Document Actions
December 11, 2007 Minutes of the Work Session
Deecmber 11, 2007 Minutes of the Work Session
2400 Washington Avenue
1:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Madeline McMillan; Sharon P. Scott; Joseph C. Whitaker; Charles C. Allen; Herbert H. Bateman, Jr.; Joe S. Frank; and William F. Haskins -----7
OTHERS PRESENT: Randy W. Hildebrandt; Stuart E. Katz; Mabel V. Washington; Neil Morgan; Alan Archer; Butch Blanks; Allen Jackson; Richard Caplan; Al Riutort; Michael King; Florence Kingston; Doug Winstead; William Keeler; Rhonda Everton; Robyn Rose; Chad Pritchett; Steve Carpenter; Everett Skipper; Ross Mugler; Joe Spencer; Clyde Hoey; Lucy Cochran; Chuck Stern; Brian Ramaley; Sheriff Gabe Morgan; John Roberts; Heather Livingston; Sandy Donaldson; Sabine Hirschauer; Jennifer D. Walker; Lottie Vincent; Cleder Jones; Kim Lee; Kirstyn Barr; and LeeAnn Hartman
Mayor Frank distributed information from the American Cancer Society in support of the City’s proposed ban on smoking that City Council planned to address at its December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting. (A copy of the information is attached and made a part of these minutes.)
I. Sheriff’s Office Presentation on Financial and Related Matters
City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Mr. Gabriel Morgan, Sheriff, City of Newport News, to provide a presentation on financial and related matters pertaining to the Sheriff’s Department.
Sheriff Morgan reported, based on the State’s staffing standards, the Sheriff’s Department (Department) was owed 50 to 70 personnel, which the Sheriff continued to vigorously pursue. He stated the 50 to 70 positions were crucial to the overall operation of the Department.
Sheriff Morgan reported the goal of the Department was to attain and maintain an image of law enforcement as a desirable profession and valued career, for women and men who reflected the diversity of society. He noted some of the goals of the Department included: 1) maintaining a 5% vacancy rate; 2) seeking to attain all positions authorized by the State Compensation Board that had been withheld; 3) training all leaders through a formal leadership training program 4) establishing an awards program to recognize outstanding accomplishments; 5) obtaining funding for overtime; and 6) seeking a fair job audit.
Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether 50 to 70 positions were withheld by the Governor’s budget or the approved budget by the State Legislature. Sheriff Morgan replied the positions were withheld by both. Vice Mayor Allen felt the City should talk to the Governor. He felt State officials who talked about law enforcement were not truly inclined, when it came to the budget and giving the Sheriff the appropriate amount of positions needed. Sheriff Morgan replied yes and no because the Commonwealth Attorney’s office and the Sheriff Department were the two offices not affected by budget cuts last fiscal year.
Councilman Haskins inquired whether the allocation of funding by the State differed between County and City Sheriff’s Departments. Sheriff Morgan replied funding did not differ in how the State allocated funding to County and City Sheriff’s Departments. Staffing standards were set forth by the State and everyone received funding accordingly.
Sheriff Morgan noted the current staffing of the Department totaled 191 personnel. He reported out of the 191 personnel, 175 positions were funded by the State Compensation Board and 16 were funded by the City. The staffing needs of the Department totaled 301, which was a difference of 110 positions that were not funded. Out of the 110 positions, 53 were Compensation Board positions, based on staffing standards. The remaining 57 positions were support positions that the Compensation Board did not fund, i.e. Human Resources. Everything that the Department needed and was using came out of its overall budget. Courthouse security positions were not part of the staffing standards and were not recognized by the Compensation Board or the City. Security was maintained by relocating personnel from other positions.
Councilman Haskins inquired about the mandate for Court security. Sheriff Morgan replied that court security was mandated by State Code.
Councilwoman Scott inquired about the duties of staff assigned to the Annex building. Sheriff Morgan replied their duties would strictly be in corrections.
Mayor Frank understood the State authorized dollar specific slots, i.e. correction officer, bailiff, etc. He inquired whether the State would continue to pay for a specific slot if the Department eliminated a position. Sheriff Morgan replied the State would not continue to pay for a specific position if it were eliminated. He stated the Department received a reimbursement from the State after filling a position.
