Hampton City Council Work Session - June 12, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Hampton City Council Work Session - June 12, 2024
The Hampton City Council held a work session on June 12, 2024, at 1:00 PM in Council Chambers. The open session featured a presentation from the Elizabeth Lake Estates Civic Association regarding a proposed increase in the service district tax. The council then moved into closed session to discuss appointments, personnel, real estate, investments, and legal matters. No votes on the tax increase were taken in open session.
Discussion Items
- Elizabeth Lake Estates Service District Tax Increase: Don Newbert, president of the Elizabeth Lake Estates Civic Association, reported that the association had obtained 212 yes votes out of 318 eligible households (66.7%), exceeding the 65% threshold requested by the council. The proposed increase would raise the service district tax from $0.06 per $100 of assessed value to $0.10 per $100. Mr. Newbert noted that 36 households voted no (11%), and the remainder were either non-responsive, vacant, or rental properties where contact could not be established. He addressed concerns raised by Councilmember Brown regarding past projects, access to financial records, and the removal of signs, explaining that the association has improved communication, created a policy for financial information requests, and plans to involve residents in future project decisions. He stated that the increase is intended to cover ongoing costs and build a reserve, with no immediate plans for further increases, though future inflation could necessitate another request. Councilmember Bowman asked if the increase would be sufficient for several years, and Mr. Newbert indicated it should last five to ten years. The council acknowledged the report but did not vote on the proposal during the work session.
Key Outcomes
- The council received the Elizabeth Lake presentation and will consider the service district tax increase at a future meeting. No formal action was taken.
- The council unanimously approved a motion (7-0) to enter closed session pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711.A (.1), (.3), (.6), and (.8) to discuss appointments, performance of city staff, the City Attorney position, real property acquisition/disposition in the Coliseum Central area, investment of public funds, and legal advice regarding short-term rentals.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon and welcome. Like to ask our clerk, call the roll, please. Councilman Bowman. Present. Councilman Brown. Vice Mayor Craig. Present. Councilwoman Harper, present. Councilman Hobbes. Present. Councilwoman Mudgler, present. Mayor Todd. Present. Again, I'd like to ask our assistant city manager Brian DeProfio. Who's in for our city manager? Uh to please uh introduce this afternoon's agenda, please. All right. Thank you. Um we have one open session item this afternoon that relates to uh earlier this year. Elizabeth Lake Civic Association asked council to consider increasing the service district tax that was established in 2002 from uh six cents per hundred of assessed value to ten cents per hundred of assessed value. Given the concerns raised by Elizabeth Lake homeowners, um council asked uh the civic association to get um 65 percent of homeowners to agree to the increase. Um they have done this and provided uh signed petitions to city staff representing over 65 percent support uh that council requested. Um the uh civic association president, Mr. Don Newbert is here today um to uh to address council and uh and take any questions that council might have. So I'd like to ask Mr. Newbert to come up to the podium and uh and update council on where they are and uh answer any questions that council has. Well good afternoon, Mayor Tuck and City Council members. So as uh president of the Elizabeth Lake uh Civic Association, uh we were um asked by city council to ensure that we had at least 65 percent of supporters of residents in favor of the service district tax increase from what is now six cents per 100 of assessed value to ten cents of a hundred dollars assessed value. I had previously presented to the city council um the reasoning for the increase, and um I don't think I necessarily need to go into that now, but I do want to uh report and I do have um I have um uh Pam Pringle, Sandy May, and Kurt Wallace, who are active members are of our community and part of the Elector board here today as well. But I would um very much like to uh report that we have um completed uh the the um tasking to look to obtain a supermajority, 65 percent of our residents who are in support of the agreement, and we achieved a 66 point um roughly 67 percent of supporters who have achieved. So out of 318 uh homes, um which means 318 members, we receive one vote per per residents, and out of the 318, we received 212 in support, which is a which is uh 66.7 percent. We also uh did receive 36 uh no votes, which is 11 percent. Uh we did have um um 11 rentals that we were unable to obtain uh um contact with the owner, although we tried uh numerous methods to do that. We had um 12 vacant homes that we were unable to take obtain um correspondence with the residents, and we had about 47 no response, meaning that you know we had we attempted phone calls, we stopped at people's door, you know, once or twice to make sure that uh at least they gave the opportunity to to vote. So overall, the overall 212 yes votes out of 318 uh voting members of Elizabeth Lake Association. Any questions from council? Councilman Brown? Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, what was that last number again? How many last number about residents? How many residents you had? It was uh 318 voting members because there's one vote per residents and we obtained 212 yes votes for 66.7 percent supporting the increase. Yeah, just to just a couple of questions. Um, I'm I've heard from residents uh for and uh against this increase in the um in the tax. Uh but there's some concerns that I have. Maybe you can uh help me with those concerns. Some indicate about projects that were done or maybe not done in the community. Uh you guys heard that and also their concerns about access to uh getting a financial report of where monies are going and for what the last uh thing, and this may be petty for some folks, but I think it's concerning when signs are put in the community and indicated those signs were removed uh because those wanted to have an initial meeting and lines of communication. How have you guys addressed those concerns? Yes, those are great questions.
openpublica.com