[00:00:01]
WE'RE HAVING A MEETING.SHE HASN'T RESPONDED BACK YET, THEN.
WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THIS STARTED.
I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING AT THE HOPEFUL CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER.
MAYOR HARON, VICE MAYOR JOYNER.
UM, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ALLOW, UH, COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY A MOTION? MM-HMM
UM, COUNSELOR HOLLOWAY CAN, FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU TELL US, UH, WHY YOU ARE ASKING TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY? YES.
THE, THE MEETING WAS EARLIER THAN MY SCHEDULED TIME.
THEY CHANGE IT, AMEND MEETING, AND ALSO HIS GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.
MR. HOLLOWAY'S GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION? CORRECT.
JUST, JUST SITTING AND STATE WHERE YOU LOCATED.
UM, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE? I THINK HE NEEDS TO SET.
OH, WHERE ARE YOU AT, SIR? IN COLONIAL HEIGHTS TO HOPEWELL.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO, UM, APPROVE MR. HOLLOWAY'S PARTICIPATION REMOTELY? I MOVE.
[CLOSED MEETING]
UM, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 1 A ONE TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER PERSONNEL MATTERS INCLUDING BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS, PLANNING COMMISSION, HRHA, HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 A SIX AND EIGHT TO DISCUSS OR CONSIDER THE INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS, UH, EDA UPDATE ON BEACON THEATER, AND, UH, 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 1 A EIGHT AND 29 TO DISCUSS THE AWARD OF A PUBLIC CONTRACT INVOLVING THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS POTENTIAL CONTRACT FOR DATA INTEGRATION.UM, ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE CONTINUE? I, I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE MAY BE A MOTION TO ADD SOMETHING OR SUBTRACT SOMETHING FROM CLOSED SESSION NOW WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR THAT MOTION.
UM, DO YOU HAVE THAT? NOT, NOT TO CLOSE SESSION? MM-HMM.
NO, I, I, I HAD UNDERSTOOD IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
IF THERE'S NOT, THEN THAT'S FINE.
PARDON? YOU MADE THE MOTION TO GO UN CLOSE HOLLOW, I THINK, I THINK IT WAS COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY THAT MADE THE MOTION HOLLOWAY.
SHE WAS JUST ASKING WHO MADE THE MOTION TO GO.
[RECONVENE OPEN MEETING]
I CLOSE.MOTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY COUNCILLOR DAY AND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR JOYNER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO LIGHTS? ROLL CALL PLEASE.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 2.2 DASH THREE SEVEN 2D.
WERE ONLY PUBLIC BUSINESS MATTERS.
LOCALLY EXEMPTED FROM OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENTS AND TWO IDENTIFIED.
MOTION DISCUSS ENCLOSED MEETINGS.
ALRIGHT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, REAPPOINT JESSE SPROUL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND TO APPOINT WAYNE TAYLOR TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY COUNCILLOR HOLLOWAY AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR A ELLIS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO LIGHTS ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[00:05:01]
HOLLOWAY? YES.WE ARE MOVING INTO OUR WORK SESSION.
UH, FOR THE FIRST ONE, THE BANK STREET FIRE LANE REVIEW.
[CONSENT AGENDA (Part 1 of 2)]
MAY MAYOR, PARDON? YES.IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE AGENDA OR THE CONSENT AGENDA, NOW WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO IT.
DO WE NOT DO IT WHEN WE GO INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING? OR, UH, IT, IT, IT CAN BE LATER.
THE, THE CITY'S COUNCIL'S RULES SAY THAT IT HAPPENS AFTER EITHER BEFORE CLOSED SESSION OR AFTER COMING AFTER CLOSED SESSION.
LET ME GET THE OTHER ONE PULLED UP ON THE PHONE.
UH, FOR THE FIRST ONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADD TO THE CONSENT AGENDA? UH, TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 25TH, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE CREATION OF A TREE BOARD, A TREE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ORDINANCE, AND TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THAT BOARD IF NEEDED.
MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY AND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR JOINER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.
UH, ADDITIONALLY, IS THERE A MOTION TO REVISE THE JANUARY 28TH MINUTES AND THE, UH, FEBRUARY 3RD MINUTES, UH, TO EXPRESSLY INCLUDE, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY, UH, AS THE SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE OF CITY COUNCIL AND TO ADD 2.2 DASH 37 11 FOR LEGAL CONSULTATION.
IT WAS WHEN WE HAD TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO OUR CLOSED SESSION, UM, A MOTION FOR THOSE TWO MEETINGS AND THEY WEREN'T CAPTURED IN THE MINUTES.
YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CERTIFICATE? WAIT, EXPLAIN IT AGAIN.
SO, IN THE MINUTES IN OUR AGENDA PACKET, THEY'RE MISSING PART OF THE MOTION THAT WE DID.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO REVISE THESE FROM THE MINUTES.
MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY COUNCILOR DAY AND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR JOYNER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO LIGHTS ROLL CALL PLEASE.
YOU CAN PUT IT UP OR DO YOU WANT ME TO DO IT? OH, YOU, OH, YOU WANT ME TO DO IT? THAT'S FINE.
[WORK SESSION]
MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, UM, MY NAME IS BEN GOMES.I'M THE FIRE MARSHAL FOR THE CITY OF HOPEWELL.
UH, WE BRING TO YOU TONIGHT, UH, FINDINGS, UH, AT THE REQUEST OF VICE MAYOR, UH, JOINER, UH, FINDINGS FOR POTENTIAL FIRE LANES AND PARKING ISSUES ON BANK STREET.
UM, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, UH, MARCH 7TH, 2024, UH, HOPEWELL FIRE AND EMS RESPONDED FOR THE REPORT OF A STRUCTURE FIRE, UH, ON BANK STREET.
CALLER REPORTED FLAMES AND SMOKE COMING FROM ONE OF THE TOWN HOMES AND HOPEWELL FIRE RE RESPONDED OUT.
UH, WE HAD A COUPLE ISSUES WITH, UH, MAKING THE TURN FROM MAPLEWOOD ONTO PRINCE HENRY.
WE'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY, UH, ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES AND PARKING OUT THERE IS RELATIVELY NO ISSUE.
UH, COMING FROM MAPLEWOOD ONTO PRINCE HENRY.
UM, WE DO HAVE ACCESS ISSUES FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON BANK STREET AND THE 1000 BLOCK OF BANK STREET.
UH, WE ARE UNABLE TO PARK A FIRETRUCK IN FRONT OF THE, PRIMARILY IN FRONT OF ALL THE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE ON BANK STREET.
UM, AS WELL, THIS ALL STEMS FROM, UH, DECEMBER 10TH, 2024.
CITY COUNCIL ASKED US TO REVIEW, AS I SAID, THE PARKING ISSUES IN THE 1000 BLOCK OF BANK STREET.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, WE'RE PRESENTING THOSE TONIGHT.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION, UH, WE'VE INCLUDED, THIS IS JUST A GOOGLE, UH, STREET VIEW OF THE
[00:10:01]
1000 BLOCK OF BANK STREET, UH, 1000 BLOCK BANK STREET, UH, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, WAS BUILT IN 1917.THE TOWN HOMES WERE BUILT IN 1917.
UM, THERE'S 13 TOWN HALL, THERE'S 13 TOWNHOUSE UNITS.
THERE'S ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET THAT IS NOT IN THIS PICTURE.
UM, AS WELL AS THERE'S A NEW SINGLE FAMILY UNIT TO BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE AS WELL.
I CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE SOME MORE IN INFORMATION.
UH, BANK STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 25.5 FEET WIDE FROM CURB TO CURB.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.
ENGINE ONE AND TWO FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ARE NINE AND A HALF FEET WIDE.
QUT ONE, THE LADDER TRUCK FOR THE CITY IS NINE FEET WIDE.
UH, THE QUINT HAS, UM, WHAT WE CALL OUTRIGGERS THAT EXTEND FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE TRUCK.
UM, AND THAT ALLOWS US TO PUT THE TRUCK UP TO MAKE RESCUES AND GO TO THE ROOF AND DO FIRE OPERATIONS ON THE ROOF LINE.
UH, WITH THOSE OUTRIGGERS OUT TO BOTH SIDES.
THAT EXTENDS THE TRUCK 17 FEET WIDE.
UM, LIKE I SAID, BANK STREET IS 25 AND A HALF FEET WIDE FROM CURB TO CURB.
UH, IF WE LOOK AT, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, INCLUDING PARKING, SO BASICALLY FROM THAT BLUE TRUCK TO THE CURB IS 17 FEET WIDE.
FROM CAR TO CAR IS 10 FEET WIDE.
AND I GO BACK AND SAY THAT THE QUINT IN THE ENGINE ONE AND TWO ARE, UH, NINE TO NINE AND A HALF FEET WIDE.
UH, WE HAVE A NEW TRUCK ON ORDER AND THAT'S ABOUT EIGHT AND A HALF TO NINE FEET WIDE AS WELL.
BUT THAT IS A PRELIMINARY, UM, UNTIL WE GO FURTHER INTO THE DESIGN FOR THE NEW TRUCK.
UM, THAT'S YOUR MEASUREMENTS FOR THE PARKING ON BANK STREET.
UH, THERE IS A-N-F-P-A STANDARD FOUR STREET DESIGN FOR FIRE RESPONSE.
UM, THE NFPA STANDARD IS 1141.
UH, THAT COVERS FIRE PROTECTION FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND WILD LAND RULE AND SUBURBAN AREAS.
UM, IT DOES STATE THAT ROADWAYS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF 12 FEET FOR EACH LANE OF TRAVEL, INCLUDING SHOULDERS AND PARKING.
UM, WE CAN KIND OF GET AROUND THAT WITH STATE LAW AS THE FIRE MARSHAL OR THE FIRE OFFICIAL.
UM, WE CAN ADJUST THAT AS NEEDED.
GOING BACK TO BANK STREET, WE CAN DO AN OPERATION WHICH IS CALLED SHORT JACKING WITH A TRUCK COMPANY, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS, UM, IN THIS INSTANCE WE WOULD BE WORKING OFF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE TRUCK.
WE CAN EXTEND THAT OUTRIGGER OUT TO THE RIGHT AND WE CAN DO WHAT'S CALLED A SHORT JACK, WHERE WE SEND THE LEFT OUTRIGGER JUST OUT A VERY SHORT DISTANCE, A COUPLE INCHES AND PUT IT DOWN ON THE GROUND.
AND WE CAN STILL WORK OFF THAT RIGHT SIDE OF OF THE TRUCK.
UH, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT WE PUT TOGETHER THAT INCLUDED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS.
UM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING, UM, PLACING A FIRE LANE ON ONE SIDE OF BANK STREET ON THE LEFT SIDE, UM, JAMES STREET, WHERE BANK TURNS INTO JAMES WOULD BE MARKED AS A FIRE LANE ON BOTH SIDES BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCES INVOLVED, UH, ON JAMES, UM, ALL FIRE LANES WOULD BE MARKED AND THEN HAVE A SIGNAGE INDICATING THAT AS SUCH AND AS WELL AS TOWING WOULD BE ENFORCED.
UM, AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND A GRACE PERIOD OF, OF, OF 30 DAYS TO EDUCATE THE RESIDENTS AND ALLOW THEM TO BE ADJUSTED TO THAT.
UM, AND THAT WOULD BE ENFORCED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT.
