HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015_tcwsmin0413 Council Work Session April 13, 2015
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen C. Umstattd
presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, David Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Suzanne D.
Fox, Katie Sheldon Hammler, Marty Martinez and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: Council Member Dunn arrived at 8:01 p.m.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel,
Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Clark Case, Director of Parks and Recreation Rich Williams, Chief of Police Joseph
Price, Director of Capital Projects Renee Lafollette, Assistant to the Town Manager
Scott Parker, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Director of Utilities
Amy Wyks, Library Manager Alexandra Gressitt, Management Analyst Lisa Haley,
Management Analyst Jason Cournoyer, Interim Information Technology Manager
John Callahan, Director of Economic Development Marantha Edwards, and
Executive Associate I Tara Belote.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Work Session Items for Discussion
a. Budget Work Session—Final Mark Up
Supervisor Ken Reid: "Thank you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate the
time because from our chairman, it wouldn't be the same for you. In fact,
when we had that transit meeting, they didn't even want to move the agenda
around so that you, Katie and others could participate. That was really tough
for me to see. Thank you very much and I appreciate you not raising my taxes
too. I just wanted to go over some issues that happened with the County. I
have copies to give you when I'm through. First of all, good news. The board
did fund resources officers for the town to the tune of$507,575. This is an
increase from$451,566. We waived the tipping fees for the landfill. So, you
got your tipping fees. You have $1.2 million in NVTC gas tax. This is a
decrease from$1.4 million because the overall gas tax has dropped because of
the decline in gas prices, as we have seen. We have still not figured out what
we are going to do when Metro has to take that money when Metro comes
into Loudoun. I found out the other day that it may be 2017 that we may have
to fork over the gas tax and that's about$10-11 million so the town is not
going to get its one million and the county is not going to get it for its buses
and so forth. We have discussed it, but I think it's something you have to start
thinking about what you are going to do in 2017. The other change is at
Edwards Ferry Road and the Bypass and the Route 7/Battlefield parkway are
in line for funding. In fact, this Wednesday night, the Board was going to
approve the request for$11 million for design and engineering of Battlefield
and Rt. 7 interchange and$1 million to start the work at the interchange of
Edwards Ferry Road and the Bypass. Thanks to your letter, which I think was
either last fall, the Board also agreed to put the Battlefield Parkway/US 15
bypass in Improvement Funds, about$2 million earlier. So, now we will
1 Page
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
be applying for that for Fiscal 17 as opposed to Fiscal 18. Then again, thank
pP g
yourselves for sending that letter, because that's what did it. The Courts
expansion is proceeding. This is an $87 million expansion that now includes a
larger garage at the Pennington Lot and we are going ahead with phase IV, not
just phase III because it's more cost effective to do it that way. Despite a 5/4
struggle last month, that I was very disturbed about, which removed Crosstrail
Boulevard from the CIP, we were able on final passage to get a 5/4 vote to
restore the road in Fiscal 19. As you know, despite the fact that we opposed
this and you wrote an excellent resolution to the Board, obtained late, but still
it was an excellent resolution opposing the Tuscarora Crossing development
and despite my efforts, the project was approved and we are basically
dependent on the developer to build the road. Having it in 2019, at least, is an
incentive. Of course, if we get the development, which we didn't want, at least
the majority of the Council and myself, but they reduced the density and they
got their fifth vote. So, that's what happened. I also wanted to note, that
despite what some people are saying—that we sacrificed a school, the
Douglass High School expansion for Crosstrail—it's not true because, again, if
the School Board can figure out what it wants to do with Monroe Technology
Center and if they want to put Douglass High School there and spend$40
million, which frankly is a waste because they could knock the building down
and probably build a new one for less, they could still put it back in the CIP if
Crosstrail Boulevard is being built by the developer. It is cheaper for them to
build it than for the county to build it. So, the Douglass High School
expansion will still happen, as far as I'm concerned. The bad news is despite
the showing of the Mayor, and myself and the delegation to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, as far as I can see, they did not restore
the $2 million for Edwards Ferry Road and the Bypass interchange in 2015 —
2020 six year program. Now we did have an item this Wednesday to ask for
it again, but we are going to be getting some NVTA money to at least start the
project. As for Veteran's Park, this was on your list of requested projects. I
did work with Mr. Dentler to see if the town can go 50/50 on a feasibility
study, but I believe the Board would rather see the town go ahead and put the
money in yourself and we can see where work goes from there. There were
some from Leesburg that would like to see private trails in there, so that's one
possibility. If there was any way you could shave down the cost for that road
access, it would be a lot easier. But, no, there is no funding for Veteran's Park
from the county side. The animal shelter also went through despite my efforts
to get a cheaper alternative. I think that the purchase of 1-3 buildings that we
identified would be less than$15 million, but the voters did approve that bond
money so it was a situation where the board voted to go with that shelter about
a 1000 feet from Kincaid Forest. I don't believe there is going to be an impact,
at least that's what our former animal director said, but I still believe it is a
waste of money. Lastly, I want to update you on the courts expansion. The
BAR is meeting downstairs and I was sitting in, but I wanted to come up to
speak to you. We are getting a report Wednesday night on the cost of
reducing the two most historic buildings at 110 and 112 Edwards Ferry Road,
2IPage
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
which as Y ou know are antebellum homes. The cost of that is about$289,000.