Sheriff Morgan reported the goal of the Department’s Space Utilization Plan ensured that necessary facilities, equipment and infrastructure were in place for the efficient delivery of mandated services. He reported the State imposed a moratorium on jail expansion, which required Cities to obtain legislation to consider any type of expan-
sion. He asked City Council to include a request for an exemption to the Jail Expansion Moratorium, as part of its 2008 legislative package, which gave a 50% reimbursement to jurisdictions that were more than 50% over their capacity. He stated the jail was 250% over its capacity, and was in line for a 50% reimbursement. He reported 50% was previously only reimbursed to regional jails and localities had only received 25%. The State now recognized that localities had serious problems and they were ready to step up to the plate.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether the City Manager was aware of the moratorium and whether it was a problem for the City. City Manager Hildebrandt replied he was not aware until a few days ago and stated it was not a problem for the City. Sheriff Morgan replied he believed Delegate Hamilton would be willing to sponsor the bill for the Sheriff’s Department through the House of Delegates, and believed Senator Norment would present the matter on the Senate side.
Sheriff Morgan explained the Space Utilization Plan included obtaining funding for the Sheriff’s Office renovation projects for the Justice Building, City Jail 2nd and 3rd floor, and jail renovation in booking on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. Long-term jail capacity planning would also begin.
Mayor Frank stated previously the Police Department handled booking and inquired whether the Sheriff’s Department was now handling booking. Sheriff Morgan replied that booking was originally a Police function that the Sheriff’s Department was now handling. Mayor Frank inquired whether it was working out for the Sheriff’s Department to handle booking. Sheriff Morgan replied it was working out and was a cost effective move that created a smoother operation in the processing and intake of prisoners.
Sheriff Morgan reported the Department had a goal to develop a fair pay plan to compete successfully for well-qualified employees. He stated the City was receiving 100% of employee services but was only paying 30% of the bill. He felt that was a good return on investment for the City.
Mayor Frank inquired how the City’s pay scale ranked with surrounding jurisdictions. Sheriff Morgan replied York County paid a higher salary to its deputies. City Manager Hildebrandt assumed the County was subsidizing deputy salaries. Sheriff Morgan agreed.
Sheriff Morgan reported on the specific concerns regarding the goals of the Department as related to equipment shortages, professional development, inmate programs, visions, goals, strategies, and cost savings.
Sheriff Morgan noted one of the issues raised to the City Manager and others included cost savings initiatives as related to the Department and the City Farm. He reported he had received much criticism for not sending prisoners to the City Farm, and stated that was furthest from the truth. He noted the criteria for sending prisoners to the City Farm and indicated he sent as many as he could. (A copy of the criteria is enclosed in the presentation, “Newport News Sheriff’s Office City Council Update,” attached to these minutes.)
Sheriff Morgan stated the City had to make a decision about whether it was cost effective to continue operating the City Farm. He stated many of the beds at the City Farm were not being utilized and the Farm was not being used to its fullest capacity. The City was contracted for 200 beds at the regional jail, however, the City sent more than 286 prisoners to the regional jail, when there was capacity at the City Farm. The City Farm could not receive hardened criminals due to its location.
Councilwoman Scott inquired how the City Farm could increase its security in order to accept more prisoners. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the City Farm would have to be converted into a maximum security facility as opposed to a minimum security facility, which would cost the City millions of dollars.
Sheriff Morgan explained the cost by region and State as compared to the City Jail and the City Farm. He stated the City Jail out performed the City Farm in every category with the exception of medical. He noted the City paid $4 million in actual revenue to subsidize the Sheriff’s Department, which amounted to $15 per inmate. The City paid $3.3 million or $65 per inmate to subsidize the City Farm. The City paid 34% of the Sheriff’s operating budget, and the State, in the form of per diem reimbursement, paid 29% of the City Farm’s operation.
Councilman Haskins inquired whether Sheriff Morgan included the City’s savings in operating the City Farm compared to the City Jail. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the figures offered by Sheriff Morgan did not include the value of inmate labor in construction and street maintenance, which was the reason an additional $40 per day was spent at the City Farm. The extra $40 was for road service, supervision, equipment and support, which allowed inmates to work throughout the community, and was a cost savings of $2.7 million in benefits. Sheriff Morgan felt the City could transfer the majority of the City Farm’s labor costs to the State.
Sheriff Morgan recommended that the City Jail and the City Farm consolidate, standardize and integrate wherever possible. He proposed total or partial integration of the services, which would save the City $.5 to $2 million per year. Additionally, he noted a cost savings of $.4 million should consolidation of the City Jail, City Farm and Juvenile Detention take place.
Councilwoman McMillan felt the Sheriff offered an interesting concept about coordinating services within the three facilities.