UH, YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME LEGAL, UH, THE VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE 5 0 3 0.7 DOES STATE THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, WHICH IS THE FIRE MARSHAL HERE IN THE CITY, IS AUTHORIZED TO DESIGNATE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FIRE LANES AS DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF FIRE APPARATUS.
UH, AGAIN, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL REVIEW THE OPTIONS PROVIDED BY PUBLIC WORKS TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING TO THE AREA TO ACCOMMODATE THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNHOUSES, UH, AND CHOOSE AN OPTION TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NEEDS.
UM, JUST A AERIAL PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE FIRE LANES.
UM, BANK STREET IS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
UM, AGAIN, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT LEFT SIDE BECOME A COMPLETE FIRE LANE AND WHERE BANK STREET TURNS ONTO JAMES, STARTING AT THE CORNER ABOUT EIGHT FEET, 10 FEET OR SO, IF THAT, UM, BOTH SIDES WOULD BE A FIRE LANE WITH NO PARKING PERMITTED.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, VICE MAYOR JOIN.
YEAH, I JUST WANNA SAY THANKS FIRST OF ALL THAT Y'ALL HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS, UM, BECAUSE IT REALLY, IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM FOR MANY YEARS AND SOMETHING I KNOW, UM, MR. WARD, UM, WHEN I SERVED ON THE A RB, WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
FOR YEARS, I'M TALKING WELL OVER 10 YEARS.
[00:15:01]
UM, UH, THEN THERE WAS THE FIRE YES MA'AM.AND, UM, THAT SORT OF BROUGHT EVERYTHING TO THE FORE.
MY, ONE OF THE PICTURES THAT YOU SHOWED A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT GOOGLE, IT SHOWED, I THOUGHT IT SHOWED A NO PARKING SIGN ON THE LEFT SIDE AND, BUT THERE WERE STILL CARS PARKED THERE, BUT I COULDN'T MAKE OUT.
MAKING THE TURN FROM PRINCE HENRY ONTO BANK.
THERE IS A NO PARKING SIGN ON THE LEFT SIDE, BUT THAT'S FOR TRASH COLLECTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CURRENT WITH THE NEW TRASH COLLECTION, BUT THERE IS A, THERE IS A NO PARKING SIGN, BUT IT'S STRICTLY FOR THE TRASH DECK.
I DIDN'T, I COULDN'T MAKE OUT WHAT IT WAS.
UM, BUT I REALLY JUST WANNA SAY THANKS.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE OUR, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME OPTIONS OF PARKING AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT I THINK IT'S A FIRST STEP AND I REALLY WANNA SAY THANK YOU.
UH, THERE, UH, THERE WERE MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.
I MEAN, VERY, REALLY THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UH, COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY AND THEN HARRIS.
I WAS JUST ABOUT TO, UH, EXPRESS THE SAME SENTIMENTS.
I THINK THE, A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO WE, UH, THIS WAS, THIS TOPIC WAS BROUGHT UP AND IT WAS, IT DEFINITELY SEEMS LIKE A NO BRAINER.
UM, ESPECIALLY, UM, IN THIS SITUATION.
I MEAN, YOU WOULD THINK SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE WISH WE COULD JUST DO IT WITH A SNAP OF YOUR FINGER.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, BEEN DONE AND TAKEN CARE OF.
BUT THINK Y'ALL ARE, AGAIN FOR YOUR HARD WORK.
UH, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO THAT IS PART OF THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE IS, UM, THE FIRE OFFICIAL, THE FIRE MARSHAL OR THE FIRE CHIEF CAN COME IN AND DESIGNATE, UM, FIRE LANES IN PRIVATE, IN PUBLIC.
UM, WE CAN JUST UPRIGHT DO THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN THIS CASE.
'CAUSE THIS DOES DISPLACE EIGHT 10 CARDS OR SO.
WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU ALL ALSO JUST TO ALLEVIATE POTENTIAL COMPLAINTS AND ALL THAT.
THAT'S VERY, UM, I GUESS WHERE YOU, 'CAUSE MY FIRST THOUGHT IS WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, SAFETY AND PREVENTING, UM, ISSUES, I, I, IF SOMEBODY DIED IN THE FIRE MM-HMM
I CAN GUARANTEE THEY'LL BE COMING BACK BLAMING THE CITY.
SO I, I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL WITH YOU JUST DESIGNATING THE NO PARKING, UH, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY UNTIL SOMETHING COMES UP.
I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF COUNCIL, BUT I MEAN, GOT THAT FIRE IS AN EXACT EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST PUT SOMETHING UP TEMPORARILY TO SAY NO PARKING AND LET THE CITIZENS KNOW THAT SOMETHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, WILL BE COMING SOON.
SO I WOULD JUST HATE FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN AND THEN CAN'T, UH, CAN'T REACH PEOPLE IN TIME.
AND THAT'S WHY IT DEFINITELY MATTERS.
SO, AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOU FOR YOUR, YOU THE SERVICES.
THEN ELLIS, I HAD TO SEPARATE Y'ALL TWO.
UH, I, I I JUST WANTED TO SHOW APPRECIATION FOR YOU GUYS DOING SOMETHING IN REGARDS TO MYSELF.
I LIVED ON BANK STREET IN 1978 AND, UH, FOUR YEARS AND, UH, THAT LITTLE FIELD ON CROSS STREET MM-HMM
IT WASN'T LEVEL OFF, IT WAS JUST WOOD WOODS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, AND WE JUST PARKED ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
AND I DON'T KNOW, BUT I COULD SEE THE CARS NEAR, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
THE ONLY TIME THERE WAS CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET WHEN SOMEBODY HAD A PARTY.
BUT, UM, NO, I, I, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT.
AND, UH, BECAUSE THE, MY QUESTION IS WHEN WAS THERE A FIRE? UH, SO THAT WAS, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I GET THE DATE RIGHT.
AND ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK IN THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW, GO, UH, THE GOOGLE CAR HAS A, HAS ALREADY COME THROUGH THE AREA.
LUCKILY THAT FIRE WAS ON A END UNIT.
IT STARTED IN A END UNIT AND THEN IT WENT TO THE NEXT ONE.
OH YEAH, YOU CAN, BOTH UNITS WERE OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON.
SO, UM, GOD FORBID IF IT HAPPENED IN THE MIDDLE, UH, WE, UH, WE WOULD HAVE FIRE POTENTIALLY EXTENDING THE, TO BOTH UNITS AND FURTHERING THAT PROGRESS OF FIRE.
BUT IT DID START IN THE END UNIT.
SO THERE IS A LITTLE SAVING INCREASE TO THAT.
WELL, GOOD, I'M GLAD YOU GUYS HAVE DONE SOMETHING.
I LIVED THREE DOORS DOWN FROM THAT, THAT UNIT THAT WAS GONNA FIGHT FROM THE END UNIT.
SO, UH, BUT, UM, I'M GLAD, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOOD.
NO, I JUST WANT TO SAY, UM, I HEARD THE WORDS THAT, UH, COUNSELOR JOYNER SAID, AND SHE SAID, AND THEN THERE WAS A FIRE.
UM, HOPEFULLY WE, UH, AS COUNSEL, WE, UH, TAKE THE, UH, TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO LISTEN AND, UM, NOT WAIT TILL SOMETHING HAPPENS MM-HMM
[00:20:01]
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A WHOLE LOT WORSE AS, UH, FIRE MARSHAL JUST SAID IF IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE, OR IF IT, AND COUNCIL HOLLOWAY MADE THE SAME COMMENT ABOUT THANK GOODNESS IT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, THAT.AND, UH, THANK GOODNESS IT WASN'T, BECAUSE THERE'S NO TELLING WHAT COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO BE SETTING UP HERE OR WHO WOULD BE STANDING ON CNN UM, TELLING THE TRUTH.
SO, UM, I'M GLAD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE ABLE TO GET THAT DONE.
AND, AND ALSO, UM, YOU SAID PUBLIC WORKS HAS SOME PARKING ARRANGEMENTS OR SOMETHING.
UM, AND I BELIEVE IT'S TO LINE IT AND STRIPE IT, AND IT'S ABOUT 3,500.
UM, THERE'S OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, POTENTIALLY SOME, YEAH, I WAS JUST SOME PARKING IN.
I DIDN'T WE JUST RAISE THAT BILL EVEN MORE.
AGAIN, WE ARE, WE'RE BRINGING THOSE FINDINGS.
WE CAN COME IN AND MAKE IT A FIRE LANE, BUT THERE'S POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS ON THAT TO DISPLACE EIGHT TO 10 CARS OF PARKING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE, BASICALLY.
CAN CAN YOU, CAN YOU, UM, ELABORATE A LITTLE FURTHER? YOU WERE SAYING, SO THE OPTIONS OF THE PIPE, UH, PARK, I MEAN THE, UH, FIRE PARKING, BUT ALSO YOU, YOU'RE MENTIONING WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL COST? SO WE ATTEMPTED TO COME UP WITH A COUPLE, UM, A COUPLE ALL ALTERNATIVES.
UM, WHICH WOULD TO BE, TO BASICALLY PULL THAT SIDEWALK OUT AND CREATE EXTRA PARKING OR LIKE AN ANGLE TYPE PARKING.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT ROUGH $300,000 TO BASICALLY GET RID OF THE SIDEWALK ON, ON THE LEFT SIDE AND EITHER MAKE THE ROAD BIGGER OR GIVE YOU SOME, SOME KIND OF ANGLED PARKING.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S A, A LARGE BILL.
THE FIRST SET STEP TO THIS IS TO PUT THE LINES, PUT THE SIGNS IN, AND THAT'S ONLY $3,500 ROUGHLY ON THE ESTIMATE THAT PUBLIC WORKS GOT.
SO CAN WE HAVE BOTH PLANS FOR FUTURE PURPOSES AND EVERYTHING WE CAN? YEAH.
YEAH, I, I JUST, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT ON SOME SORT OF A, WHERE WE'RE GOING SO THAT IT DOESN'T, SO THAT WE DON'T WAIT ANOTHER SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR AND NOTHING GETS DONE.
BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THAT I CAN REMEMBER MEETING WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, UM, OVER 10 YEARS AGO AND BEING PROMISED SOMETHING AND IT NEVER HAPPENED.
SO, UM, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT AS A WORK SESSION.
WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS TO GET AROUND THAT IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEANCE WITH THEM MOVING FORWARD, AT LEAST WITH THE MARK AND THE FIRE LANE, AND THEN BRINGING BACK, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, TO US MM-HMM
AM I GETTING YEAH, WE, 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO, UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DO ON THEIR OWN ANYWAY.
MOVING ON TO WORK SESSION NUMBER TWO.
UH, THE OPIOID ABATEMENT AGREEMENT.
MR. GASTON, YOU CAN JUST DO RIGHT FROM RIGHT THERE.
UH, JAMES GASTON, UH, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, UM, THE CITY ALONG WITH SOME OF OUR SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS ARE COMING TOGETHER IN A CO-OP TO UTILIZE SOME OF THE OPIOID FUNDING THAT'S AVAILABLE.
UM, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER AND PRODUCE A GRANT APPLICATION BEFORE APRIL, 2024.
UM, ANY AUDIENCE IS OUR COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
AND WE ALSO HAVE MS, UM, FROM PRINCE GEORGE AND HER NAME'S ESCAPING ME RIGHT NOW.
MS. WA, UM, YES, THEY ARE HERE TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THEM, PLEASE DO.