There is, of course, no money really for relocating 106 and 108. We have a bid
out on the street to find somebody to remove that. I know the BAR is not
really keen on that, but I swear if you know people who would like to take
those two buildings off...one of them is actually from the 1930s. It is not as
old as they thought. That's 108. I think that's a good move because I really
believe the Board is going to be very, very difficult even Wednesday on
$289,000. It really is a shame that some of the Board members are opposed to
spending even that kind of money in Leesburg when they know that historic
preservation is so important for this town and for this county. The Skate Park,
which you are apparently voting on to the tune of$544,000. I was working on
that with Mr. Wells last year and I think there was a discussion with the school
staff about Douglass Community Center, but I don't think there has ever been
any kind of a high level meeting between you, Madam Mayor, and maybe
Chairman Hornberger to discuss it, but I still believe that there is a role that the
county could actually find a place for that and then it could become a county
run facility because that land on Catoctin Circle is extremely valuable. I know
that the rescue squad would like to have a piece of that land for expansion.
So, building a parking there, I didn't know it was coming up that soon, but I
would strongly urge you to look at other locations. Again, I will be writing
about this for the next coming months and putting up a list for you of areas
where really the county could be helping to fund town functions. I would be
happy to answer any questions."
Council Questions:
• Dunn: Do you know whether the school board or the school system is willing
to work with County parks and recs in transferring land that could possibly
used for the skate park?
Reid answer: Well, Douglass is eventually going to turn over to the county
because eventually Douglass High School is going to move out. When the
Loudoun Academies are built in 2018, Monroe VoTech is going to vacate
Monroe VoTech and that would free up that space for Douglass High School.
But, if we are in fact, having a lot of special needs kids who need more space,
the County School Board could go out right now and buy a free standing
building. There are so many office buildings on the market that are not being
rented and so that means that they could vacate Douglass and therefore that
could open up room for the Skate Park, but it seems like you have it pegged for
2016. I don't know how much of a priority it is, but I know it is having some
issues. I still believe it is worthwhile for members of Council and the Mayor to
have a meeting with Chairman York, Chairman Hornberger to see if there is a
way that the county can find some land for it. If not, you have Ida Lee, of
course, but that is your decision, what to do with it.
• Martinez: I want to thank Ken for coming by and updating us. I appreciate it.
3IPage
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
Council Budget Mark Up:
• Dunn: I don't know if it is worth even doing it tonight or just wait until
tomorrow because tomorrow's the public hearing on it. I don't expect any cuts
to be made. I'll just save my comments for tomorrow, because I don't expect
anything productive to come out of this evening.
• Butler: I have a few things. One is, tomorrow I will make a motion to add
$50,000 to the budget to paint the bike lanes on Plaza Street.
• Umstattd: I would ask for straw votes tonight to give staff some guidance for
the final presentation. I could do that issue by issue.
• Butler: It was supposed to be done eight months ago, and hasn't been done.
We could take the $50-54 thousand from undesignated funds, which would not
reduce it more than a tiny bit and we could worry about it next year. There
have been a lot of residents asking about it.
• Hammler: I would support it.
• Fox: I like the idea, but I am a little hesitant to support it because I feel like
that we need hear other budget decisions. To me, if you are going to add
something, something else needs to come out, especially since we have now
voted on a tax rate. At this point, no.
• Martinez: I am all about the bike lanes and walking paths and such and I
would really like to support this, but my only concern is that if we start adding
things to the budget, adding these types of things, we are going to have to pull
something out and that's a whole other work session. I will support it now,
but I want to see what the end result is tomorrow and how it affects the
budget.
• Burk: I am in the same position. I will support it tonight, but we will have to
see when it is all said and done.
• Butler: I would bring up the crosswalk over the bypass and trail improvements
at Battlefield Parkway. It is a capital project so it will have no impact on this
fiscal year's budget. What it will do is put a place holder in the capital plan so
that residents who live in Potomac Crossing, Exeter and other developments
around there know that we have heard their concerns about crossing the
bypass, we've heard their desire to go to the shops and all of that and we
intend to do something, but I would not recommend it for this year.
• Umstattd: What year would you want that as a CIP project.
• Butler: I don't think it matters at this point— it could be two years or three
years. I would be fine with that. Staff could come up with a specific year that
would make the most sense. I think the initial quote by staff was $510,000
(design, utility and construction).
• Burk: I can't support that.
• Martinez: (inaudible).
• Hammler: I would need to know the source of funds.
• Fox: I don't think I could support it either, at this point.
• Dunn: I don't have a problem with adding it to the future CIP—that just puts
it hanging out there unless we are voting on it for this year's budget, it really
doesn't mean a whole lot. You can keep postponing it.
4IPage
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
• Butler: All of the projects in the CIP that aren't currently underway are
hanging out there. Source of funds would be the same as all of the other
capital projects that we have in the capital plan.
• Dunn: I don't have a problem going forward, because it just pushes it out
there.
• Butler: I plan to bring it up as a motion tomorrow during the CIP discussion.
Another thing I will bring up is $300,000 to add an active water feature at
Mervin Jackson Park. Again, this will not affect the current budget. It will
also not affect the current improvements at Mervin Jackson Park. It will
simply be in addition to. The reason for this is part of our downtown vision is
arts, entertainment and dining and this falls in the entertainment category.
The purpose would be to draw people downtown. I think it would be an
effective draw. When staff proposed drawings, that was the most popular
feature proposed.
• Dunn: I'm a little hesitant on it because when we voted for the Mervin
Jackson Park, I think we had certain budget numbers in mind and I think this
is well above our original budget.
• Butler: Originally, we paid for Mervin Jackson Park out of cash. It was not a
capital project so that made budget targets smaller. It was less than $100k.
Staff answer: It was $30,000 plus staff labor.
• Dunn: With interest, that will take it up to $365-370. I'll have to pass on this
one.
• Burk: Again, that's another one. I don't know exactly what you mean by
water features. I would need some more information, but be willing to discuss
it further.
• Martinez: Not right now. Let's get the parking going the way it is.
• Hammier: I am looking forward to a comprehensive look at truly making that
a destination to include redesigning the rose garden, even considering an
amphitheater, considering we are just seeing a groundswell of incredible
opportunities for ongoing entertainment with Todd Wright moving into
downtown, any number of things, a passive water feature. But a couple of
things, one, we don't know where the skate park may be located to see if funds
will be freed up. I still don't have a clear answer—you know it is one thing to
just to put something on a future year given that we have floated bonds for
certain projects, we don't have any funds that will ever be available unless we
float more bonds, unless I am misunderstanding the process. So given it is an
out year, we would benefit from a comprehensive look at integrating this type
of feature. I just have to hold out until I understand where and how we could
pay for it doing the best possible project.
• Fox: I'm with what Kelly said. I'm not opposed to it. I think having a feature
or something like that—I don't know much about it. I wasn't here when
Mervin Jackson Park was passed. I would want to learn a little bit more about
that, exactly what the cost would be and what it would look like. I think
anything that draws people downtown would be a good thing, so I'm open to
it.
5 Page
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
• Butler: I would like to ask staff to break Tuscarora Creek mitigation project
into two projects. It does not mean that the cost needs to go up. It does not
mean that you need to do them as separate projects. You can still do them as a
single project and gain efficiencies. Basically the project is more or less the
same for a number of years. It jumped from$900k to about$1.3 million,
which was a natural progression of things since it took eight years to get to that
point. Staff asked DEQ to fund half of the amount, and it did—it gave $640k
to fund half of it. This CIP, the project has changed to $2.9 million. The
implication for the increase is that the additional money was to make the
residents of Virginia Knolls happy with the project, but that is not the correct
narrative. What is actually correct is to alleviate the residents concerns, lets
say we said forget TMDLs. We don't want to worry about TMDLs; we're
done. I will cost an additional $1.1 million from now to meet the residents
concerns with the project to fix the creek. Even if you assume that the entire
$500,000 that has already been spent by the end of the fiscal year is all towards
just fixing the creek for the residents, that would make the total cost$1.6
million, so we have gone from a cost of$1.3 to $1.6 million to meet the
resident's concerns, is not unreasonable at all and I don't think anybody on
Council would object to that. It is a total of$1.6 million. You did have$1.3
million of which$640,000 back from DEQ, is in fact half is for a strikingly
similar TMDL project. The $640,000 received from DEQ has nothing to do
with the resident's flooding concerns. It has everything to do with resolving
the TMDL concerns. They are two separate projects and should be kept
separate. They can be executed together for maximal efficiencies, but we
really should keep the TMDL separate and here is the reason why. The main
reason why is we would have an exact accounting of what we are spending on
TMDL mitigation because currently we are paying with the county and we
shouldn't be. The County's MS4 permit does not include Leesburg in it. It
does not. It is completely separate. All the TMDL things that the county
does, does not benefit the Town of Leesburg in any way. This is a very
important point that we need to engage the county now in order to either a)
have them not charge our residents for the TMDL projects they have or b)
reimburse the residents for the money that they spend on TMDL mitigation, or
c) reimburse us for what we spend on TMDL mitigation. This has a larger
financial impact to the town than anything we are going to talk about
tomorrow. It is bigger than fire and rescue. It is bigger than anything we are
going get for the police. It is bigger than anything we are going to save on
trash pick up or anything else. It is a huge amount of money for our taxpayers.
And so if these are separate, we can show the residents of Virginia Knolls, this
is obvious. This is clear. The project went up a few hundred thousand to
make you happy. We are all happy about that on Council. This keeps a
separate accounting for the TMDLs so that we have that data point to go to
the County.
• Umstattd: Is your concern because TMDLs are paid for out of regular tax
dollars, this is part of the double taxation problem?
61Page
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
• Butler: Yes. It's huge and with the fire and rescue, the county can argue that
we chose that. The TMDLs, we can't. We can't not do the TMDLs and they
cannot do it for us because the MS-4 doesn't include the town of Leesburg. It
is a significant financial concern. I just want to have them separate. I will vote
for both of them. It's all the same pot of money, but I just want to keep it
clear.
• Umstattd: Can we do that? If we keep the project as I understand it from a
design and engineering standpoint, identical to what you are recommending
and what the residents are supporting, but we account for the funds so we
break out the TMDL cost. Can we do the project that way?
Staff answer: We can do the project that way. If we build it as one project, we
keep the efficiencies and we don't have the increase in cost of building two
separate projects. We can account for it either way, whether it is two separate
pages or it's one page. When I bid the project and when I do the additional
task order with the engineering company, I have them separated out. These
are the hours for the flood protection, these are the hours for the TMDL and
when we bid the project, we have the bid documents set up in sections for each
piece so we can clearly track it that way. It can be done either way.
• Burk: If it can be done either way, I don't understand what's the issue?
• Umstattd: It allows us to better make the case that our residents are being hit
with an additional tax burden because of this state/federal requirement. This
wasn't our brainchild. This is what the state/federal governments came up
with and imposed upon us. I like being able to explain to our residents exactly
what is happening and why we are dealing with unfunded mandates, which is
what this is.
• Burk: Why is this different than what they are doing now?
• Butler: Because if you look at the capital plan, it looks like we are spending
$1.6 million to accommodate Virginia Knolls. That's exactly what it looks
like, but it is not true. We are spending$200,000 to accommodate Virginia
Knolls, we are spending$1.3 million to accommodate the DEQ and the
Federal government.
• Burk: Is that accurate?
Staff answer: For the most part, yes. That is accurate. If you have a separate
page that shows the $641,000 that we got from DEQ and our matching, it
separates it out easier than mixing the other funding. In my mind, I can do it
either way.
• Hammier: I think that's a great idea. The bigger issue is what is the timeline
and how are we approaching getting an answer about being added to the
County's MS4 permit so we know how we can get reimbursed moving
forward?
Staff answer: The TMDL program, we have a work session discussion at your
next work session. That is our starting point to make sure that you are fully
briefed. We understand all of your concerns and then we can go forward
starting to have conversations with the county.
• Hammier: That is pretty straightforward. We don't even need a work session
discussion on that.
7IPage
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
Staff answer: The Council had asked for a work session to fully understand
the TMDL program. That's why it is scheduled. If you don't want that, it's
fine. It would be beneficial for you to hear and to know.
• Fox: I agree with Dave as well. I do have a quick thought though. With the
TMDL, what impact does that have on our budget going forward. Is this
something that has been taken into consideration seeing as in the previous
discussion it has been mentioned that some of these DEQ guidelines have been
changing and will become more expensive in the future. Has that been
accounted for, because we are passing this budget now. I'd like to know.
Staff answer: Since we are, and we are not the only jurisdiction in this
situation. We are having to feel our way through what all the new rules and
regulations are. Coming up with maintenance costs right now for what we are
doing is truly an estimate on what we are looking at. What I am planning to
do in our construction contracts is to put a two year maintenance on the plants
and the work that is done on the TMDL projects as part of the projects to give
us some time to figure out what our maintenance costs are going to be going
forward. When we bid the initial ponds and we bid the Tuscarora Creek
TMDL project, I plan to put a two year warranty period on the contract.
• Dunn: I'm all for the idea and the only thing I'll throw out is it has been
challenging to get the county to come forth with the funds. They have enjoyed
the millions of dollars they get from the Town of Leesburg over the years and
we just don't see anything back. So, they almost act as if we are taking
something from them. It's kind of like anything you do. If you give somebody
something, they feel like it is being taken from them even though it was never
really theirs to begin with. I am hopeful that this is a true start to the Council's
going forward efforts to continue to try to get more town dollars back from the
county working for town services and projects. But, while this may seem
clear, there are plenty of dollars that we leave on the table that are very clear
we have just not been getting anything back. I support this and then some.
• Umstattd: That has very strong support.
• Hammler: Two small things and then a question that we can absorb what was
estimated to be the $5,000 for the pedestrian safety program that had already
been approved by resolution for the crosswalks.
Staff answer: We are taking care of that this fiscal year.
• Hammler: And the $22k for the recycling bins for the downtown. Is that
something that can be absorbed this year.
Staff answer: I can't tell you that at this point. If we want to try to absorb it
this year, I would need to wait until we get further to the end of this fiscal year
to know exactly where our departments are, and then I can make that decision.
• Burk: What are you suggesting?
• Hammler: That we would add to the 22 bins in the downtown that are just
trash—that we would have recycling bins available to be able to recycle things.
• Burk: Do the downtown businesses recycle?
Staff answer: Yes. This would be for the public. It would be adding the blue
recycle cans adjacent to the black trash cans throughout the downtown. There
8IPage
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
are 20 cans at$1,100 each. The question that I thought I heard you ask is can
we absorb that in this fiscal year.
• Hammler: You have a $50,000 budget.
Staff answer: No, I don't. I asked for $50, but I don't have it yet.
• Burk: Can we do less than 20?
• Hammler: That would be a good idea. Can we at least figure out how to
start?
Staff answer: That is the better way to go—go small, add as we can. If we
have funds in this fiscal year, we will move in that direction, if that is your
desire. If you are asking me, can you put$22,000 on the table right now, I
can't commit to that until we get closer to the end of the fiscal year to see
where our departments are.
• Burk: I'm not sure I want 22. That seems like an awful lot to me downtown. I
would be okay starting small and adding a couple at a time.