City Manager Hildebrandt also felt the proposal had merit, in that the City Jail and City Farm were already feeding 700 inmates a day and there were only 50 to 60 inmates being feed at Juvenile Detention. He felt the marginal cost would be very low.
Councilman Whitaker felt it was inhumane for 270 people to stay in the City Jail, as well as for the employees of the jail. Overcrowding was a problem that needed a remedy.
Mayor Frank noted a memo from the City Manager, dated December 5, 2007, which offered different cost comparisons between the City Jail and City Farm than what were given by the Sheriff. (A copy of the memo is attached to these minutes.) City Manager Hildebrandt stated his and the Sheriff’s numbers were correct, but were analyzed differently.
Mayor Frank felt there were serious and urgent issues that needed to be addressed, i.e. jail overcrowding, consolidation of services, supporting the Sheriff’s issues in the legislative package, etc. He suggested that a team be formulated to evaluate and analyze the above information and report back to City Council with specific recommendations as to how the City should move forward. City Manager Hildebrandt pointed out, as part of the City’s strategic goal, an evaluation of the City Farm and what to do with it had begun, in terms of replacing the facility.
Councilwoman McMillan stated the legislative package could be handled soon, but studies seemed to go on forever. She inquired whether the City Manager could institute a timeframe for the study. City Manager Hildebrandt replied this was a complicated issue that would need time.
Councilwoman McMillan felt that matters such as food production were cost savings that could be looked at immediately. She felt certain matters in the Sheriff’s plan should be looked at immediately and not delayed for a study.
Councilman Haskins felt the City needed to analyze the total needs of the City Jail.
Mayor Frank felt the City needed to do a thoughtful analysis of the situation and look at where it could improve and consolidate services to save the City money. City Manager Hildebrandt suggested that the City hire an outside consultant to review the matter with an objective point of view. He indicated the study would probably take a year to be completed.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether the City had reviewed what the State Sheriff’s Association was asking for in its legislative packet that the City could support. City Manager Hildebrandt agreed that the City should support the State Sheriff’s Association’s legislative priorities.
Mayor Frank introduced Mr. Ross Mugler, Commissioner of the Revenue, City of Hampton, to report on the American Theatre.
Mr. Mugler reported through a generous gift from the City of Hampton, the Hampton Arts Foundation was successful in purchasing the Mugler Building, which was adjacent to The American Theatre. The purchase of the Mugler Building allowed the American Theatre to expand its existing theatre lobby and staging area. In addition, a studio would be created for teaching, presenting lectures, demonstrations and other educational programs, with a special emphasis on acting and dance classes. They would also add a significant number of parking spaces for patrons.
Mr. Mugler stated due to the cost associated with renovating and preserving the architectural authenticity of The American Theatre, the Hampton Arts Foundation had embarked on a $4 million capital campaign. He reported The American Theatre was a small performing arts venue that seated 400 people and would celebrate its 100th birthday in 2008. The theatre was one of the jewels of the Peninsula and could not operate without a following from the citizens of Newport News. The theatre averaged 100 nights of performances. Mr. Mugler reported the capital campaign was approaching the $2 million mark. Gifts had been received from the City of Hampton, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Dominion Resources, Northrop Grumman, Old Point National Bank, and TowneBank. He presented a brief DVD that provided an overview of the campaign. He introduced the Honorable Joseph Spencer, Councilman, City of Hampton, and Member of the Hampton Arts Commission, to conclude the presentation. He asked City Council to support their requests.
Mr. Spencer, Council Liaison to the Hampton Arts Commission, reminded of a request from Newport News to Hampton City Council for funding for the Mariners Museum and the Peninsula Fine Arts Center, which was fully funded by the City of Hampton. He understood that both Cities were in terrible budgetary times with the constraints of trying to hold down real estate taxes. He trusted that City Council would continue to support both communities and quality of life issues that were shared by both.
B. Peninsula Fine Arts Center
Mayor Frank introduced Mr. Clyde Hoey, Vice Chair, Board of Trustee, Peninsula Fine Arts Center, to report on the Peninsula Fine Arts Center.
Mr. Hoey noted the history of the Peninsula Fine Arts Center (PFAC), dating back to 1962. He recognized Lucy Cochran, Executive Director, and Lawrence Henry, Development Director, PFAC. He stated, over the past two years, the PFAC Board of Directors, took under advisement the fact they needed to revisit their direction and refocus their efforts. The PFAC recognized that it had some deficiencies with its set-up. Realizing that, they contracted with Carlton Abbot, Architect, who was brought on board to help the Center work through its concepts for future development.