THEY'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU MORE DETAIL ON THE APPLICATION AND, UM, MATTER OF FACT, I'M GONNA ASK THEM TO COME FORTH AND PRESENT THE CASE.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNSEL.
I'M THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY FOR PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
AND I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD, UM, DEVELOPING THIS PLAN FOR A MOBILE RESPONSE UNIT.
UM, THE DEADLINE FOR OUR GRANT IS APRIL, 2025.
[00:25:01]
YOU SEE IN YOUR PAPERWORK, WE'RE JOINING WITH OTHER LOCALITIES IN ORDER TO HAVE A CERTIFIED PEER RECOVERY SPECIALIST RESPOND OUT TO OVERDOSE CALLS WITHIN 48 TO 72 HOURS POST CALL.UM, AND, AND THAT WOULD OFFER, UM, REFERRALS FOR SERVICES, HARM REDUCTION KITS, AND TRY TO, UM, ASSIST THE PERSON IN GETTING, UM, OUT OF THE THROES OF ADDICTION AND, UM, HOPEFULLY PREVENTING, UM, A DEADLY OVERDOSE IN THE FUTURE.
UM, AND THIS IS DENISE WAL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF SHE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD.
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
DENISE SW I'M WITH RIVERSIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY.
UM, MY AGENCY SERVES, UH, THE LOCAL PROBATION PRETRIAL SERVICES FOR PRINCE GEORGE SURREY AND THE CITY OF HOPEWELL.
I'M ALSO STAFFED TO THE BOARD, THE CCJV THAT MS. FIERA MENTIONED.
UH, THIS IS A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT THAT, UH, THE FIVE LOCALITIES HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.
UM, IT'S IN ADDITION TO PRINCE GEORGE AND HOPEWELL.
WE HAVE SURREY COUNTY THAT'S, UH, AGREED TO BE INVOLVED, UH, DENWOODY COUNTY AND SUSSEX COUNTY.
SO WE ARE ALL, UM, INDIVIDUALLY GOING BEFORE OUR BOARDS AND COUNCILS.
PRINCE GEORGE, UH, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING WAS ACTUALLY SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT, AND I WAS GONNA SPEAK THERE, HOWEVER, THAT WAS CANCELED.
SO I CAME HERE TO SUPPORT, UM, OUR PARTNERS HERE IN HOPEWELL.
SO, UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT, UM, THE FIVE LOCALITIES ARE, UM, GOING INTO AN AGREEMENT.
WE WILL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA OPIOID ABATEMENT AUTHORITY, UM, WHICH IS DUE APRIL THE FIRST OF 2025.
UM, AND THIS WOULD BE A PROJECT, UM, THAT WOULD BE ONGOING FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND CARRY US THROUGH 2030 IF WE RECEIVE A GRANT AWARD.
THESE FUNDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DIRECT DISTRIBUTION, WHICH IS ALREADY WHAT'S RECEIVED.
THESE FUNDS ARE FUNDS THAT ARE THERE, THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM MM-HMM
WE MUST COME TOGETHER AS A GROUP IN ORDER TO MAKE THE APPLICATION.
SO REST ASSURED YOUR DIRECT, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHEET, IT SAYS DIRECT DISTRIBUTIONS, THAT THOSE FUNDS WILL NOT BE TOUCHED.
THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUAL, UH, OAA INDIVIDUAL DISTRIBUTION ALONG WITH THE OAA GOLD STANDARD IN, UM, INCENTIVE.
SO THESE ARE THE FUNDS THAT IF WE DID NOT COME TOGETHER AS A COLLABORATIVE, THE FUNDS WOULD JUST SIT THERE AND ULTIMATELY THE COMMONWEALTH WOULD TAKE THEM BACK.
SO THIS WAY WE'D BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE, UH, UTILIZE THE FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US.
UH, COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY, I WAS ABOUT TO ASK FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
SO THIS IS, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIKE THAT ANNUAL, UH, OBOS FUNDS THAT I, I'M GONNA LET THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY DIVULGE IT INTO THAT, BUT YES, NO, IT HAS, THE DIRECT FUNDS WILL NOT, WE DO NOT TOUCH THE DIRECT FUNDS.
SO THE DIRECT FUNDS ARE FUNDS THAT COME STRAIGHT TO THE LOCALITY FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS BASED ON THOSE LAWSUITS COME STRAIGHT FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS, THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE OPIOIDS.
UM, THE, THE DIRECT FUNDS, I UNDERSTAND HOPEWELL'S ALREADY COMMITTED SOME FUNDS FOR THE, UM, FROM DIRECT FUNDS FOR A PROJECT.
SOME OF OUR, OUR OTHER LOCALITIES PARTNER LOCALITIES HAVE DONE THAT AS WELL.
UM, PRINCE GEORGE HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY OF OUR DIRECT FUNDS.
UM, SO WE ARE ACTUALLY GONNA, UM, PUT OUR DIRECT FUNDS TOWARDS THIS PROJECT.
UM, BUT THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIRECT FUNDS THEY COME, THEY'VE COME SPECIFICALLY TO EACH LOCALITY.
AND AS MR. GASTON, UM, SAID EARLIER, THE INDIVIDUAL FUNDS AND THE GOLD STANDARD FUNDS ARE FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, UM, IF YOU APPLY FOR A COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT LIKE WE'RE DOING.
SO THIS WILL NOT IN ANY WAY, UM, UH, PREVENT THE CURRENT FUNDS THAT WE HAVE SINCE, UM, WE ARE GOING INTO A CAR.
THIS WON'T MAKE THE GOVERNMENT SAY, HEY, YOU'RE NO LONGER RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE SUPPORTING, UM, OUR COMMUNITY, UM, OUR COMMUNITY, UM, NONPROFITS MM-HMM
THAT ARE ENGAGED IN TO, TO THE SAME ACTS WE HAVE, UM, REAL LIFE PROGRAM HERE IN THE CITY OF REFUGE, UM, WHO WE HAVE DIRECTED FOR THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, UM, OPIOID FUNDING AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.
AND I DON'T WANT GOING INTO THIS COLLABORATION IT TO STOP, UM, OUR FUNDING HERE OR FOR THAT TO HAVE ANY EFFECT.
CAN WE CONFIRM OR GET SOME CONFIRMATION THAT THAT WILL NOT AFFECT US IN THE FUTURE? IN REGARDS TO THE, I DEFINITELY, SO IF I MAY, I ASSURE YOU THESE FUNDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NO, I KNOW.
I WANNA MAKE SURE OH, THAT IT WILL NOT PREVENT OUR FUNDING TO GO TOWARDS THE OTHER COLLABORATIONS THAT WE HAD.
BECAUSE THIS, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING, UM, OF COURSE TO BE MET.
THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE WITH ADDICTION AND OVERDOSE, BUT WE DON'T WANT OUR FUNDING THAT'S COMING IN AND WHAT WE DISTRIBUTE.
UM, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO, UH, BE PREVENTED HERE.
'CAUSE WE'RE JOINING, UH, I I GUESS MORE THAN A ITY COOPERATION, BUT A LOCAL OR REGIONAL COOPERATION.
AND IF I MAY, ADDITIONALLY, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO APPLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND
[00:30:01]
THE GOLD STANDARD, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT YOUR DIRECT PAYMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO WHICHEVER ORGANIZATION YOU WANTED TO PUT THOSE THROUGH.SO IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND OR GOLD, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THOSE FUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXHAUSTED.
AND ANOTHER THING, THE, THE COLLABORATION, WHAT IS IT EXACTLY THAT IS ENTAILING THE SIDE OF, UH, RECEIVING FUNDINGS? WHAT IS THE PARTICIPATION FROM THE SURROUNDING CITIES AND COUNTIES EXACTLY.
UH, FINANCIALLY SPEAKING, NOT JUST FINANCIALLY THE OTHER COLLABORATIONS.
SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE, UH, COUNTY OF PRINCE GEORGE'S JUST TAKEN ON AND THE OTHER, SO DISTRICT NINETEEN'S GONNA BE THE SUPERVISOR OF THE CERTIFIED PEER RECOVERY SPECIALIST, AND THEY'LL BE HOUSED IN THEIR, UM, OFFICES.
ALTHOUGH HONESTLY, WE ENVISION THAT PERSON TO BE MOBILE FOR MOST OF THEIR TIME ON THE JOB.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF COLLABORATION WITH THE OTHER LOCALITIES, WE WILL BE SETTING UP, UM, UM, BASICALLY A FLOW OF INFORMATION BETWEEN FIRE EMS, POLICE DEPARTMENT DISPATCH, AND THAT PEER RECOVERY SPECIALIST, SO THE SPECIALIST KNOWS WHERE TO GO, UM, AND WHO TO TALK TO.
AND THEN, UM, THERE WILL BE A TREATMENT PROVIDER, UM, AND SOMETIMES LAW ENFORCEMENT IF WE THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A VOLATILE SITUATION THERE.
UM, BUT EVERYBODY WILL RECEIVE TRAINING IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT, UM, NOT HARMFUL.
SO RIGHT NOW, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT, UM, WORK THAT GO OUT AND DO LIKE THE ON FOOT, BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF, UH, OVERDOSES AND THINGS HAVE INCREASED TREMENDOUSLY.
SO WHAT IS THE KAREN STAFF? SO AT THIS TIME, THIS WOULD BE A NEW PROJECT FOR DISTRICT 19.
SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE DOING THIS.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY IS DOING THIS.
I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY EXPANDING THIS WITH OAA FUNDS.
THEY'RE PARTNERING WITH PETERSBURG AND I BELIEVE THE CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS.
AND I ALSO THINK PEANS INVOLVED.
UM, THEY, THEY DID THEIR OWN PARTNERSHIP, THEIR OWN, UM, COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE A NEW PROJECT FOR DISTRICT 19.
UM, SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE BEFORE.
UM, SO AGAIN, AS, AS MR. HARRIS STATED, THIS WOULD BE A POSITION, ACTUALLY, WE ENVISION IT BEING AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT MORE, PERHAPS TWO POSITIONS, UM, UNDER DISTRICT 19.
UM, AND, AND THEY WOULD BE PARTNERING, AS SHE SAID, WITH LOCAL LAW LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM EACH LOCALITY TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO RESPOND.
SO THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING NEW FOR THEM.
UM, BUT AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEING DONE IN OTHER LOCALITIES AROUND US.
UH, WE KNOW THAT OTHER LOCALITIES HAVE RECEIVED OAA AWARDS, COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP AWARDS, UM, TO BE ABLE TO FUND THESE PROJECTS CALLED PEPPER COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY, FAKI COUNTY.
SOME OF THOSE LOCALITIES ARE IN A COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP AND HAVE RE UH, RECENTLY RECEIVED AWARDS AND ARE STARTING THIS AS WELL.
SO, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE HERE AND WE'RE HOPING TO, UM, BE ABLE TO DO WITH IF WE GET AN AWARD.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR, YES.
IF, IF I MAY ADDRESS ONE OF YOUR PAST QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DIRECT FUNDS, JUST TO PUT YOUR MIND AT EASE, COUNSELOR HOLLOWAY, UM, THE, UM, DENWITTY, UM, COUNTY HAS ALREADY SPENT THEIR DIRECT FUNDS TO START THEIR DARE PROGRAM, WHICH GOES INTO THE SCHOOL.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
AND SO THEY ABSOLUTELY DON'T HAVE DIRECT FUNDS TO DESIGNATE TOWARDS THIS PROJECT.
