrestricted Fund For use for CIP Projects that meet ARPA requirements 19 One Williamsburg (see other side) 5,500,000 Unrestricted Fund Pool of money for city employees to use to further the City's Vision Total Potential Projects $ 84,650,000 Number Project Title Estimated Cost Funding Pool Notes Potential CIP Offset Projects 1 Capitol Landing Road Outfall Stream Restoration $ 317,504 Restricted Fund 2 Walnut Hills Outfall Stream Restoration 211,300 Restricted Fund 3 Route 143 Embankment & Outfall Erosion Repair 350,000 Restricted Fund Total Restricted Projects $ 878,804 4 Historic City Street repaving 1,200,000 Unrestricted Fund 5 Newport Ave Sidewalks 100,000 Unrestricted Fund 6 S Henry St Sidewalks to the Oaks 423,500 Unrestricted Fund New Police Facility & relocation of Public Works Storage / Unrestricted Fund 17,500,000 7 Wash Rack Total Unrestricted Projects $ 19,223,500 Total Potential CIP $ 20,102,304 One Williamsburg Projects to further the City's vision 1 Laundry Mat Facilities 400,000 Restricted Fund 2 Smart Water Meters 1,500,000 Restricted Fund 3 Mobile Command/health Clinic 330,000 Restricted Fund 4 Bus Stop Shelters 250,000 Restricted Fund 5 WRHA Safety and Security 250,000 Restricted Fund 6 Signs - Implement New Sign Design 2,000,000 Restricted Fund 7 Emergency shelter 200,000 Restricted Fund 8 Water Bottle Filling Stations 250,000 Restricted Fund Total Restricted Projects $ 5,180,000 9 EOC Technology 500,000 Unrestricted Fund 10 Premium Pay for all Employees 434,000 Unrestricted Fund 11 Playground -Waller Mill Park 900,000 Unrestricted Fund 12 Nija Course 400,000 Unrestricted Fund 13 Batting Cages 200,000 Unrestricted Fund 14 Waller Mill Training Facility 300,000 Unrestricted Fund 15 Portable Radio Replacement Completion 100,000 Unrestricted Fund 16 Picnic Shelter -Waller Mill 250,000 Unrestricted Fund 17 Police Vehicle Program 1,250,000 Unrestricted Fund 18 Cyber Infrastructure Replacements 250,000 Unrestricted Fund Purchase knuckle-boom truck to collect bulky household Unrestricted Fund 275,000 19 material at the curb Children's garden to anchor the municipal end of Unrestricted Fund 2,000,000 20 downtown 21 Broadband Infrastructure 75,000 Unrestricted Fund 22 Solar Facilities 3,000,000 Unrestricted Fund Total Unrestricted Projects $ 9,934,000 Total One Williamsburg Projects $ 15,114,000 Administrative Cost Estimate - up to 10% depending on Restricted Fund $ 600,000 projects United Way Regional Collaborative Recovery - may Restricted Fund 87,139 decrease $ 687,139  Vision 2040 One Williamsburg "One Williamsburg that is courageously leading, innovating a modern city, prioritizing safety and wellness, engaging with our partners, while connecting with the world."