Mr. Hoey stated the PFAC served approximately 40,000 individuals, of which 30% came from the Newport News area. Over 4,000 took classes in different arts studies, and over 2,000 school students were given courses and educational opportunities through the Center. The PFAC also served an additional 500 through distance learning grant program.
He introduced Mr. Calton Abbott to report on the concept of the development proposal.
Mr. Abbott presented a brief video of the proposed expansion project for the PFAC. He noted they were looking for increased visibility and flexibility and had worked within the zoning compliance, set-back issues and the City staff. Their plans for the future minimized disruptions for the ongoing operation of the facility. He noted the overall design concept. (A copy of the concept plan is attached to these minutes.)
Mr. Abbott stated the building expansion project included a ceramic studio, a multi-purpose lobby and lecture space, a catering kitchen, an outdoor café, a sculpture garden, art exhibits and storage, additional parking to accommodate 54 cars, and a handicap accessible elevator. They planned to install active and passive solars and hoped to make the building green. There were plans to remodel the administrative space,
the bathrooms and the basement of the existing building. The project also included space for a conference center, an auditorium, a kitchen, a restroom and support spaces.
Mr. Hoey stated the project included a five-year, $8 million capital campaign, with a renovation and expansion program that was adopted by the board on November 25, 2007. He stated the capital campaign would be shared between the business industry, the State, and local jurisdictions. The City of Hampton committed $750,000 over a five-year period. The City of Poquoson indicated they would participate and a presentation with the County of York was planned for the near future. The PFAC anticipated serving 50,000 individuals in 2008. There were additional plans to enhance internet capability by installing new program capabilities, and enhancing aspects of distance learning. Mr. Hoey reassured that the Board was attempting to put the PFAC on a solid business footing to be self-supporting in the future.
Councilwoman McMillan stated it was difficult not to be enthusiastic about the proposed expansion and renovation project for PFAC. She felt the PFAC provided art opportunities for the youth in Newport News, and needed the City’s support to expand, rather than the theatre in Hampton.
Ms. Heather Livingston, Executive Director, Hampton Roads Chapter of the American Red Cross, recognized Mr. Chuck Stern, Vice Chairman, and Ms. Sandy Donaldson, Member of the Development Committee, American Red Cross, Hampton Roads Chapter.
Ms. Livingston reported the services of the American Red Cross included: 1) Emergency Disaster Assistance; 2) Service to the Armed Forces; 3) Blood Collection; 4) Education and Certification in Lifesaving Skills; 5) Preparedness and Response Training; and 6) Feeding At-Risk Senior Citizens. (A copy of her presentation is attached to these minutes.)
Ms. Livingston reported the American Red Cross was not a government agency and relied on civic and philanthropic support. The capital campaign sought to raise $5 million; $4 million for design, construction and furnishing costs for the new facility and $1 million to endow a fund for future maintenance and enhanced operations. Design and building plans were underway with W. M. Jordan. The Red Cross National Headquarters required that 95% of the $4 million in capital funds be committed prior to groundbreaking for the new facility, anticipated for June 2008.
Ms. Livingston stated the Hampton Roads Chapter of the American Red Cross covered The Cities of Newport News, Hampton, and Isle of Wight County. Newport News was the largest of the three in providing services. Services were not duplicated and were essential to the welfare of each community. The American Red Cross was a time-honored organization and had been serving the Hampton Roads residents for over 90 years. The current facility was inadequate to handle a disaster, much less future demands. Ms. Livingston requested City Council’s support to provide funds to build a new facility. She introduced Mr. Chuck Stern to offer brief remarks.
Mr. Stern stated it was imperative that the American Red Cross build a new facility. He noted the request for Newport News was substantial, but was a multi-year commitment that averaged $150,000 per year. He did not underestimate City Council’s responsibility in prioritizing its budget, but felt the Red Cross was a must, and asked City Council to consider their request. He pointed out The Hampton Roads Chapter of the American Red Cross was designated as a regional chapter of the American Red Cross. They were one of approximately 20 in the Mid-Atlantic Region and 100 in the country.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether the American Red Cross was considering having a public awareness campaign. She did not believe many citizens were aware that the American Red Cross was a private organization that depended on private donations. She did not believe citizens were aware of the full range of responsibilities of the American Red Cross. She felt a DVD on the City’s public channel would help get that point across to the public. Ms. Livingston agreed and noted the Red Cross had an office at Fort Eustis and Langley that marketed services to troops and their families.