WE'RE ALL GOING INTO THAT WITH OUR EYES WIDE OPEN ABOUT THAT.
AND I CAN'T RECALL WHAT SUSSEX HAS SPENT SOME OF THEIRS ON, BUT I KNOW IT'S WELL, BUT THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE DIRECT FUNDS TO PUT INTO IT, OR AT LEAST NOT VERY MANY DIRECT FUNDS TO PUT INTO IT.
SO EVERYBODY'S COMING TO THE TABLE WITH A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT SITUATION.
WE'RE ALL RECOGNIZING THAT AND TRYING TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK GOING FORWARD WITH THE ADDITIONAL TWO POTS OF MONEY THAT WILL COME.
I, I WOULD THINK I WOULD LIKE TO PROBABLY REQUEST IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY IT, IT, IT WON'T HAPPEN THIS YEAR FOR BUDGETING TIME, BUT NEXT YEAR I'M FORCED TO KIND OF GET SOME NUMBERS AND I THINK IT'LL PROBABLY BE GOOD FOR ALL THE REST OF THE LOCALITIES TO RECEIVE THOSE NUMBERS AS WELL.
SO WE CAN SEE, UM, WHAT THE, UM, ORGANIZATION IS ACTUALLY REACHING IN ANY LOCALITY SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER, UM, ANY MORE FUNDING THAT MAY BE NECESSARY.
UM, ESPECIALLY IF THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE IN OUR CITY IS, UH, MORE BURDENSOME THAN THE OTHERS AROUND THE AREAS.
UM, MR. HARRIS, BEFORE I LET YOU, UH, SPEAK, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL WE FINISH CR ONE? OBJECT? NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.
MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY VICE MAYOR JOINER AND SECONDED BY MYSELF.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO LIGHTS ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[00:35:01]
TO ZERO.MR. I KNOW WE'RE STILL IN, UM, WORK SESSION.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING ON TONIGHT IN O IN A OPEN MEETING? NO, WE'LL DO IT IN TWO WEEKS.
IT HAS TO HAPPEN NOW, WHICH WILL STILL BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR Y'ALL'S APPLICATION.
UH, COUNCILLOR HARRIS, I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION.
I HEARD MENTIONED, UH, SOMETHING ABOUT CHESTERFIELD, BUT I DON'T SEE CHESTER CHESTERFIELD AS PART OF, UH, THIS COOPERATIVE THERE.
THEY'RE NOT PART OF THIS COOPERATIVE, BUT THEY ARE DOING A VERY SIMILAR PROJECT, UM, WITH SOME OF THEIR, UM, OPIOID ABATEMENT FUNDS WHERE THEY HAVE A MOBILE RESPONSE GOING OUT INTO THE COMMUNITIES, RESPONDING TO PEOPLE WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, UM, TO, UM, CONNECT THEM TO SERVICES AND PROVIDE HARM REDUCTION KITS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
SO IT'S THAT, MY POINT WAS THAT OTHER LOCALITIES AROUND US ARE DOING IT, UM, SOMETHING SIMILAR.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS A BRAND NEW PROJECT, IT'S JUST IT WOULD BE NEW IN OUR REGION.
UH, ONE MORE QUESTION MM-HMM
IS THE AMOUNT, UH, THIS LOOKS LIKE THE NUMBERS ARE ALREADY SUGGESTED, IS THE AMOUNT OF THE GOLD STANDARD IS CENTERED BASED UPON THE LEVEL OF, UM, OVERDOSES BECAUSE YES, SIR.
THE, THE GOLD STANDARD AMOUNT IS SOMETHING THAT'S PREDETERMINED BY THE OAA.
WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE NUMBERS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU KNEW IF IT WAS BASED UPON THE O IT IS, THERE'S, THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT GO INTO HOW, UM, HOW IT, IT'S BEEN DECIDED HOW MUCH EACH LOCALITY GETS AND, AND THAT, AND THAT IS A FACTOR.
WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON IT AT OUR NEXT, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
[REGULAR MEETING]
I'M GO AHEAD AND CALL OUR REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER.UH, CAN I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? MAYOR HERE.
AND SINCE, UH, COUNCILOR STOKES ISN'T HERE, UM, COUNCILOR DAY, WOULD YOU DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? MM-HMM
DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THE STAY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US.
WE THANK YOU FOR BRINGING EVERYBODY HERE SAFELY, SO THAT WAY WE MAY DO YOUR CITY'S BUSINESS.
AND WE PRAY, PRAY THAT YOU'LL BE WITH US AND IMPART WISDOM ON US AS WE MAKE DECISIONS GUIDING THE FUTURE OF THE CITY.
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES, AMERICA AND TO REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS ONE DAY UNDER GOD.
[CONSENT AGENDA (Part 2 of 2)]
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA? SO MOVED.MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR DAY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO LIGHTS? ROLL CALL PLEASE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE, UM, ADDITIONS OR THE AMENDMENTS AS, UH, PRESENTED EARLIER? SO, SO MOVE SECOND.
MOTIONS BEEN MADE BY COUNCILLOR HOLLOWAY AND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR JOYNER.
UH, SEEING NO LIGHTS FOR DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE.
ALRIGHT, COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS.
UM, MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU READ THE, UH, STATEMENT, PLEASE? COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS PERIOD.
AND TOTAL TIME TO 30 MINUTES IS PART OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AT EACH REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, ALL PERSONS ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL SHALL ENFORCE THE MICROPHONE, GIVE THEIR NAME AND IF THEY RESIDE IN HOPEFUL THEIR AWARD NUMBER AND LIMIT COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES, NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO SPEAK ON ANY FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE REGULAR AGENDA OF THE MEETING.
ALL REMARKS SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL.
AS A BODY, ANY QUESTION MUST BE ASKED THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
ANY PERSON WHO MAKES PERSONAL AND PERTINENT ABUSIVE OR SLANDERED STATEMENTS OR INSIGHTS, DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY BE BARRED BY THE MAYOR FROM FURTHER AUDIENCE UNTIL COUNSEL AND REMOVED, REMOVED SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO A MAJORITY OF COUNSEL.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TONIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
[PUBLIC HEARING]
PUBLIC HEARINGS.UH, MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE STATEMENT ALL PERSONS ADDRESSING? THE COUNCIL SHALL SETTLE TO THE MICROPHONE, USE THEIR NAME, AND IF
[00:40:01]
THEY RESIDE IN HOPE OF THEIR BOARD NUMBER AND LIMIT COMMENTS IN THREE MINUTES.NO ONE MAY ADDRESS THE COUNCIL MORE THAN ONCE PER MEETING UNLESS GRANTED PERMISSION BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
SPEAKERS ADDRESS THE COUNSEL AS THE BODY NOT INDIVIDUAL COUNSELORS.
QUESTIONS ARE ASKED OF COUNSELORS AND STAFF THAT ARE PRESIDING OFFICER.
ANY PERSON WHO MAKES PERSONAL AND PERTINENT ABUSIVE OR SLANDERED STATEMENTS OR INSIGHTS.
DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER MAY BE REPRIMANDED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND REMOVED FROM THE MEETING UPON A MAJORITY VOTE OF COUNSELORS PRESENT, EXCLUDING ANY COUNSELOR WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE MOTION? ZERO RULE 4 0 5 AND 4 0 6.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, TONIGHT'S FIRST PUBLIC HEARING REGARDS, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON NON-CONFORMING LOT PARCEL NUMBER 0 7 9 0 0 0 5 LOCATED ON CEDAR LANE.
THE APPLICANT IS MR. RILEY INGRAM, JR.
AT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN WARD ONE AND ZONED R ONE RESIDENTIAL LOAD DENSITY.
AND, UM, WE COMPLIED WITH ALL THE STATE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF, UH, ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLIC NOTICE.
THE MAP ON THE LEFT GIVES YOU A GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, AND THE MAP ON THE RIGHT GIVES YOU A CLOSER IN AERIAL VIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR CORNER LOT.
IT'S, UH, AT THE, ACTUALLY AT THE CORNER OF CEDAR LANE AND, UH, EAST BROADWAY MINIMUM LOT SIZES.
AND R ONE, UH, REQUIRES 80 FEET WIDE AND 12,000 SQUARE FEET.
THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS 82 FEET WIDE, BUT IT'S ONLY 9,430 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE NONCONFORMITY IS, IS IN THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
IT'S A THREE BEDROOM, TWO AND A HALF BATH.
UM, THIS PROPERTY, UH, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE WOULD BE 1,536 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS INDICATED THAT HE WOULD, UM, DO THE FIRST FLOOR FRONT FACADE IN, IN A BRICK MATERIAL, UH, BRICK FACADE.
HERE'S SOME FLOOR PLANS TO SHOW YOU OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE.
I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE, UH, BUT AGAIN, IT IS A TWO STORY, UH, STRUCTURE.
THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE, UH, STAFF BELIEVES, UH, IS A PRETTY GOOD ATTEMPT TO TRY TO BRIDGE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMES.
UH, THEY VARY ARCHITECTURALLY QUITE DIFFERENTLY FROM CEDAR LANE TO BROADWAY.
AND, UM, WE THINK IT'S A PRETTY GOOD ATTEMPT TO TRY TO BRIDGE THOSE TWO STYLES TOGETHER.
AND IT'S DOING IT IN TERMS OF MATERIALS, SCALE AND STYLE.
UH, THE AVERAGE SIZE OF DWELLINGS, UH, IN THAT IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA IS 1,553 SQUARE FEET.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE RIGHT THERE, RIGHT CLOSE TO THE AVERAGE SIZE.
AGAIN, THE CUP UH, THIS APPLICATION DOES MEET THE SEVEN CUP APPROVAL CRITERIA AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, UH, OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE, UH, PROPOSED DWELLING AS PRESENTED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THAT BRICK FACING ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
UH, THE FRONT FACADE, A DRIVEWAY OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT, AND THE, UH, DWELLING TO HAVE ROOF OVERHANGING EAVES ON ALL SIDES AND THAT THE APPLICANT WILL INSURE A TREE CANOPY OF AT LEAST 20% LOT COVERAGE.
UH, PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED WITH ALL THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND, UH, THEY DID ACTUALLY ADD THE, UM, CLARIFICATION OF THE MINIMUM OF 12 INCH EAVES ON ALL SIDES.
AND I ALSO ASK, UH, FOR YOU, I DID NOT HAVE THIS IN MY STAFF REPORT, BUT IT IS IN THE PRESENTATION, UH, JUST THE, UH, LETTER E THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE, UH, HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING.
ESSENTIALLY, UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
UH, PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL AGAIN, UH, FOUR TO ZERO AT THEIR JANUARY 9TH MEETING.
THE APPLICANT, MR. INGRAM IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR HIM, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER WHAT I CAN AS WELL.
UH, COUNCILOR HOLLOW, UM, A COUPLE THINGS.
THE, THE, I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, YOU SAID WAS HERE.
I WAS ABOUT TO SAY WHILE WERE THEY, UH, AWARE OF THAT EXTRA, UH, 12 INCH EVE PARK WAS THE APPLICANT AWARE OF IT, BUT YES, SIR.
AND THEN MY SECOND THING WAS, UM, THE, THE FACADE THAT IS REQUESTED, UH, IS REQUESTED TO GO ON THERE, BUT THAT, THAT'S NOT ACTUAL BRICK FACING.
