Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016_tcwsmin0523 Council Work Session May 23, 2016 Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor David S. Butler presiding. Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, R. Bruce Gemmill, Katie Sheldon Hammier, Marty Martinez, and Mayor Butler. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Deputy Director of Planning Brian Boucher, and Paralegal Carmen Smith. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Work Session Items for Discussion a. New Proffer Bill Barbara Notar stated that this is a new section of the Code of Virginia. Key Points: • Section15.2-2303.4 • Statute has/will caused significant work plan impact. • State Code allows the town to have conditional zoning based on proffers. • Proffer is a voluntary offer to contribute something to mitigate impacts caused by the rezoning by the applicant/landowner during the rezoning process. • When accepted by the locality, the proffers become part of the zoning ordinance and are thus enforceable. • Currently proffers need not be necessitated by the rezoning, but must be reasonable and voluntary. • New statute allows the applicant to challenge the reasonableness of a proffer even if it is voluntarily submitted. • New statute applies to any rezonings submitted after July 1. • Proffers will be unreasonable unless they address an impact that is specifically attributable to the proposed residential development. • Only the applicant/property owner may file suit after a denial. • Presumption is that a denial occurred because of an applicant's refusal to provide an unreasonable proffer. • Negatively impacts the "fairly debatable" standard, which has been favorable to the town. • "Unreasonable" proffer can be struck by the court and allows the court to force the Town Council to approve the rezoning without the "unreasonable" proffer. • Zoning Ordinance will need review to determine what requirements are no longer valid. 1IPage Council Work Session May 23, 2016 • Town Plan will need review as it was passed with the expectation of proffers. • Train Planning Commissioners and Council Members on what can and cannot be said or done. • Increase rezoning fees to pay for evaluation of impact studies. • All proffers proposed by the town must be reviewed by legal. • All proffers proposed by the applicant must be accompanied by a detailed analysis (impact study) that demonstrates the proffers are reasonable. Council Comments: • Burk: Stated that it makes it very difficult to deny a rezoning. • Butler: Stated it is his understanding that the developer may sue over conditions even if the rezoning was approved. • Burk: Questioned whether there can be a moratorium on accepting applications. Notar: Stated that we must accept applications as they are submitted. She stated that staff is planning to bring initiating resolutions forward at the next meeting. • Butler: Stated that there is a good chance that many of the current cash proffers that are given such as for schools, fire and rescue, etc., will not be allowed. He stated that they will need case law to make the statute more clear. • Burk: Questioned whether the General Assembly will look at this again. Notar: Stated there is a good chance that it will be reviewed. She requested that Council contact her if they get a request for a meeting with a developer. • Fox: Questioned whether additional staff will be needed to handle this work load. • Hammler: Stated that the town needs to have a very aggressive outreach back to the General Assembly to get amendments to this law. • Martinez: Stated that everyone needs to work together to get this fixed. He requested more information on how the Council should communicate with developers. Berry Hill: Stated that staff will be working on training of that kind. • Burk: Noted that there is no way all of these changes will be in effect before July 1 because of the time needed to accomplish these legislative changes. She stated that Council will have to make decisions based on things that have not yet been changed. Further, she noted that this will make the rezoning process longer and more complicated for developers. • Hammler: Questioned who would decide who provides the fair market impact statements such as an independent organization. Boucher: Stated that if the town does not agree with the impact statement, then they have to be prepared to counter it with something. 2IPage Council Work Session May 23, 2016 • Gemmill: Stated that this is all brand new and a lot of hypotheticals have been tossed around. He questioned how a developer can voluntarily proffer something and then turn around and sue saying it is unreasonable. Boucher: Stated this is one of the big questions that need to be answered. Notar: Stated that currently proffers are voluntary; however, this may be used as an argument if the rezoning is denied. • Dunn: Stated that a lot of this reads the way things should have been operating all along. He stated that the proffer system has become less voluntary and more of a demand process. • Butler: Stated that in the Northern Virginia Regional Commission meeting, they discussed the phrase "no locality shall accept or request any unreasonable proffer as a condition of approval" and the concern was that developers could sue on approval if they thought there was an unreasonable proffer. He cited a Virginia Supreme Court case where a developer did sue on approval because they felt the Council had strong armed them into an unreasonable proffer. b. Zoning Ordinance Advisory Group Council Member Dunn stated that there is a group at the County level that gives community input on the County's zoning ordinances. Susan Berry Hill stated there is some benefit from getting input from the building and development industry on things that would be helpful to include in the ordinance; however, it is being done on an informal basis at this time. Council Comments/Questions: • Dunn: Questioned what level of comment the county ZOAG had. Berry Hill: Stated she was never able to get that information but she knows that there is some collaboration that goes on between the ZOAG and staff. Further, she stated that the development community could be brought into the Batch amendment process. • Gemmill: Stated it is an interesting concept as long as it does not add an extra burden on staff. • Burk: Stated she is concerned about the additional work load since there is so much to be done with regards to the proffer bill. • Fox: Questioned whether the ZOAG is a commission or a committee at the county level. • Dunn: Stated he is uncertain of how they are formed. Berry Hill: Stated they are appointed by the Board of Supervisors to make recommendations to the Board. • Fox: Questioned whether this would be helpful or hinder staff. Berry Hill: Stated she is concerned about having another commission/committee to have to provide a liaison for. 3IPage Council Work Session May 23, 2016 c. Outsourcing— Preliminary Report Keith Markel stated that all the department directors went through and identified what is already being outsourced and what could be outsourced. Key Points: • Outsourcing can be done to make things more efficient. • Quality of services to the customer should not decrease. • Time sensitive services are less likely able to be outsourced. • Staff needs direction as to what Council would like to achieve by outsourcing. Council Comments/Questions: • Fox: Questioned whether we can find a garbage collector who can outfit their trucks with plow blades. Markel: Stated that could be added to the next bid for trash services. • Hammier: Stated that if Council wants to examine the costs —costs to manage contracts as well as costs to manage FTEs should be considered in the comparison. • Martinez: Stated that Council's job is not to manage FTEs, but to listen to the residents, set a budget and tax rate, and set policy. He stated he has full faith in the town manager's ability to manage personnel. • Gemmill: Stated he would like to look at the comparisons for outsourcing mowing. • Dunn: Stated that the largest expense is staff. He stated that if a contractor does not do a good job, they may not have that contract next year; however, an employee who does a poor job may still be employed because it is difficult to get rid of a government employee. Further, he noted that some of the service level policies need to be reviewed because they haven't been reviewed for years. He stated that he would like to see staff maintain a useful service level rather than driving around looking for brush. • Butler: Stated that technically it is not Council's function to determine whether something is outsourced or not. It is Council's function to set a budget and service level and however staff can manage to that. He stated this exercise is more of setting service levels rather than deciding what will be outsourced. • Hammier: Requested that what is being outsourced in other jurisdictions be included in the September report. There was consensus to look at mowing, leaf/brush pickup, snow removal and public information for possible outsourcing. 4IPage Council Work Session May 23, 2016 2. Additions to Future Council Meetings Dunn: Stated he asked for Town Manager review of Mr. Borgquist's situation but did not have support. He stated he would like to have a closed session on this topic because other personnel are involved. Notar: Stated the Town Council is unauthorized to go into closed session to discuss an employee who they are not supervisors of. She stated they can go into closed session to discuss the Town Manager or the Town Attorney. Butler: Stated this is not the Town Council's purview. Dunn: Stated he would like to discuss some of the provisions of the employee manual, such as conditions under which an employee can be terminated. He questioned what constitutes a "serious misdemeanor" as he feels the term is arbitrary. Notar: Stated that the term is not arbitrary and is used to allow the supervisor discretion in order to terminate. She reminded the Council that Virginia is an at will employment state. Dunn: Clarified that he would like a briefing on whether an employee can be terminated for lack of a conciliatory manner. Butler: Clarified that the briefing would be on what are the grounds for termination of an employee. There was no consensus to add this to a future agenda. Dunn: Stated he will bring a resolution forward in two weeks on grounds for dismissal. Further, he stated he requested a resolution seeking county's desire should we come up with a reduction in the parking requirement for courthouses that the council send a resolution to the Board of Supervisors letting them know that we are desirous of changing the requirements. Butler: Stated that the County is in the process of determining what their parking requirements would be regardless of what the town's requirements are. He stated if the number is low enough to preclude the need for the fourth floor, then staff will provide information on what legislative process will need to occur. He agreed to wait two weeks. Burk: Questioned the status of the parking app. Dentler: Stated that the Finance Department is working with staff on an outside vendor to make that happen. Martinez: Requested remote participation for the next Council meeting. 5 Page Council Work Session May 23, 2016 Hammler: Stated she would like to ask for initiation of a Town Plan amendment to remove the Miller Drive extension. There was agreement to put this on the agenda in two weeks. Hammier: Stated she would like a memo on the status of the former CEO of Virginia Regional Transit. There was no consensus on this item. Butler: Requested that Item 1 lb on Tuesday's agenda be postponed until after the county returns with their information. 3. Adjournment \ he ting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Clerk of, o 2011_[cwsmin032 6jPage