Councilwoman McMillan felt that most people were aware that the American Red Cross was available in a crisis, but did not realize they needed funding. She felt the public thought of the American Red Cross as a government-funded organization. She felt a public service campaign would benefit the organization.
III. Continued Review of the Proposed Capital Improvements Plan
City Manager Hildebrandt advised that beginning in FY 2010, he included funding for the American Red Cross, Peninsula Fine Arts Center, and the American Theatre. He explained the commitment for these three organizations replaced the funding that was committed to the CNU Warwick Village project, which ended in FY 2009. By adding these three projects in FY 2010, the City was back to $1.3 million in community investments. He hoped that City Council would adopt the CIP at the January 22, 2008 Regular Meeting, so the City could be in a position to provide the CIP to the City’s rating agencies before bonds sales took place in the spring of 2008. This would show the rating
agencies that the City continued to maintain fiscal constraint. He inquired about recommendations from City Council regarding the proposed Capital Improvements Plan.
Vice Mayor Allen felt it was insensitive for the representatives of the American Red Cross, Peninsula Fine Arts Center and The American Theatre to approach the City, at this point in time, due to citizen concerns regarding real estate taxes and City spending. He was not prepared to add to the CIP, and accept citizen hostility in the upcoming budget year.
City Manager Hildebrandt noted that each organization had their own capital campaign and solicited help from City government before beginning public campaigns. Clearly, each organization understood that the City could not support funding in the CIP for FY 2009. He believed they all were comfortable with a commitment from the City beginning in FY 2010.
Vice Mayor Allen stated he would rather deal with commitments in terms of the tax rate and whether or not the City had to push projects back to alleviate the concerns of citizens to reduce the real estate tax rate.
Councilman Bateman felt the same about not enforcing and instilling a positive theory in the organizations minds that they could count on the City when the City did not know what was going to happen. He hated to commit to the funding now and then see the economy hurt the City further. He did not feel compelled to support the American Theatre at all at this point. He aspired at some point but did not believe it could be done until 2011.
Councilman Haskins stated he was not inclined to offer support to the American Red Cross, the Peninsula Fine Arts Center, or The American Theatre. In addition, the American Red Cross had a $926,000 piece of land that was donated to them by the City of Newport News. He felt all of the funding should be put on hold until the City was in a better position of knowing what its financial condition would be. He felt it would benefit the City to say no at this time.
Mayor Frank suggested leaving the funding as it was by including a placeholder in the CIP, and not committing to the funding until 2010.
Councilwoman McMillan concurred with Vice Mayor Allen, that the City’s financial future was uncertain and this was not the year to make long-term commitments when no one knew whether such commitment could be fulfilled.
Mayor Frank concurred, but felt putting the items in the budget as a place- holder for 2010, the funding was there and let the organizations know that they could not spend the funding or count on it until 2010.
City Manager Hildebrandt disagreed and did not feel it was in the best interest of the City to include a placeholder in the CIP budget for the organizations. There was always an opportunity to consider them in 2010.
Councilwoman Scott was not willing to commit to any other projects in the CIP, because of present funding needs in the City, as well as the real estate tax issue, and the continued scrutiny by the citizens regarding City spending. Also, the City did not know what it would get from the State for future relief. She did not see it as a good investment to help in the renovation of The American Theatre, when the City was spending funding on the Downing Gross Cultural Arts Center, the North District Community Center and other projects for the youth. She noted previous conversations with the City Manager, last budget season, about looking closely at community support funding.
Councilwoman McMillan stated, while she appreciated The American Theatre, they were duplicating what the City was trying to do. She stated Performing Art was being developed at the Downing Gross Cultural Arts Center and the Peninsula Fine Arts Center was developing Visual Art.
Vice Mayor Allen disagreed with the concept of the American Red Cross. He did not understand why they felt it was necessary to build a new facility, rather than make offers to buy properties adjacent to them to expand their present facility. He inquired whether the national organization of the American Red Cross was bringing money back into the communities. Also, he stated the American Red Cross was operating under dubious management, in terms of public perception following the September 9, 2001 tragedy, for squandering money and mismanagement of resources they received from the tragedy. Yet, they came into the community as a national organization and expected the local community to help. He questioned the purpose of the national charity.
City Manager Hildebrandt stated he did not believe the American Red Cross could have expanded its present site and noted it would not be a good investment to renovate the building.
Councilman Bateman inquired about the feasibility of pushing the Asheton Infrastructure project up another year. He also inquired about the Wolseley Corporate Headquarters under Community Development that was in the CIP for 2009 and 2010. He felt the Wolseley project was not going to happen anytime soon. It was two to
three years down the road. He did not believe it would happen in FY 2009. City Manager Hildebrandt stated the Wolseley funding was grant funding, not local funding.
Assistant City Manager Neil Morgan replied the Asheton project was moved forward from last year’s plan. He reported a site plan had been submitted for the first phase of Asheton, which was under review and moving forward. From a prudent planning standpoint, funding for the project could begin as proposed in the CIP.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired about the specific public infrastructure the Asheton project entailed and why the City was paying for it. Ms. Florence Kingston, Director, Department of Development, replied the funding was for the off-site improvements that were part of the Crawford rezoning. Projects that were funded by the Asheton land sales, through the Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the Community Development Authority (CDA), were not included in the CIP because they would never run through City books. Part of the rezoning included off-site improvements to Jefferson Avenue and some of the other corridors versus what was being done on-site.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether Ms. Kingston was saying that the land sales would offset costs. Ms. Kingston replied the $15,078,000 five year project total, for Asheton Infrastructure (Funded by Land Sales), noted on page 2, Community Development, of the City Manager’s Recommended CIP FY 2009 – FY 2013, attached to these minutes, was what the City projected to be the Asheton improvements, and were consistent with the development agreement.
City Manager Hildebrandt inquired whether the total was the difference that would be covered by land sales and improvements that were committed to under the contract with Asheton and whether the $3.7 million and the $1.6 million, noted on page 2 of the above attachment, was the difference between what the City would get back in land sales and what the City’s contributions were towards public improvements under the contract.
Ms. Kingston replied the development agreement with Asheton had $12 million in CDA funding that was not public funding and did not run through the City’s books. There was $23 million that was funded by a combination of land sales and an EDA borrowing that would carry the City’s general obligations. This was what they perceived as being the General Obligation Fund, the non-land sales piece, and what the City’s contributions were towards public improvements under the contract. This was based upon the contractual development agreement and the action that City Council took, and understood the EDA was going to have to do to accomplish the project.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether it was part of the total $85 million. Ms. Kingston replied the part that was paid by the developer did not run through the CIP.
Vice Mayor Allen understood these to be off-site public costs. Ms. Kingston replied they were off-site and on-site public costs.
Vice Mayor Allen noted he saw land sales in the economic model amortizing these sales. Ms. Kingston replied the $15,078,000 total was what the cash flow of land sales the City projected would fund. Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether those were coming out of the Community Development or from the off-site and on-site public improvements. City Manager Hildebrandt understood they would take down the land and pay the City. The EDA would turn around and invest those, under the Development Agreement, to help them pay for the public improvements. The difference in FY 2011 and 2012 was that land sales would not be sufficient to cover the public improvement. Ultimately, the City would spend $23 million and get $15 million back through the FY 2009 – FY 2013 timeframe.
Vice Mayor Allen knew this might be dated, but instead of the developer fronting the site improvements and infrastructure, i.e. streets, sewers, gutters, sidewalks, as most developers would do to serve their development, Asheton was doing it through the CDA. Ms. Kingston noted there was also developer funded infrastructure. The CDA funded piece had strict infrastructure that was eligible. There was a combination of developer, CDA, funded infrastructure and public funded infrastructure, either through land sales or the EDA funding.
City Manager Hildebrandt recalled the City agreed to the CDA because the City wanted a quality development that would not have normally occurred. The City had to agree with the CDA to raise funding for the enhanced infrastructure in the development.
Vice Mayor Allen was trying to get a handle on the fact that, theoretically, if he was the developer and paid for the infrastructure and when he sold the land, it amortized that cost. He inquired whether there would be a price difference or would the developer sell at pure market values. In other words, citizens would pay for the infrastructure twice. They would pay the market driven costs when they brought the house. In a regular development process, the developer would pay the infrastructure costs; however, in the Asheton development, the property owners would pay for the infrastructure as well as real estate taxes. He voiced concern over the fact that the property owners would pay for the infrastructure twice.
City Manager Hildebrandt stated the developer would be put out of the market if they had to absorb all the infrastructure costs for the project. This was what the City needed to subsidize the kinds of public improvements that were going into the Asheton development.
Ms. Kingston noted highly planned communities allowed homeowners, over time, the opportunity for a higher acceleration of their property, and there was value in living in a well designed community that had amenities that were above what was standard in other communities. That was the basis for looking at this type of neighborhood development.
Vice Mayor Allen reiterated his concern that the property owners would pay for the infrastructure twice; they would pay market and CDA. He also voiced concern that the City did not require the developer to absorb affordable housing quota in the project, so that some of the funding came back and diversified incomes in the Asheton projects. He was not sure that the development agreement should be amended.
Mayor Frank asked the City Manager to prepare a memorandum to update City Council about the fundamental items regarding the Asheton project and concerns addressed by City Council related to the flow of the money, date the developer planned to break ground and what Phase I of the project entailed.
Vice Mayor Allen pointed out he was not criticizing the development, but wanted to understand the project and its costs to the City and its residents.
Mayor Frank stated, after reading the memo, if City Council needed the matter discussed further he would ask the City Manager to schedule a presentation at an upcoming City Council Work Session.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired what the City decided about rebuilding the Deep Creek Pier. City Manager Hildebrandt replied City Council requested that staff review at the matter and come up with a more detailed cost estimate for the project. He suggested that reserve funds be used to pay for the pier.
City Manager Hildebrandt introduced Ms. Cleder Jones, Assistant to the City Manager for Communications & Community Relations, to lead the presentation on the Strategic Communications Plan.
Ms. Jones stated an important goal of the Strategic Action Plan to Support the City’s Vision Statement, Vision Principles and Operating Guidelines, was Goal 17A, which developed a Strategic Communications Plan for the City. She stated the goal of the Strategic Communications Plan was to enhance the City’s communication efforts and to serve as a roadmap for effectively communicating with the City’s residents, businesses, visitors and employees. (A copy of the “Draft Strategic Communications Plan,” is attached to these minutes.)
Ms. Jones reported the Strategic Communications Plan was developed by a cross departmental team of City employees which included: Kim Lee, Coordinator of Public Information/Media Relations; Lee Ann Hartman, Waterworks; Anita Walters, Office on Children, Youth and Families; Lou Thurston, Police Department; Kirstyn Barr, City Manager’s Office; Shirley Wells, Video Production Manager, Video Production Services; Cindy Brouillard, Administrator of Tourism, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism; David Brooks, Information Technology; and others from the Department of Development and Parks, Recreation & Tourism. The team looked at internal and external communication strategies, assessed current tools and practices, reviewed the City’s website and research efforts, looked at various City publications, assessed the cable television channel, looked at leadership, management, and executive team meetings and looked at special events. They also looked at best practices of other municipal governments and various environmental factors that influenced how and what the City communicated. Ms. Jones introduced Ms. Barr to provide a brief environmental scan.
Ms. Barr noted several environmental factors that the team examined during the development of the Strategic Communications Plan: 1) Evolution of Technology; 2) Increase in Population and Diversity; and 3) Growth and Development of the City. Ms. Barr presented an Environmental Scan presentation which illustrated the above mentioned environmental factors as to why the Strategic Communications Plan was necessary and important to the City as well as its community.
Councilman Haskins expressed interest in seeing an outline of the types of technology under the environmental factors that the team examined, i.e. Jefferson Lab, Canon, etc.
Mayor Frank disagreed with the information noting 260 businesses and more than 1,000 new jobs created in the City since the late 1990’s. He stated the numbers did not reflect true economic figures. City Manager Hildebrandt replied the departmental team would research the matter further.
Ms. Jones noted the nine major external objectives of the Strategic Communications Plan included: 1) City’s communications efforts by assessing citizen attitudes, perceptions and information needs concerning services, programs and operations and evaluating existing communication methods; 2) Continue to support, develop and promote the City’s website as a dynamic and evolving tool of communications for local and global audiences; 3) Increase programming on the City’s government access channel to include using various programs formats and styles; 4) Continue to maintain positive working external communications objectives and the major initiatives of the plan; 5) Increase the City’s visibility and present a unified City image; 6) Increase public awareness of City services, programs and activities; 7) Improve communications with non-English speaking populations and promote diversity; 8) Improve the dissemination of critical information to the public and the media during times of emergencies; and 9) Ensure compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act through educations and training. Ms. Jones introduced Ms. Kim Lee to report on the initiatives the City was undertaking regarding the website.
Ms. Lee reported the City launched its new website in April 2007. She stated City departments were now responsible for managing their entire website. The team also set up guidelines where an overall group of City employees reviewed the City’s website, through the course of the year, to ensure that the website was kept up-to-date. They were continuing look and explore new online services that the City can offer its citizens. They also planned to implement video streaming on the City’s website in 2008, which offered an agenda management package. Through Video Streaming the public would be able to view live broadcast of City Council and Planning Commission meetings as well as City Channel programming on demand. When citizens viewed City Council meetings, once archived, they would be able to select which agenda item to view. The City hoped to have the Video Streaming mechanism online by the summer of 2008.
Councilman Bateman inquired whether the City Council and Work Session agendas would be put on the City’s website, which allowed citizens to download the agendas with attachments, in a PDF file. Ms. Lee replied the PDF feature would be included and the team was working on the number of pages that could be downloaded.
Ms. Jones stated the City planned a news program, every two weeks, to increase programming on the City’s government access channel that highlighted actions by City Council, and upcoming City events, activities, issues and hot topics.
Councilman Haskins inquired whether the groups that the City provided community support aired programs on the City Channel to inform the public about what
they did. City Manager Hildebrandt replied that the thought process for seeing such happen was still evolving and indicated he would like to see as much programming on Channel 48 as possible, but noted there were restrictions that the City had to consider.
Mayor Frank suggested that City Departments offer a video feature on Channel 48 of what they did in lieu of their departmental newsletters. Ms. Jones replied that feature was noted in the proposed Communications Plan. Ms. Jones offered a video demonstration of the proposed bi-weekly news program.
Ms. Jones noted legislation passed by Congress that required a change from analog to digital television, which required the City to become digitally compliant by FY 2009.
Mayor Frank suggested that employees and citizens be invited to make suggestions and comments to the City on matters they felt would enhance City services. Ms. Jones replied a key component of the Communications Plan was that it be a two-way plan that encouraged citizen and employee input and ideas.
Councilwoman Scott inquired whether the bi-monthly news program could include a segment that allowed citizens to call in to inquire about city services, i.e. “Ask Your Manager.” City Manager Hildebrandt replied it might be difficult to do on a live basis, but felt citizens could submit questions about a particular program and the City could respond to questions and concerns during the next scheduled program.
Councilwoman McMillan inquired whether there was an opportunity for interaction in the video streaming such as an internet chat. Ms. Lee responded that was something that could be looked into.
Ms. Lee reported the City hoped to maintain a positive working relationship with the media in order to convey information on programs, policies, services and initiatives to the public in an accurate and timely manner. The City planned to develop a City-wide media relations policy.
Ms. Hartman noted the City planned to increase its visibility and present a unified image, through a branding initiative, which was more than a slogan and logo. The branding created an image for the City. The City would combine and streamline publications and add a citizen’s e-newsletter as well as incorporate a newcomer’s guide for new residents.
Ms. Jones reported the City would improve communications with non-English speaking populations and promote the City’s diversity. The Hispanic population was the fastest growing population in the country and Newport News had 4.4% of that population. The City Manager recently established a Hispanic Advisory Committee to report on how the City could help access services. There were plans to re-evaluate printed materials to print in other languages. (A copy of a pamphlet created by the Police Department noting information in three different languages is attached to these minutes.)
Councilman Haskins felt printing the City publications in other languages was a mistake. He felt immigrants should learn to speak English. He felt the City was promoting non-English speaking residents.
Councilwoman McMillan disagreed and noted most immigrants were in the process of learning English. When the City had information that dealt with their health and safety it was important that the data be disseminated as soon as possible. The easiest way to do that was to have information available in other languages.
Ms. Lee noted the last two objectives included: improving the dissemination of critical information to the public and the media during times of emergencies; and ensuring compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) through education and training. She noted a Citywide employee policy was being finalized, which provided procedural and legal guidance on how to respond to FOIA requests.
Mayor Frank commended the group on the plan and felt it was long overdue and would be beneficial to the public. He thanked Mr. Hildebrandt for his leadership in the implementation of the plan. City Manager Hildebrandt stated it was the responsibility of all City departments and the leadership team to feed information to Channel 48 for its programming. He emphasized that Departments were conscious that communication was a top priority in their day-to-day job responsibility. Everyone needed to think about how to better communicate to the citizens what the City was doing in its delivery of governmental services.
Councilman Haskins commended the City Manager and his staff for an outstanding job in composing the Strategic Communications Plan, although he did not agree with the language situation.
There was consensus among City Council to move forward with the Communications Plan.
IV. Presentation: “People to People” Violence Initiative
Mayor Frank reported People to People postponed its presentation.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS,
ON MOTION, COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 5:04 P.M.