[00:45:01]
SO IT'S JUST THE FACADE OF IT.WELL, IT WOULD BE, UM, WOULD IT BE REQUIRED FOR, YOU KNOW, AFTER A WHILE THE SIDINGS AND STUFF GO BAD AND THEN THEY CHANGE IT OUT.
SO IN FIRST BUILDING, UM, IT'S ON THERE, BUT WOULD IT BE A REQUIREMENT THAT WHEN THEY CHANGE IT, YOU KNOW, LATER ON IT GETS DESTROYED WHEN IT'S CHANGED? THAT WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BE AS SUCH, THE REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT BE A, NECESSARILY AN IN PERPETUITY TYPE REQUIREMENT.
SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT A FUTURE OWNER FROM SAY, COVERING THAT FACADE WITH VINYL.
UM, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? RIGHT.
WHICH THAT WASN'T, WOULDN'T MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE BECAUSE IT SEEMS AS IF, I THINK YOU READ SOMETHING SAYING THAT THAT WAS LIKE A REQUIRE A REQUEST FROM, IT'S A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
I'M ASKING FOR YOU ALL THIS EVENING.
THERE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMEONE FROM DOING THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY SOMEONE WOULD DO IT, BUT, RIGHT.
UM, I MEAN, WE JUST, I, I GUESS THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY THING.
UH, IF, IF, IF IT'S A CONDITION OF IMPROVEMENT THAT WE ARE APPROVING THAT IT MUST HAVE THAT BRICK FACADE THAT IF THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE, YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE LATER ON.
IF I MAY, IT, IT'S THE EASY BRICK ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, JUST ON THE, ON THE LOWER LEVEL.
AND THAT WAS TO TRY TO, UM, MATCH THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE STREET BECAUSE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE BRICK ALL THE WAY AROUND THEM, BUT JUST ON THE FRONT OF THE RIGHT.
SO THIS, THIS FACADE ISN'T LIKE THE, THE THE FAKE BRICKING? THIS IS NO SIR.
I JUST GOTTA GET THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO O WHAT WE, HE'S GOTTA TAKE US OUT OF THE OH YEAH.
UH, SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR LIKE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.
SEEING NO ONE PUBLIC HEARING'S NOW CLOSED.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UM, APPROVE THIS, UM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON NON-CONFORMING LOT PARCEL NUMBER OH SEVEN NINE DASH 0 0 5 LOCATED ON CEDAR LANE, UH, IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL OF THE, UM, UH, REQUESTS AND CONDITIONS.
I SECOND PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
MOTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY VICE MAYOR JOYNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO LIGHTS ROLL CALL PLEASE.
OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS EVENING'S SECOND PUBLIC HEARING REGARDS A ZONING AMENDMENT REQUEST TO ADD MUNICIPAL FACILITY TO THE C ONE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
IN LIKEWISE TO ADD THE DEFINITION FOR A MUNICIPAL FACILITY TO ARTICLE ONE DEFINITIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT HERE, UH, ACTUALLY THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WAS INITIATED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL.
UM, THE C ONE DISTRICTS ARE LOCATED, UH, PRIMARILY IN WARD TWO.
AND BY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE, UH, WE'LL BE ALLOWING MUNICIPAL FAC MUNICIPAL FACILITY TO THE C ONE DISTRICT WHERE MUNICIPAL UTILITY ALREADY EXISTS.
UH, AGAIN, UH, ALL ADVERTISEMENTS WERE PLACED, UH, PROPERLY IN THE NEWSPAPER.
SO JUST AS A REMINDER, WHENEVER AMENDING, UH, ALLOWABLE USE TO AN ORDINANCE THAT THAT USE IS PERMISSIBLE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DISTRICT UNLESS OTHERWISE RESTRICTED.
UM, THE TWO C ONE AREAS OF THE CITY ARE, ARE CIRCLED IN BLUE HERE.
UM, THE NORTHEASTERN CIRCLE IS THE CITY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
AND THE CIRCLE ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS THE FORMER LANDFILL, UH, WHICH IS A DECOMMISSIONED LANDFILL, UH, FOR THE CITY.
AGAIN, THIS, THIS MAP HERE IS SHOWING YOU THE SAME LOCATIONS WITH SOME DESCRIPTIONS.
[00:50:01]
ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE IS OUR ACTIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.AND THEN THE SOUTHERN CIRCLE IS THE DECOMMISSION.
IT'S A DECOMMISSIONED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ALONG WITH A DECOMMISSIONED MUNICIPAL
UH, THESE TWO DISTRICTS ALREADY HAVE MUNICIPAL UTILITIES, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WHICH IS AN ALLOWABLE USE.
UM, BUT IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE MUNICIPAL FACILITY.
THESE AREAS ARE MOSTLY, UH, EITHER BROWN FIELDS OR THEY'RE FLOODPLAIN OR THEY'RE RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA.
AND ANY SORT OF DEVELOPABLE AREA WITHIN THE C ONE IS EXTREMELY SMALL.
UM, THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER, UH, BECAUSE THIS IS A C ONE DISTRICT WILL ALL BE PRESERVED.
YOU MAY REMEMBER THE REASON FOR ADDING THIS USE IS SO THIS CITY CAN CONSTRUCT IT A NEW BURN BUILDING, AND IT WOULD BE JUST DUE EAST OF THE DECOMMISSIONED LANDFILL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO ADD MUNICIPAL FACILITIES TO SECTION A OF ARTICLE 15 B.
AND AS AN ALLOWABLE USE TO AMEND ARTICLE ONE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION FOR MUNICIPAL FACILITIES PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, AGREED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND, UH, I'M HERE TO ASK, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
AND, UH, FIRE CHIEF IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BURN BUILDING ITSELF.
UH, COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT I HAD BROUGHT TO COUNCIL, UM, AFTER I HAD MET WITH THE POLICE CHIEF EARLY ON, UH, IN MY SITTING ON COUNCIL, UH, AND TO SUPPORT TO BRING THIS, UH, FIRM BUILDING HERE.
THE, UH, THE GRANT FUNDINGS AND THINGS THAT THE CITY WAS GOING AFTER CHIEF HAS THAT ALL BEEN APPROVED AND EVERYTHING IS IN TAKEN IN LINE TO GO FORWARD FOR FIRM BUILDING.
AND ALSO, UM, IF, IF SO, UH, WE, WE DISCUSSED TALKING ABOUT HAVING, UM, AUTO LOCALITIES PARTICIPATE EITHER IN THE FUNDING OF IT OR, UM, EITHER HOPEWELL FUNDING AND HOPEWELL CHARGING OTHER LOCALITIES TO PARTICIPATE.
CAN YOU GIVE US UPDATED INFORMATION? SURE.
SO WE, WE DID RECEIVE, UM, THE STATE FUNDING.
SO WE RECEIVED $480,000 WORTH OF, OF GRANT FUNDING, UM, FOR THE PROJECT.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, COUNCIL ALREADY APPROVED THE 160,000 IN MATCH FUNDING THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR THAT GRANT.
UM, SO WE, WE HAVE ALL THAT FUNDING ALREADY.
UH, I HAVE ALSO SENT OUT LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO, UH, THE OTHER FIRE CHIEFS IN THE TRI-CITIES THAT DID THAT, UM, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET SEASON, UM, TO HOPEFULLY GET THEM TO ALSO PUT IN ON THE PROJECT AS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT ON THE FRONT END.
UM, AND THOSE WHO DO, WE CERTAINLY WOULD ALLOW THEM TO USE THE FACILITY WITHOUT ANY CHARGE.
AND WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT, UH, WHAT CHARGES WE MIGHT, UM, UM, IF ANY, YOU KNOW, IF WE WOULD CHARGE THEM FOR USE OF THE FACILITY.
SO, YOU KNOW WHAT? I JUST THOUGHT ABOUT SOMETHING AND I, I GUESS I WOULD REFER TO THE MAYOR IF HE REMEMBERS OR SOMEBODY ELSE.
I THINK WE, WE, UH, APPROVED THAT 160,000 FROM THE GENERAL BUDGET.
BUT THEN I, AS I'M THINKING ABOUT IT NOW, I THINK WE ADDITIONALLY, UH, APPROVED THE REMAINDER OF THE FUNDING THROUGH THE AQUA FUNDS.
I THINK WE, I THINK WE APPROVE THOSE FUNDS NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT.
REMEMBER WE HAD THE REMAINING OF THOSE FUNDS LEFT AND WE APPROVED LIKE 500, 600,000 FOR AT NIGHT, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE, UH, THE SWEET, UH, STREET SWEEPER.
AND I THINK I REQUESTED FOR THE REMAINING OF THE FUNDS TO COME THROUGH HARPER'S.
WE MIGHT MIGHT NEED TO CHECK INTO THAT.
SO THE 160,000 THAT THE MATCHING PORTION DID COME FROM THE A FUNDS, THE MATCHING PORTION? YES.
THE 160,000 THAT THE CITY PUT INTO THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED IS FOR MATCHING FUNDS THAT DID COME FROM HARBOR FUNDING.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR THIS.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE THE, UH, REQUEST TO ADD MUNICIPAL FACILITIES TO THE C ONE DISTRICT ARTICLE 15 DASH B UH, TO THE DEFINITION OF ARTICLE ONE AS PRESENTED? SO I WILL, UH, ONE MORE QUESTION.
UM, THERE, UM, THIS MIGHT BE TWO SEPARATE SUBJECT MATTERS, BUT IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL SALARIES SAVING AND THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM OTHER LOCALITIES, ARE WE ABLE TO,
[00:55:01]
UH, APPROVE THOSE FUNDINGS? 'CAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE PROCESS TO BE HELD UP IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO.SO THAT'S ONE THING THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE COMING BACK TO US EITHER AT OUR FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OR THIS NEXT MEETING, IS THE REAPPROPRIATION MIDYEAR RE APPROPRIATIONS.
THEY CAN'T USE THE FACILITY IF THEY DIDN'T PAY? NO, NO, I'M SAYING NO.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT SALARY SAVINGS.
SO WHAT THE THING WAS, WAS TO GO OUT TO OTHER CITIES TO ASK THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE, UM, FUNDING OF THE BURN BUILDING.
BUT IF THEY DON'T PARTICIPATE IN FUNDING IT, THEN WE WOULD REQUEST, UM, FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY COME IN AND USE THE FACILITY TO CHARGE THEM.
AM I CORRECT THAT IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE DIRECTION MM-HMM
BUT I WAS SAYING IF THEY CAN'T GO OUT AND, AND GET ANY OTHER LOCALITIES PROBABLY WON'T BE A ISSUE.
BUT IF THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY OTHER LOCALITIES PARTICIPATE IN FUNDING, I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT, UH, WE WOULD GO BACK AND REAPPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS TO THEM SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO HOLD UP ON THE BURN BILL.
YEAH, WE CAN BRING THAT BACK UP WITH THE, UM, MIDYEAR APPROPRIATION.
SO, UH, DO I HAVE SOMEONE FOR THE MOTION? YES.
MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR HARRIS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.
UH, MR. KAYLA, ARE YOU ONLINE? YEAH, HE WAS, YEAH, HE SAID HE WAS CALLING.
I THINK HE SAID SOMETHING THAT WAS MESSAGED ME OR SOMETHING.
OR YOU TO MESSAGE HIM? WELL, SHE CALLED.
HE, I SAID TO CALL HIM DURING THE TIME, WANTED HIM TO COME.