• Hammler: It was a discussion we had at the Saturday morning session. The
other is kind of a general comment leading into my question which is we
received our binders this year and then the separate presentation with three
bullet points on what the proposed enhancements were. I know in prior years,
the binder actually highlighted and had much more comprehensive
information detailing what each of the new enhancements were. I know we
did receive, for instance, an entirely separate presentation from Renee about
the Capital Project studies, and I know it was a simple straight forward answer
on the technology investment from Clark, but I have gotten a number of
questions on the police overtime and I am not in a position to answer exactly
what that is going towards particularly given I know we have the $5k to the
safety program. The response was that I would expect, as a citizen, that is
being absorbed, so at least if we could get a little bit of detailed information
and then in the future, could it be in the binder because citizens will not be
able to cross reference between power points.
Staff answer: Of the $42,000, I believe $32,000 of that is what the police
department is already expending in overtime to operate. The additional
$10,000 is for the additional crosswalk and traffic enforcement as well as
various security enhancements.
• Hammler: I could not answer the question, when asked, why does it require
overtime for the police to do the crosswalk enhancement?
Staff answer: It is not just for the crosswalk. It is for specialized, tailored
enforcement. For example, we have been told that the Council desires
increased presence during First Friday. There was discussion on Council to
have increased police presence during Council meetings. Those are two of the
examples of what that$10,000 would cover. The $32,000 is actually just to
increase the amount of money we are already spending on criminal
investigations. The current homicide investigation we have is a perfect
example of that. That required all of our detectives to be involved, plus for a
period of ten hours, we had 17 people in investigative retention. That required
additional people to be brought in in order to secure them while the officers on
duty performed their normal tasks.
9IPage
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
• Hammier: Could we get the break down for the 10k which are for Council
g $ ,
meetings and which are for the specialized, tailored crosswalk? That would be
helpful.
• Fox: For the $30-32k, what is the breakdown for salaried as opposed to those
paid hourly? For the investigators, is everyone who is on site paid hourly?
Staff answer: Yes, as well as the additional patrol officers who had to be
brought in for scene security and security of the 17 people we had in custody.
That's just an example.
• Fox: I was going to bring this up under new business. It's something small,
but I still think it's part of the budget. As far as Public Works is concerned, we
did have an email this week about winter yard waste removal and we had a
concern from a citizen who thought it was potentially wasteful to have trucks
make rounds in the winter seeing as there is not a lot of leaves and debris. I
understand sometimes there are fallen branches and things like that. I thought
maybe we could take a look at those numbers just to see if there is anything
workable in that. I know it would be a small drop in the bucket, but still
would help. The other issue I have just has to do directly with the CIP. Of
course, Skate Park, and I can address that tomorrow.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Council Member Burk requested a discussion over development impact to
services. It was noted that Capital Intensity Factors are on the agenda for May to
look at increasing the per unit school proffer amount. Council Member Burk stated
she would like other services be added to this topic.
She encouraged everyone to participate in the Keep Leesburg Beautiful trash
clean up efforts.
Council Member Hammier requested the following:
1. Discussion of the opportunity to get an additional 40 acres of park land
slated for by-right residential development adjacent to Ida Lee from the
O'Connor family.
2. She reported that the Technology and Communication Commission
approved an initiative regarding transparency for the town. She stated she
would like them to be able to present it to Council. She stated she would
get a copy of their resolution and forward it to Council.
3. She stated she had positive feedback from the presidents of Leesburg Fire
and Loudoun Rescue about the opportunity to officially assign a liaison to
their boards. She noted that the amount that Leesburg residents contribute
to these important organizations is about$650,000 so she appreciates their
willingness to include an official elected representative. Council requested
an invitation from the organization's boards to have one member of
Council attend their meetings.
lOIPage
Council Work Session April 13, 2015
4. She asked that Council revisit fees for several events including the Airshow
and July 4th because they are regional events. She stated the policy needs
to be looked at because other events have attendance fees. It was directed
that it should be examined by the Airport Commission and Parks and
Recreation Commission first.
5. She asked that a youth representative be added to the Diversity
Commission. No decision was made on this request.
6. She asked that a work session discussion be held to look at creating a
Police Department/Sheriff's Department task force that would be
comprised of representatives from both departments and some elected
officials from each governing body to look for opportunities for increased
efficiencies and consolidation. There was support for a work session
discussion.
Council Member Fox requested a work session discussion of winter yard waste
removal policy. It was decided to have an information memo from staff to see
whether this would be cost effective.
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
me; t •. was a, .urned at 9:•29 p.m.
Clerk of ( it
2015 tcwsmin04
11 ( Page