I THOUGHT, OH, I THOUGHT HE WAS JUST COMING ONLINE AT SEVEN 30 JUST WAITING FOR US.
NO, HE SAID 'CAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS LONG.
[REGULAR BUSINESS]
UH, MOVING ON TO R ONE.UH, MR. KAYLA, I MIGHT HAVE TO CALL MR. KAYLA.
CAN YOU HEAR US? I, I CAN NOW.
COULDN'T, UH, FOR ABOUT 15 SECONDS, SO I MISSED WHATEVER YOU SAID.
CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A QUICK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY? YOU'RE ASKING ME? YEAH, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID IN EXECUTIVE.
UH, WE'RE ON THE ITEM OF BUSINESS FOR YOU.
THE, UH, THE REPEAL OF THE RECENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY.
YEAH, JUST, JUST A QUICK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
UM, I, UM, PREPARED, UH, THE RESOLUTION, UH, AND IT TRACKS THE HISTORY OF THIS MATTER SINCE THE, UH, INITIAL, UH, RESOLUTION WAS PASSED, RESOLUTION 9.8, UH, THAT WOULD LIMIT A EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY WHO HAPPENS TO BE A CITY COUNSELOR, UH, FROM VOTING ON ALL PERSONNEL ISSUES, UH, RELATED TO EMPLOYEES OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE EMPLOYEES OF CITY COUNCIL BEING, UH, JUST THREE, THE, UM, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY AND, UH, THE CITY CLERK.
AND THE ORIGINAL, UH, POLICY NUMBER 9.8 CITED AS AUTHORITY FOR THAT PROPOSITION.
A VIRGINIA CODE SECTION, UM, THAT ADDRESSES, UH, POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, UH, INVOLVING POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND THE LIKE, BUT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS VOTING ON CITY COUNCIL, UH, WHICH IS WHAT THE, UH, POLICY 9.8 PURPORTED, UH, TO REGULATE.
AND THEN, UH, THE POLICY NUMBER 9.8 CITED THE CITY CHARTER CHAPTER FOUR, SECTION SIX, FOR AUTHORITY TO LIMIT THE CITY COUNSELOR SLASH CITY EMPLOYEE FROM VOTING ON THE CITY'S BUDGET, PAY RAISES AND HEALTH INSURANCE AMONG OTHER THINGS.
BUT THAT, UH, CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE CITY CODE, UM, DOES NOT, UH, RISE
[01:00:01]
THAT FAR, BUT IT LIMITS A CITY COUNSELOR FROM VOTING, UH, ON ITEMS IN WHICH, UH, HE HAS A, UH, FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A MINORITY STOCKHOLDER OF A CORPORATION OR AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY.SO THE BOTTOM LINE WAS THAT THE POLICY NUMBER 9.8, UM, WAS NOT BASED UPON THE AUTHORITY THAT IT PURPORTED TO BE BASED UPON.
AND CITY COUNCIL EARLIER IN JANUARY ATTEMPTED TO REPEAL THE POLICY, UM, AND, UH, THE MEETING HAD TO BE RESCHEDULED DUE TO A CERTIFICATION ISSUE REGARDING THE CLOSED SESSION.
IT WAS BACK ON THE AGENDA JANUARY 16TH, UM, FOR ANOTHER VOTE.
BUT COUNSEL DID NOT VOTE AT THAT TIME, UH, TO REPEAL THE POLICY NUMBER 9.8 AND THUS WE'RE BACK TONIGHT WITH A RESOLUTION THAT DESCRIBES IN EVEN MORE DETAIL THAN I JUST SAID.
UM, THE PROCESS THAT HAS OCCURRED SO FAR AND IF, UM, ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL, UH, IN FACT REPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY, UH, POLICY NUMBER 9.8, LEAVING COUNCIL TO DEAL WITH ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST UNDER EXISTING STATE LAW, THE VIRGINIA, UH, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ACT, UH, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
AND ALSO ALLOWING COUNSEL IF IT WISHES TO, UM, AMEND, REVISE, OR MODIFY ITS RULES.
IT CAN CERTAINLY, UM, DO OTHER THINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHICS POLICY THAT COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED AND HAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE PAST.
COUNCIL IS STILL FREE TO MAKE REVISIONS TO THAT, BUT WITH RESPECT TO VOTING BY THE CITY COUNSELORS WHO HAPPEN TO BE CITY EMPLOYEES, UM, THAT CANNOT BE BY THIS POLICY 9.8, BUT MUST BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS UNDER THE VIRGINIA CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ACT.
UH, COUNCILOR HOLLOWAY, UH, THE, THE, UH, ATTORNEY KEEPS REFERRING TO THE PHARMACY.
I KNOW WE HAD A RESOLUTION IN PLACE AND ALSO A ORDINANCE.
WHAT, WHICH PARTICULARLY IS THIS SPECIFICALLY, UH, REFERRING TO THE ORDINANCE OR THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION THAT WE PUT IN FOR THE CONFLICT? THIS IS JUST THE POLICY.
THIS IS THE ONE WHERE, UH, UH, WE VOTED, WELL COUNSEL VOTED ON IT IN DECEMBER AND NO PUBLIC HEARING.
THE ORDINANCE IS STILL TECHNICALLY ON THE BOOK.
SO WE, UM, MUCH MORE LIKE THE ATTORNEY HAD STATED, UH, IN, IN, AFTER DISCUSSING THIS MATTER IN CLOSED SESSION IN REGARDS TO THE POLICY THAT, UM, THAT, THAT IS GOVERNED HERE, THAT THE, UH, CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT STILL, UH, IS IN FULL EFFECT, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, I, I BELIEVE MOST OF COUNSEL HAS AGREED TO, UH, RESCINDED OR RESCINDED OR, UH, RESCIND THIS POLICY.
AND, UM, I THINK WE VOTED ON, AND I FORGET EXACTLY WHAT WE NAMED IT, BUT TO, UM, HAVE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BOARD, I BELIEVE IT IS COME FROM THE STATE AND HAVE A MEETING, UM, TO DISCUSS, UH, ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
BUT, UM, I WOULD NOT HAVE IN ANY MANNER VOTED TO RESCIND THIS.
BUT AFTER, UH, THOROUGHLY GETTING INFORMATION FROM THE ATTORNEY.
AND MR. UH, CARLOS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF THE CLARIFICATIONS RECEIVED.
UM, AND I'M, I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIFICALLY RESENDING THE, UH, RESOLUTION THAT WE'VE MADE FOR DECEMBER'S MEETING, BUT, UH, NOT, UH, A CHANGE OF THE ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR, UH, WORK ON THIS.
SO, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION RESCINDING POLICY NUMBER 9.8, LIMITING ACTIONS OF CITY EMPLOYEES ELECTED TO CITY COUNCIL BEYOND LIMITATIONS UNDER THE CITY CHARTER AND OTHER LAW AS PRESENTED? SO MOVED.
MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY VICE MAYOR JOINER AND SECONDED BY, UH, COUNCILLOR HOLLOWAY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO LIGHTS ROLL CALL PLEASE.
COUNCILOR OS OR IS YOU ABSTAINED? YES.
[01:05:01]
UH, CCR ONE, UH, COUNCILOR HOLLOWING.UH, I WAS REQUESTING SPECIFICALLY FOR THERE TO BE A, UM, FUTURE HEARING MADE, UH, REGARDING THIS MATTER.
RE RECENTLY, UH, RECENTLY IN, IN THERE WAS A VOTE TO KILL A HOUSE BILL, UH, 2283 THAT OCCURRED WITH, UH, THAT WAS LISTED IN THE PAPER, UH, FIVE TO THREE VOTING FOR, UM, A REQUEST TO, TO CHANGE OUR CHARTER, UM, TO HAVE TWO EMPLOYEES MOVE FROM OF, UM, THE CITY TREASURER'S OFFICE UP TO FINANCE TO FINANCE, WHICH THE CITY HAS ALREADY CREATED AN, AN ORDINANCE AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WE HAD, UM, THAT ORDINANCE RESCINDED BECAUSE ACCORDING TO PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS OF COURT AND, UM, COUNSEL STATEMENT AND, UH, OPINIONS GIVEN BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UM, AND LETTERS GIVEN BY, UM, DELICATE COS THAT THE DYLAN RULE APPLIES.
UM, AND IN SUCH MANNER THE DYLAN RULE APPLIES HERE, THAT THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT IN OUR CHARTER, UM, THAT GIVES LANGUAGE TO BE ABLE, WHICH IS WHY, UM, THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM, UH, A REQUEST TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, UM, TO GIVE A BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CHANGE OF THE TWO STAFF MEMBERS THAT WE REMOVED FROM THE TREASURER'S DUTIES, WHICH IS GIVEN TO THE TREASURER'S OFFICE BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.
AND, UM, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE PUBLICLY THAT THE CITIZENS ARE AWARE OF THIS AND THAT WE NEED TO STAND TO HAVE THAT ORDINANCE, UH, RESCINDED, UM, ON THE, ON THE SAME MERITS THAT THE DYLAN RULE, UM, SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIES THAT, UH, THE CHARTER HAS TO INCLUDE VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND ORDER FOR THAT ORDINANCE TO HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT.
SO, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THAT ORDINANCE WOULD NEED TO BE REPEALED AND THE HOUSE MEMBERS GAVE COMMENT THAT THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH REMOVING THE, UM, OR, OR PROVING THE BILL AND REMOVING, UM, WHAT HAS BY THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE CONSTITUTION DUTIES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS.
UM, SO WHERE DO WE STAND? UM, AND WHAT WILL NEED TO BE THE NEXT STEP, MR. ATTORNEY, IN REGARDS TO GETTING, SO THE NEXT STEPS, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S ALSO, THERE'S, THERE'S BOTH A ORDINANCE AND A RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THE SAME DATE THAT GO TOGETHER.
I THINK IF COUNSEL WERE OF A MIND TO RESCIND THE ORDINANCE, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT THE RESOLUTION WOULD BE RESCINDED EITHER TOGETHER OR, OR, OR NOT AT ALL.
UH, BUT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THAT, UH, COUNSEL SHOULD VOTE TO NOTICE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR EITHER FEBRUARY 25TH OR SOME OTHER MEETING, UH, AT WHICH, OR AFTER WHICH COUNSEL COULD VOTE ON WHETHER TO REPEAL THE ORDINANCE IN THE RESOLUTION OR NOT.
AND WHAT DO WE STAND, UM, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, SEEING THAT THE ASSEMBLY IS CONFIRMED, THAT, UH, IT IS NOT OF OUR PURVIEW, UH, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT ORDINANCE IN PLACE.
WHAT, WHAT DIRECTION ARE WE TO THE, THE ORDINANCE ON ITS FACE REQUESTS THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, UH, MAKE A CHANGE TO THE CITY'S CHARTER? WHAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS DONE IS, IS PASSED IT BY AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT FURTHER IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY THIS YEAR.
SO, SO THE, THE THING I CAN TELL YOU, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'LL HAPPEN, WHAT COULD HAPPEN NEXT YEAR, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THIS YEAR, THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION, UH, GENERAL ASSEMBLY WILL NOT CONSIDER CHANGING THE CITY'S, UH, CHARTER.
RIGHT? SO THE RESOLUTION, WHICH WOULD BE SEPARATE, THE RESOLUTION THAT ENACTED, UM, AND THE ORDINANCE GIVEN 'CAUSE WE HAD, UH, TAKEN THIS UP AND CLOSED SESSION, AND THEN PUBLICLY, UH, THAT CURRENTLY HAS THE TWO PERSONS UNDER FINANCE, WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL MOVE.
SO THAT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL DEPEND ON WHETHER,
[01:10:01]
WHETHER COUNSEL WANTS TO KEEP THAT RESOLUTION IN PLACE.BUT THE RESOLUTION ON ITS FACE SAYS THAT IT'S, ITS INTENTION IS THAT THAT RESOLUTION IS OPERATED UNDER WHILE COUNSEL IS WAITING ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DECIDE ON WHETHER TO, WHETHER TO, TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER OR NOT.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW WHAT IS THE, THE SITUATION OF THOSE TWO EMPLOYEES? SO THEN IF WE WAS THIS RESOLUTION THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PUT INTO PLACE, WE PUT IN AN EMERGENCY, WELL, I DON'T EVEN THINK WE FACED IT AS AN EMERGENCY ORDER ORDINANCE, BUT ACCORDING TO OUR CHARTER, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE SINCE IT HAD TAKEN PLACE UNDER 30 DAYS.
UM, SO, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE RESOLUTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONE THAT, THAT MOVES, MOVES THE DUTIES OF, OF THOSE TWO OFFICERS FROM THE TREASURER.
SO SINCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DID NOT AS IT BASICALLY RECANT 'CAUSE YOU SAID UNTIL, UH, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAD MADE A MOVE ON IT.
SO RIGHT NOW THOSE DUTIES HAVE TO BE PLACED BACK IN THE CHURCH'S OFFICE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I GOING, I THINK PART, PART OF THE REASON, I, I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, COUNSELOR HOLLOWAY.
UM, PART OF THE REASON WHY I THINK IF THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO TAKE UP THE QUESTION OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT IT SHOULD ALSO TAKE UP THE QUESTION OF THE RESOLUTION IS BECAUSE FRANKLY, THE, THE, THE FATE OF THE RESOLUTION IN THIS CASE WHERE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PASSED BY, UH, THE, THE ACTIVITY IS UNCLEAR.
UM, I, I THINK, I THINK WHETHER, WHETHER THE RESOLUTION CAN SURVIVE THE END OF THE ORDINANCE IS, IS, IS NOT CLEAR.
UM, AND I, SO I THINK IF COUNCIL IS INCLINED TO CONTINUE THE RESOLUTION OR SOMETHING LIKE IT ACHIEVING THE SAME THING, THEN I THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD, UH, CONSIDER ADOPTING A, A NEW AND DIFFERENT RESOLUTION.
SO AS OF NOW, AS IT STANDS THAT THEY, THEY MUST RETURN BACK TO THE, UH, TREASURER'S OFFICE AND, AND CAN WE ADOPT, IF THE STATE, UH, GOVERNS AND THE LAWS SAY THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, IS GIVEN AND RIGHTLY GIVEN TO THE TREASURER'S OFFICE, HOW CAN WE TAKE AWAY THE DUTY? AND THAT WAS BOTH THE COMMENTS OF THE, UH, SURE.
SO IN THE HOPEWELL CITY CHARTER, AND I'M SORRY I PERHAPS INTERRUPTED YOU AGAIN.
I NO, YOU'RE, YOU DIDN'T, UM, IN THE HOPEWELL CITY CHARTER, THE TREASURER HAS TWO BROAD BUCKETS OF DUTIES.
THE FIRST ARE THE DUTIES THAT ARE, THAT ARE, UH, APPLIED BY STATUTE, UH, THAT SAY THE, THE VIRGINIA CODE.
AND THOSE UNDER, UNDER THE AG OPINIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THOSE CAN'T BE VARIED.
UH, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER BUCKET OF DUTIES THAT THE TREASURER CAN HAVE.
AND THAT IS DUTIES AS ASSIGNED BY CITY COUNCIL.
AND THAT, THAT CAN BE, SO BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF HER STATUTORY DUTIES, RIGHT.
UH, ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS UP TO CITY COUNCIL TO ASSIGN DUTIES.
UH, SO THE, UH, ONE THING THAT I HAD NOTICED, I, I HAD, UH, GOT WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND HAD TOLD HER ABOUT IT.
THERE'S A LIST OF THINGS, UM, THAT WHICH, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY ISN'T THE COUNCIL'S FAULT ACTUALLY, BECAUSE, UH, I BELIEVE MYSELF AND THE MATTER OF FACT, THE MAYOR HAD GIVEN SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER, UM, AND I BELIEVE FINANCE TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THE DUTIES THAT WERE GIVEN BY STATE LAW WERE NOT TAKEN FROM THE TREASURER'S OFFICE.
AND THEN THE ONES THAT COULD BE, UM, TO BE CHANGED.
BUT AS THE EMAIL HAD COME OUT AND I LOOKED OVER THE LIST OF DUTIES AND COMPARED THEM TO THE STATE STATUTE, UM, I SPOKE WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND REPLIED BY EMAIL TO SAY, HEY, THERE ARE STILL SOME THINGS THAT ARE LISTED HERE THAT DUTIES THAT Y'ALL HAD TAKEN AWAY AND TAKEN UPSTAIRS THAT WAS GIVEN BY STATUTE MM-HMM
AND SO, UH, SOME OF THOSE THINGS, UM, DEFINITELY NEED TO BE, UM, WEIGHED IN ON VERY SPECIFICALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE, UH, THOSE DUTIES ARE NOT BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THIS NOT, I UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN, EVEN BEFORE THESE RECENT EVENTS, UH, THERE HAD BEEN LIKE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE AND THAT THERE MAY BE SORT OF THE SLOW ACCRETION OF DIFFERENT DUTIES BEING GIVEN AND TAKEN AWAY.
SO MY, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A FRESH NEW, THE, THE TERM I'M, I'M REACHING FOR IS ONE
[01:15:01]
STOP SHOP, JUST A, A SINGLE PLACE WHERE CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNS ANY OTHER BEYOND STATUTORY DUTIES, UM, TO THE, TO THE TREASURER'S OFFICE, RATHER THAN HAVING THIS QUESTION OF WHAT MIGHT EXIST OUT THERE IN THE PAST.UM, AND AS FAR AS THE STATUTORY DUTIES, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS THAT, THAT IT REMOVING A DUTY THAT IS ACTUALLY STATUTORY FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER'S PURVIEW IS, IS JUST INEFFECTIVE.
SO I I WOULD, I DON'T KNOW IF WE MOVE NOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO, TO, TO MOVE THAT THAT WE CREATE AND ADOPT.
I THINK WE NEED TO, UH, DEFINITELY CREATE A NEW RESOLUTION, UM, A CORRECTED ONE 'CAUSE IT WITH THE ATTORNEY, UH, INVOLVED TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN ALL THE THINGS ILLEGAL.
'CAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE MUTE ACCORDING TO THE ATTORNEY AND GENERAL'S OPINION.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE, UM, THE CURRENT, UH, UH, RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE IS, IS EVERYTHING THAT WAS ADOPTED IN IS JUST NOT CORRECT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND, UM, CORRECT IN A RESOLUTION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING LINED UP.
AND, AND AS THE MAYOR HAS STATED BEFORE, TO MAKE SURE THE DUTIES THAT WE CAN TAKE AWAY OR, OR PUT IN FINANCE THAT WE CAN.
BUT THE ONES THAT ARE NOT, UH, WE NEED, WE NEED NOT TO TOUCH IT.
BUT RIGHT NOW, AGAIN, FOR CLARIFICATION, I, I'VE RECEIVED THAT THOSE TWO PERSONS, ACCORDING TO OUR RE OUR CURRENT RESOLUTION ARE, UH, SHOULD NOT BE UNDER FINANCE.
BUT ACCORDING TO OUR RESOLUTION, THEY NEED TO RETURN TO THE TREASURER'S OFFICE.
UH, COUNCILOR JORDAN, DO YOU MIND IF I SAY SOMETHING BEFORE YOU DO? NOT AT ALL.
UM, SO OUR LOBBYISTS ARE MEETING WITH THE TREASURER'S ASSOCIATION TO TALK ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO BRING US BACK SOMETHING ONCE THEY FINISH, IRONING OUT ALL THE DETAILS.
BUT FROM THE MEETING THAT, UH, WAS HAD THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY AGREE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, UNTIL, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET A CHARTER CHANGED AND, YOU KNOW, AN ORDINANCE THAT STATES THESE SPECIFIC OR JUST EVEN IF IT'S THE RENEWAL.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN PLACE GOES INTO, WE'RE TAKING THE STUFF THAT'S CITY RELATED AND WE'RE PUTTING THAT OVER IN FINANCE.
BUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES, SHE STILL HAS.
BUT ONCE THEY IRON ALL THAT OUT, THEN WE CAN BRING THAT BACK.
WELL, THAT, THAT WAS MY CONCERN.
UM, I, I DON'T HAVE THE LIST OF THINGS, BUT WE ALL RECEIVED THE EMAIL.
MAKER IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THE VERY LIST OF THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT AND WE DISCUSSED IN THE BACK WAS ONE THING.
BUT THERE WAS SOME THINGS, AND DR.
MAKER, HER EXPLANATION WAS THERE WAS SOME THINGS THAT, THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE MOU AND SOME THINGS THAT WE DID NOT APPROVE, APPROVE IN CLOSED SESSION THAT THEY HAD JUST TAKEN UPON THEMSELVES TO LIST.
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S BETTER FOR, UM, DBS TO COME BACK WITH US TO WHAT IS IRONED OUT BETWEEN ALL THE PARTIES.
SO, SO WHERE, WHERE ARE WE STANDING RIGHT NOW? IT, IT, WE HAVE TO ADOPT SOME TYPE OF RESOLUTION BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO STAY ON THE FINANCE ACCORDING TO OUR CARING ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION.
SO WE NEED TO CREATE, WE NEED A MOVE TO CREATE A, A NEW RESOLUTION A NIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STAND, I MEAN, TO, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION.
I MEAN, TO, UM, TO THE PART THAT HE SUGGESTED TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION SO THAT IT CAN STAND IN EFFECT.
'CAUSE HE SAID IT'S ONLY IN EFFECT UNTIL UP.
THAT'S WHAT THE GROUP IS DOING.
AND THEY'RE GONNA BRING IT BACK TO US ONCE THEY'VE IRONED IT OUT BETWEEN THE TREASURER'S ASSOCIATION AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE CITY STANCE IS.
THAT STILL DOESN'T, UH, ALLOW US TO KEEP THOSE TWO PERSONS INSIDE OF THAT, UH, INSIDE OF FINANCE RIGHT NOW.
'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE AS OF RIGHT NOW.
SO IT'S BASICALLY MUTE ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE.
THEM BEING IN, IN FINANCE IS NOT IN TREASURER'S MUTE AT THE MOMENT ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE.
I MEAN, I'LL MAKE A MO I MEAN, I CAN'T DO IT, BUT I MEAN, I'LL CALL A MOTION, YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP THE TWO EMPLOYEES OVER IN FINANCE.
I MEAN, IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK, I THINK WE'RE, LIKE I SAID, YOU'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, BUT YEAH.
NO, I, WELL, THAT'S MY PROB THAT'S MY COUNSEL JOINER.
I GOT A QUESTION, BUT THE, WITH THE MOU MM-HMM
UM, IS THE MOU STILL IN EFFECT AS FAR AS KNOW? I, I WILL CONFESS, I'VE, I'VE ONLY
[01:20:01]
JUST LEARNED ABOUT ITS EXISTENCE AND I'M, I'M IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO TURN IT UP.I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHY I THINK FINDING THAT MOU FINDING THESE OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY BE VALUABLE IN TERMS OF DEFINING THE HISTORY OF, OF WHAT THE, THE SEPARATION OF DUTIES IS.
BUT IT'S PART OF WHY I THINK IT'S CRUCIAL THAT WHEN COUNSEL CONSIDERS A, A NEW RESOLUTION THAT IT BE IN THE FORM OF, OF WIPING ALL PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS AND BEING A SINGLE, WELL, THE MOUI WOULDN'T TAKE IN AS AN EFFECT BECAUSE THE TREASURER SPECIFICALLY TOLD US IN CLOSED SESSION THAT, UH, SHE IS NO LONGER AGREED TO THE MOU.
AND SO UNLESS THE MOU SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIES THAT IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING WRITTEN, THEN AS IT STANDS, THE MOU ISN'T IN, IN PLACE OR EFFECTIVE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S NOTHING IN MOU THAT SAYS SOMETHING SHE HAS, WELL, MAYBE IT IS AT THE END, BUT I I I, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE END TO SEE IF IT HAD TO BE WRITTEN, UH, RIGHT OUT.
OR IF IT COULD JUST BE VERBALLY.
BUT I KNOW VERBALLY SHE COULDN'T, UH, SAY SHE, SHE DIDN'T WANT TO.
I MEAN, I, I, AND I THINK, I THINK THERE ARE SOME VALID POINTS THAT YOU RAISE.
I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DO, WE, WE'VE GOT TO DO THE RIGHT THINGS FOR THE RIGHT REASONS, AND WE'VE GOT TO DO THINGS, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THESE OPINIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RENDERED AND, AND WHAT WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT OBVIOUSLY THE AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER, YOU KNOW, DID NOT PASS.
UM, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT MAYBE WE, WE DIRECT OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK TO US IN TWO WEEKS WHERE WE, WHERE WE GO ON THIS.
UH, WELL, MY CONCERN IS NOW, AS HE HAS ALREADY GIVEN DIRECTION, IS THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES, ACCORDING TO THAT RESOLUTION, AREN'T TO BE IN FINES UNLESS, UH, BUT UNLESS WE, UNLESS THIS MOU IS STILL IN PLACE AND HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, INVALID BY JUST A VERBAL COMMENT.
SO CAN YOU, CAN YOU GET THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT, ON THAT MOU TO SEE IF, UH, THE TREASURER HAD TO HAVE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO, UM, TO PUT OUT THE MOU? OR IS IT YEAH, I, I, I APOLOGIZE, COUNSELORS.
I, I'M AT A DISADVANTAGE HERE.
I HAVEN'T UNDERSTAND, I HAVEN'T READ IT YET.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING BACK LATER.
UM, BUT I THINK PROCEDURALLY, I, I, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MAKES PERFECT.
THAT'S IN TERMS OF CONSIDERING PERHAPS SOMETHING NEW IN, IN TWO WEEKS, ASSUMING THAT MM-HMM
UH, I, WITH THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CAN, CAN WORK OUT SOMETHING TO PROPOSE.
UH, BUT PROCEDURALLY FOR THE ORDINANCE AND THE RESOLUTION THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, UM, HAS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE HAS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FOR SEVEN DAYS.
SO THAT CAN BE TAKEN UP AT THE NEXT MEETING.
BUT THE, BUT THE ACTION THAT COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO TAKE NOW WOULD BE TO VOTE TO, UH, TO PUBLISH A PUBLIC AD TO PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY.
SO MOVE AS STATED, UH, LIKE TO MOVE IT, UH, OKAY.
TO RENDER AS STATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
AND THIS IS FOR THE, UM, FOR THE ORDINANCE AND FOR THE RESOLUTION THAT DBS AND THE TREASURER'S ASSOCIATION IS WORKING TOGETHER ON.
TOO, FOR THEM, FOR THE ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK.
I, THE, THE ORDINANCE AND THE RESOLUTION YOU'RE REFERRING TO ARE THE ONES THAT WERE ADOPTED, I BELIEVE, ON 19TH.
I'M TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING THE RESOLUTION AND THE ORDINANCE THAT IS BEING HAMMERED OUT BETWEEN THE TWO, BETWEEN THESE PARTIES THAT MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLEAR DELINEATION BETWEEN THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M REQUESTING.
BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN CLARITY.
THE CLARITY AND CLEAR BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED IS LAW THAT THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW DICTATES THEIR POSITION ON IN FINANCE.
AND ACCORDING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, HE SPECIFIED THAT THE RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, WE AIN'T GOT TO WAIT FOR ANYBODY TO COME BACK WITH ANY INFORMATION BECAUSE HE'S GAVE, HE'S GIVEN CLARITY TONIGHT ALREADY IN REGARDS TO, THEY DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL, UH, CAPACITY TO STAY IN FINANCE UNLESS THAT MOU IS IN PLACE.
SO I, WHAT WE'RE COUNSEL, WE'RE, I MEAN, WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THOSE EMPLOYEES AND PUT THEM INTO FINANCE.
UH, SORRY, I, I APOLOGIZE ON, ON THAT QUESTION.
WHETHER, WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES CAN BE MOVED.
I, I, I, I WILL CONFESS, I'M, I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT
[01:25:01]
IS SOMETHING THAT IS TIED UP IN THE TREASURER'S DUTIES AS, AS GIVEN BY STATUTE.I, I'M, I I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THAT YET.
ALL I, ALL I AM SAYING, UH, AND, AND COUNCILLOR HOLLOWAY IS, IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ON, IS THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT A DUTY IS GIVEN BY STATUTE TO A TREASURER, WE CAN'T VARY IT.
BUT IF THE CHARTER STATES THAT THERE ARE CITY, THERE'S A, LIKE YOU SAID, A BUCKET OF CITY DUTIES, THAT AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN HER, WE CAN TAKE THOSE AWAY.
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT.
UM, WHETHER ANY GIVEN ACTION IN THAT RESOLUTION FALLS INTO BUCKET ONE OR BUCKET TWO.
THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST, I'M NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK.
SO FOR CLARIFICATION, THE, UM, THE MAYOR IS, IS RIGHT.
IN FACT, IN SAYING THAT THE POSITIONS, UH, I THINK IS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY, THE, THE COUNCIL ADDED THOSE POSITIONS OR, UH, THE POSITIONS TO THE TREASURER OFFICE.
HOWEVER, I'M NOT SPEAKING IN FACT TO THE POSITIONS, BUT RATHER, UM, THE DUTIES.
UM, SO CURRENTLY THE DUTIES THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO, UH, THOSE TWO PERSONS FALL UNDER THE LEGALITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TREASURER'S OFFICE.
SO I WOULD LIKE, UH, IN TWO WEEKS, UM, FOR YOU TO, TO RESEARCH THE INFORMATION.
SO RATHER OR NOT, IT, IT, WE CAN, WE CAN DO WITH EMPLOYEES AND CREATE NEW POSITIONS, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE NAMED POSITIONS AS OF RIGHT NOW ARE STILL NAMED AS TREASURER IN TREASURER CAPACITIES.
SO THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN HAVE IN FINANCE, THEY'RE STATUTORY, THEY'RE STATUTORY POSITIONS IN FINANCE.
THEY WILL HAVE TO STAY INSIDE OF, UM, INSIDE OF, UH, THE CHURCH'S OFFICE.
IF WE INDEED IN FACT WANT TO MOVE THOSE TWO EMPLOYEES, WE CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO MOVE THE EMPLOYEES.
BUT I'M NOT SPEAKING TO THE ACTUAL EMPLOYEES THEMSELF.
I'M SPEAKING TO THE POSITIONS AND DUTIES.
UM, SO LIKE, LIKE, LIKE I SAID, TO MOVE THAT IN THAT YOU'LL BRING US BACK THAT INFORMATION IN TWO WEEKS BECAUSE WE CAN EASILY MOVE WHATEVER EMPLOYEES WE WANTED TO IF NECESSARY.
BUT THOSE POSITIONS AS OF RIGHT NOW STAND THAT I, I BELIEVE ONE IS, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THEY ARE CALLED EXACTLY, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S NOT DEPUTY TREASURER, ONE OF 'EM SOMETHING TREASURER.
BUT ANYWAY, THEY, THEY, THEY ARE TREASURER ASSIGNED ASSIGNMENTS.
SO WE CAN'T STATUTORILY MOVE THOSE DUTIES UP TO THE FINANCE OFFICE IS MY CONCERN.
SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE THAT YOU BRING BACK IN TWO WEEKS, UM, THE UPDATED INFORMATION SO THAT COUNSEL CAN, UH, FURTHER PRESCRIBE WHAT IS NECESSARY TO KEEP US IN, IN, IN LEGAL FORMALITY.
SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO BRING BACK THE INFORMATION IN TWO WEEKS.
NO, I JUST, I SAW, I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE HIT YOUR LIGHT.
OH, I DID, BUT IT WAS COVERED.
NO QUESTION ABOUT, TO CLARIFY THE MOTION, IF YOU WILL, BEFORE VOTING.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT MY CHARGE HERE IS TO, IS TO BRING BACK A PROPOSED, UM, RESOLUTION TO ASSIGN DUTIES FRESHLY TO THE TREASURER'S OFFICE.
IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, TO, TO, TO GIVE WELL, AND NOT, YEAH, TO GIVE THE, TO CORRECT.
TO GIVE THE SEPARATION, TO GIVE THE CLARITY ON, UH, WHAT, WHAT WE CAN MOVE THE DUTIES, WE CAN MOVE AND THE DUTIES THAT WE CAN'T MOVE.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PARTICULAR TWO EMPLOYEES, IT'S ABOUT THE DUTIES.
UM, AND WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MOVE TO FINANCE AND VERSUS WHAT WE CANNOT, UH, MOVE TO FINANCE.
'CAUSE AS OF RIGHT NOW, THOSE TWO POSITIONS UNDER FINANCES AUTHORITY IS, IS BASICALLY MUTE.
SEEING NO, UH, LIGHTS FOR DISCUSSION, UH, COUNCILLOR HARRIS, I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE, OF THE MOTION, BECAUSE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THIS REQUEST WAS FOR A REPEAL.
SO THAT REQUEST IS NO LONGER WHAT'S BEING ASKED.
THIS IS JUST FOR INFORMATION TO COME BACK INTO, WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR INFORMATION, RIGHT.
SO THAT WE CAN GO FORWARD BEFORE WE DO A REPEAL.
[01:30:01]
'CAUSE WE NEED TO SET SOME, I GUESS THE MAJORITY OF COUNSEL WILL WANT TO DECIDE TO PUT A RESOLUTION IN PLACE, BUT WE CAN'T PUT A RESOLUTION IN PLACE UNTIL WE GET CLARIFICATION ON FACTS.JUST FOR MINUTE PURPOSES, CAN WE CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE MOTION IS? IS THE MOTION IS DIRECTLY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CORRECT? YEAH.
TO COME BACK WITH THE, TO BRING US BACK ALL HIS RESEARCH ON, YOU KNOW, THE TWO BUCKETS.
UM, YOU HAVE THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, ALL THAT STUFF.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED.