City Council Meeting   9/19/2022

Okay.

Well, it's 4 o'clock, and so let us call to order the September 19, 2022, Charlottesville City Council meeting.

Ms.

Thomas, will you call the roll, please?

Do we have Councilor McGill?

I know she wasn't going to be attending physically.

Okay.

All right.

Last I heard, there was a possibility that she might, but it was dependent on health issues.

Okay.

Is there a motion to approve or to amend the agenda?

So moved.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

As always our meeting will be divided into three main sections.

The first part is a work session to hear and discuss presentations that will not involve a council vote.

We will then have a closed meeting today starting roughly 530.

so we're looking for this first portion of the meeting to take roughly an hour and a half an hour and 15 minutes somewhere in that neighborhood then a council business meeting which will begin around 6 30 there will be seating available here in the council chambers for up to 23 pre-registered attendees and media others are able to join electronically by zoom so we have two reports on the four o'clock agenda first is from jaunt and second is from the vibrant community fund update

I see Jaunt is up and ready to go.

Ready to start us off?

We're seeing the report.

We're not hearing you.

Check.

Check.

We're seeing your lips move, Ted, but we're not hearing.

I think she can hear us, but we can't hear you.

Okay.

Ted, we'll get to you.

We'll handle it on this end.

It's not you.

Price saw with the deputy city manager.

So...

Hmm.

Yep.

So we can go and just .

Anyone tuned in?

Sorry about that.

Okay, just heard something.

Who is that?

I'm seeing something on the screen.

Correct.

I'm trying different audio inputs right now.

Yeah.

Yeah, please.

Well, I could, like, join as a panel.

In other words, join with my audio.

Yes, I am.

Is anyone else still in Zoom in here?

I am.

Just you?

Testing, one, two.

Or for that matter, Mr. Rogers is on but muted.

if you were to try to say something that might help us figure this thing out, Mr. Rogers.

Is there anybody on this call from Zoom?

Through Zoom.

Ted, are you on the call at this point?

We see your video.

Yes.

Yes.

What appears is that, and I know Mr.

Well, now we can hear Ted.

Do we think we're ready to have Ted give us a try here?

Yes, Ted, can you speak for me?

Yeah, this is Michael Rogers.

Yes.

Why don't you go ahead?

It sounds to me like we have it straightened out.

Now we did hear both Ted and Mr. Rogers, but I don't know, I notice I'm not showing up on the transcription here.

Are you all able to hear me at the other end?

Okay.

Well, do we need, is there any requirement that the transcript be accurate or anything?

If there's not any requirement of the transcript, let's go ahead with Ted, because he's showing up on the transcript.

Okay, now I'm showing up on the transcript.

All right.

Yes, let's do this.

Thank you for allowing us to make a presentation to you today, kind of giving an update on what's going on at John.

Just to kind of remind you, our sole purpose for existing is to really empower people, give them independence in their lives.

People want to have their own way of living and we think our transportation service provides people that opportunity to live and work in our community as well as receiving education and medical treatment.

Over the years, John has stimulated a lot of resources to provide these services.

I believe we do an excellent job in the community.

That's because of our bus operators and our support personnel.

among our bus operator group we have over 546 years experience of driving the community.

We serve a six county area plus the city of Charlottesville itself and we think we're part of the economic web that brings all of us together.

Last year was fifth ended in June 30.

We transported someplace in the neighborhood of 40,000 riders for a variety of reasons.

The two biggest reasons is either to make money or to spend money.

20% of our trips were employment related, 14% were shopping related, and 40% medical.

And the combination of those really contributes to the economic

And also the lives of the people who are affected.

For many older people, we are a way out to the community.

Many older people don't want to be dependent upon others to live their lives.

And we give that an opportunity for them to do that.

But also for the caregivers who do take care of the older people, an opportunity for them to maintain their work and their lives while their parents, perhaps,

are able to access business services in the community.

We believe we contribute to healthy outcomes by providing access to medical services, by getting people to preventative care and their treatments hopefully avoid more serious medical problems later on.

We also think we balance the economic playing field for people by providing opportunities to get to work.

And as part of that, we think we contribute to equity in the community.

For every dollar spent on transit, that dollar turns over seven times in the community.

So when we pay a bus operator, he goes shopping locally and that in turn allows that retailer to employ people and therefore turn that money over.

And another way too, we think we can contribute towards affordable housing as well.

There's a study by the Centers for Neighborhood Technology, which says if you're spending more than 50% of your income on housing and transportation alone, that's putting you kind of in a difficult position.

What transit can do is lower that percentage.

We have people who may own automobiles, where they're kind of on the fringe of our economic activity, where they have to really choose between

keeping a car on the road or paying rent or getting healthy food for the kids or even buying shoes and other necessities of life.

It's much less expensive to ride John than it is to own and operate a car.

So if we can reduce people's transportation expenses, it allows them to not only afford better housing but also the other necessities of life.

So I think in that way,

John Balances Reed, the economic equation for many people.

As part of our ongoing efforts to improve ourselves, we have several initiatives underway, what I would like to briefly talk to you about.

First of all, we are exploring alternative fuel vehicles.

Our fleet is mainly gasoline powered.

We're looking at less polluting technology.

We're looking at CNG, compressed natural gas, electric vehicles, as well as hydrogen fuel cells.

We are working with the consultant, Kim Lee Horn, who's also advising the CAAT system as well.

So we're trying to be on a parallel effort to see what opportunities may exist for John to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Our goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions by 45%

by 2030.

We're also looking at Michael Transit, which is also a service delivery method that CAT is looking at as well.

Microtransit is like an Uber for transit.

Our current service requires you to make an advanced reservation to ride it.

As you may experience an Uber, you can book a trip almost immediately and get picked up.

We think people's lives will be better served by a more spontaneous transportation system

and we're looking at doing that in different parts of our service area not only in the city but in the rural and suburban areas as well we're also embarking on a five-year transit plan

to look at where the needs of the future may exist.

This particular map shows the region, the six county region plus Charlottesville, the darker areas show areas that had the highest need for transit

and those needs are pretty much everywhere including in Charlottesville itself this focuses on Charlottesville there are some significant pockets of transit needs and there are other areas that are kind of less intense but still there are needs of people within this zone to use John

This focuses on older populations, which is another group that we think has a need.

There's one study that suggests that people over 70 have an accident rate almost as much as 16 year olds.

So while it's difficult to take the car keys out of mom and dad's hands, it may be best for everyone to give them an alternative so that they don't feel trapped at home or wherever they may be.

So providing this opportunity we think is a betterment for the community.

Anyway, we'll be looking at these different metrics along other factors and looking at what does John in the future need to look like.

This also focuses on persons with disabilities, which is a significant market for us in the city of Charlottesville.

In addition to doing these studies, we're trying to market our services as well to recapture ridership that we lost during the pandemic.

You can send us the link.

I think I saw it actually right before I

No.

You're seeing me, huh?

Yeah.

Let me see if I can.

Here we go.

Sure, you've seen us around, but haven't been formally introduced since 1975.

John's professional operators have offered compassionate and inclusive transportation for everyone.

And in the past two years, we have delivered essential workers to their jobs, taken patients with critical health care appointments, shuttled voters to the polls, and helped you stay connected.

We are grounded in service to our community.

We are applying this commercial and two other versions of it on local stations through the spring of 2023.

We're using it to reintroduce people to John and to begin to stimulate ridership.

We have seen an increase in ridership since starting in July.

Power is probably due to fuel prices, but also people coming out of COVID.

So that's pretty much my presentation.

Yeah, you had mentioned that John was looking at natural gas.

And I know that we got a presentation on that for the CAT buses.

It seemed like several months ago.

But there's a lot of obstacles that have to be in place.

And so I just wanted to know if you all are doing something different.

Are you ahead of CAT, or you're in the same queue as

as CAD or your head.

Well, we're using the same consultant that CAD is.

We're taking a little bit of a different approach.

We don't have a preconceived idea of which technology to use.

We're looking at CNG, electric, as well as hydrogen fuel cells.

We have convened a Citizens Advisory Committee to help us explore which of those options would be the best move for us.

In fact, we're having a meeting this Thursday at one o'clock.

If you want to join, I can arrange to send you a link.

Where we are right now is the consultant has studied each of those options.

We're going to explore the pros and cons of those options with our committee, try to get a sense of where we think we should be heading.

Then the next step is to create some recommendations.

The electric bus technology is interesting, though for smaller vehicles like we operate, the range is an issue.

However, there may be some fast charging opportunities we can put out in the community that would help mitigate some of that.

Hydrogen fuel cells is another interesting technology, but you need to be able to create hydrogen, which

I'm not sure if the infrastructure is there yet, and CNG also requires an infrastructure investment as well.

So we're kind of on a parallel path.

I can't speak for CAAT, but what we're doing is looking at the different

Mr. Reich, I'm pretty sure that UTS, the university, is going with electric.

I understand there's a project underway now to put in the infrastructure for charging over at Millmont.

So I know you have a professional relationship with Ms.

White over there.

That might be worth your conversation as well.

It would be awesome if

are three separate entities.

Maybe at some point they'll be under one authority.

We'll see.

Well, we do have representation from UTS on our citizens group.

So they should be tracking what we're doing.

The university

has a different challenge than we do.

You know, they're kind of in a compact area, plus they operate larger vehicles and larger vehicles have a longer range for battery electric.

We operate over a 2,700 square mile area in our particular vehicles.

The technology isn't there yet.

I guess just a very broad question, but obviously we've got the regional planning activities for the regional transit vision plan and an upcoming study to follow that for the regional transit governance study about

which I would expect to include a recommendation of creating a regional transit authority and incorporating on-demand transit.

And just a high-level question, what is Jaunt as an organization doing in terms of thinking about that future?

Are you thinking about how you could be part of a regional transit authority?

Well, we're participants in the governance study.

and through the RTP work.

And of course, there are different ways they can go about that.

But we're open to discussion.

The model that exists in the Richmond area has independent systems kind of being coordinated by an authority.

So that's one particular model.

Another model is a combined transit system, you know, one agency doing all things.

So a lot will depend upon what that study shows and what

people's interest levels are in terms of how to proceed with that.

For the on-demand transit service idea, we're doing a couple of things.

One is CAT has received a demo grant operating Pantops and the Holymead area for micro transit.

I'm not sure how they're going to procure those services.

We're hopeful that John could be a

If we have a proposal of that, we would have an opportunity to submit a proposal.

And to that end, we have our own RFP out soliciting a partner who has microtransit experience to join us in a possible proposal to the city, the county, and PDC should they issue an RFP to get an operator for that service.

I think if we partner with a reputable micro transit provider with John I think we would make a very compelling team we already operate in those areas we have vehicles and we have drivers to serve all that we're in pretty good shape being able to launch that the question will become

Are we competitive cost wise?

Is our business approach suitable in whatever other factors that the parties would have?

If we're not fortunate to be part of that demo, we will look at other opportunities to do that type of service.

There is another demo project coming out of the Monticello area, which we could pursue.

but we may look at some of our rural counties as well.

So it is a service delivery mechanism we are looking at.

We're hopeful we can join up with the county and the city on these demo grants and we're preparing for that.

Yeah, and I would definitely agree from my perspective.

The more coordination and cooperation, the better.

I'm curious about one thing that is certainly a hot topic in plenty of other circles.

Well, we pay more than anybody else.

I'm being a little flippant back in the spring we were very aggressive in raising our rates but I also think John has a good culture we spend a lot of time and effort taking care of our bus operators

The first Saturday, October 8th, we're actually going to be celebrating our bus operators with an annual banquet, recognizing them.

Our board members will be there to help celebrate them.

We try to do morale building things throughout the year.

Our operation team pays attention to them.

And the rest of the organization does the same thing.

We like to think we've got a very good culture and we think we're a nice place to work.

One of our goals is to become the employer of choice in the region.

And so that dovetails with providing competitive compensation as well as a good work environment.

I think we have ways to go on all those things, but I think that helps us out as well.

And I don't say that to be critical of anybody else.

And then the other question I had was you were brought in in the wake of something of a financial scandal, and I am just wondering if you could bring us up to date on, you know, are there consequences from that that are still lingering?

Have you got things figured out?

I have a general sense that the ship is righted, but I also am aware that there may be complications that continue that we haven't heard of.

Well, from a state federal level, I think we're in good shape.

We've been in communication with BRPT.

We've addressed some issues that we felt were lingering from the past.

And I think we have those behind us.

And we are retooling our budgeting effort.

We are starting on our FY24 budget already.

and our strategy is to keep our funding partners the city and the county especially informed as to how those budgets are coming together we're taking a different more granular approach to our budgeting process so when we ask you for money we're going to be able to tell you what you're buying for and

and there'll be much more transparency in our processes.

So I think that'll be helpful.

Again, we've been in communication with, especially the County Budgeting Office.

So I think we've made progress in those areas and we'll continue to make progress by having a more transparent budgeting process.

There are some funding challenges that we're looking at that we have, try to keep the parties informed.

One of our biggest problems is that we receive federal money.

Our main federal money goes for rural services, which creates a problem for our urban services of which our ADA is part of it.

We don't have enough federal urban capital money to meet our needs.

We've got plenty of rural money, but not enough urban money.

And that's going to create a challenge

for the county and the city as we look at our capital needs.

We've got some ideas on that, but it's going to be requiring us all to work together to address them.

Okay.

Anybody else have questions?

Not really.

Sam did ask that I quickly address our governance issues.

We're having an annual shareholders meeting.

on October 12th.

Mr. Rogers is going to be a proxy for the city on that.

We're revamping our governance documents, our articles of incorporation, our stock purchase agreement, and our bylaws.

They're all mainly technical changes.

but they're ones that will keep us syncing up our our practice with our with our legal requirements and we've been keeping our board informed about all those as well as the city administration so

Well, it is less important to me that I know the details and it is more important to me that somebody in city government whose job it is knows the details.

So if you keep with them, I'm in good shape with you.

Any other questions, comments?

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so the next up is going to be Misty Graves and Hunter Smith to talk about the Vibrant Community Fund update.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

There I am.

Great.

All right.

Well, hello, everyone.

Thanks for having us.

Again, I think I know everyone, President Hunter Smith, Human Services Planner, Department of Human Services, and I, in the last year, took on one of the projects of the Vibrant Community Fund for this upcoming year.

There has been

We've you know with for the counselors here we've that since we've met we haven't made any major changes so it's the same pretty much the same thing you guys have already seen although we did realize that we left in the timeline stuff that has already happened so you can ignore that submissive you can scroll down a little bit to October 1 and so we're going to do a quick over a brief overview of the vibrant community fund process going into this year and I'll start with the timeline so for the first five bullets to be completed

Most of that, we've been reaching out to community for recruiting team members.

We've scheduled an orientation.

We have some technical assistance folks.

They're going to work with us.

And October 1st is a scheduled release of the application.

And everyone from last year has been notified.

Anyone new that's coming this year has also been notified of the application release date.

And the 7th, it will close.

The December, and during that period, during the period of application time, we've told you this before, I think, is that's the question and answer time as well.

We do any site visits for anybody asking for over 100,000, and it's a time for the review teams to communicate with the applicants about things that aren't so clear.

We can take some time to get to know them better.

December, January, the review teams that we select, read and score applicants and applications, we meet

virtually, may do some in-person or hybrid this year, we're not quite sure yet.

I will add to, for the city councilors, we are doing a hybrid orientation, so it'll be an in-person option.

It'll also be Zoom option, and we'll record it for anyone that can't make it.

So we did make all that work out, for those of you that were asking about that.

February, we...

Start getting everybody together after we're done with the review process.

In March and April is when we create the report and work together to finalize what the decisions are.

I'm just going to scroll down to orientation and technical assistance.

Anybody, any questions or comments on the timeline part?

Nope.

Great.

Great.

As I said, orientations will be recorded and we will share our PowerPoint materials and any, like, what we call parking lot

questions or things that come up during the orientation that aren't addressed in the orientation.

We'll collect those questions, answer them, and send everything out to everyone, including a scoring matrix.

During orientation, we will set up timeframes, notification process.

We'll walk through the Zoom grants process, talk about priority areas and categories, review budget expectations with our colleagues over in the budget office.

There is a clean slate this time, so there's no asking for whatever you asked for the previous year, so we are doing what we call zero-based budget process.

We will go over some technical assistance in the orientation, but we will have a separate diversity, equity, inclusion presentation slash orientation, I believe the second week of October.

October 4th is a scheduled orientation date, and I will send that invitation to everyone here as well if anyone wants to join in.

Thanks, Misty.

Can you scroll up one more real quick, Misty, to see what the topic was?

Okay, yeah, additions, scrolling down.

So the additions this year, we are going to be asking applicants for a cost participant analysis for people that apply to multiple localities so that we can kind of look at what people are

what people are doing in other regions just to kind of get a sense of what that is based on the request from the city and other places where they may operate.

What we do is site visits for anyone asking for 100,000 or more and for all new and emerging applicants, which we will get to in a few minutes about what that category is.

The quarterly report expectations and template review will be done during orientation.

And then let's see, there's a

We will also add this time.

Our goal is to add a summary of a feedback summary for each review team, each applicant that comes in.

And so in the report, there will be some sort of joint statement that we're going to be providing to council as to where someone landed on the scoring matrix.

Like I said, that's our plan.

I'm not sure how it's going to go over.

We're going to have to work on that.

Could be some wordsmithing on that.

But that's our goal this year to try to provide some clarity and some

transparency to the review process.

Our review teams are comprised of as a diverse combination as we can make it.

We have people that maybe are consumers or live experience in the priority areas or with some of the applicants.

Consumers, some people have nonprofit and grant writing experience.

We also have staff from different departments that participate as well.

And then we do our best to, we do all the conflict of interest questions and we make sure people are put in categories where they may not, you know, have a huge stake in what they participate in or try to keep people in the right groups.

The review team orientation is similar to the applicant orientation.

So we go over what the applicants are also learning so that they're aware of what they're going to be doing when it's time to review.

And they also will have an opportunity to participate in the DEI training as well with our community partners.

And then we said that she will have a summary of constructive feedback as well.

All right, Misty, thank you.

Let's see here's some other changes.

So this year we have

separated people into different kind of categories.

So previously we were using the term contractual and what we're going to call them now is intergovernmental because that's kind of what they really are.

These applicants are not scored by review teams.

They're not technically part of the Vibrant Community Fund.

So their funding doesn't come from the Vibrant Community Fund that we outlined in the beginning, but they just apply through the Zoom grants process and then the budget team and the Human Services Department review those.

if someone is applying to move.

It's separate funding, but they do come through this process.

Last year, we called the second group essential, and now we're calling them fundamental.

We changed that already because that's a term we also use for importance level when we're doing the reviews.

The fundamental applicants are not scored by the review team.

They were reviewed by budget and human services staff in coordination with the county.

and those organizations fall into the 1A category.

So they receive whatever the highest level of, whatever the highest percentage of funding is that other groups receive due to the nature of what they do.

And then the competitive, Misty score down just a little bit, please.

These are operational and the three categories for the competitive groups this year, three main categories are education, youth and families.

Health and Safety, Economic Impact and Jobs.

And as you can see down the bottom, we also have an arts and culture component, which is done a little bit differently because of the nature of what they ask for.

They don't really fit into the Zoom grant structure, so they do a little bit different process.

And the affordable housing category we usually have in previous years is being moved to the CAF process.

So they will be all like in a housing group, and the Vibrant Community Fund will no longer review those applications.

Although there could be some overlap and we'll work with the Office of Community Solutions if there's somebody that may be kind of, you know, it's kind of hard to tell where they go.

We will consult with them on that.

And then we have a new and emerging category too.

This is organizations that are five years old or younger.

They will have an option in the online application to choose that.

and so they will have to show that they are that fit that category and what that does is helps us kind of see who's newer and we will be able to do site visits for them and also try to work with them since they're newer and don't have as much history or as much data to produce so that they get an equal share an equal assessment for the vibrant community fund process so that we're continuing to

The city wants to continue to explore, develop, and recruit new organizations in this process.

And this is the way that we found will hopefully be successful.

And that's a new component as well.

Funding determinations and council recommendations.

Council can check in with us at any time that you guys want to know what's going on along the process.

And we did review some of this all with you already to give you a heads up.

and again just to reiterate that we will be trying to provide a one or two sentence summary that outlines the or you know connects the score to what we can communicate about the process so that council members everybody here has a chance to kind of understand what the review team is doing and the Microsoft form

template for quarterly reporting has been sent out to FY23 applicants.

We will do the same thing for FY24, probably get some feedback from this year's applicants, make any adjustments you need to make.

And that is a summary of the Vibrant Community Fund process for this coming year.

We're just a couple of weeks away from releasing the application.

Yeah, I appreciate the responsiveness of this group in terms of trying to improve the VCF process.

I just came on this past year and going through the past budget season and some of the questions that arose during the VCF process, I appreciate staff really sort of

Buckling down and trying to figure out a way to do this to continue to improve it.

And that's what I see here.

It seems more clear.

It seems like it will work better.

Thank you.

We really hope so.

Yeah, likewise, I'd like to, you know, concur with what Brian said.

This is one of those processes that where, you know, at least when I was reviewing this for many years, I wish I had this much clarity.

And I know that this is, you know, takes a lot of work, but it's a process that we get a lot of

comments on.

So when the process is clear like this and open, it makes it a lot easier for at least for me to respond.

So thank you very much.

And I just continue to hear great feedback from the community of your MISTI's office, openness to field questions, answer questions and assist.

Yeah, likewise.

I think a lot of positive changes have been made.

Well,

The only thing that's brand new is the new and emerging.

And so we had two of those last year.

Last year, they were considered, I think, I forget what we called them last year.

Misty might want to remind you.

Remember?

Not sure.

But if you're talking about intergovernmental has always been there, Councillor, it just was kind of mixed in.

We didn't really like to really separate it.

And the fundamental groups was a change from last year.

I don't have the list in front of me.

and I don't want to go off memory because I look at these lists and these little subgroups all the time and I have to look.

Yeah, no, that's totally fine because in my memory could be wrong.

I just remembered I thought, well, last year was contractual, this year intergovernmental.

There were a few changes in terms of what organizations are now.

Last year weren't under contractual.

Did that make sense?

The issue there is really the intergovernmental are folks like that would be like region 10.

That would be people that are like, I think the health department is an example.

People that don't really compete for the same.

They have their own funding streams or funding sources.

We just use the Zoom grants platform to have their applications submitted.

And so we do that separately.

And so if you're asking about the contractual intergovernmental, those are some of the bigger organizations that do lots of things.

And I don't really have any, like, I don't really know even what their, you know, where their money comes from.

It's just kind of their, I think their timeframes line up with vibrant communities.

So we allow them to apply through the same process.

So that may not answer your question at all.

my best shot at it, but I will send you the lists.

I just did them today.

No, yeah, and I guess really the bottom line to my question is, if my memory is correct, there were a few organizations that were moved into that category who weren't there last budget cycle.

And bottom line would be, I think it would be worth a serious conversation about whether CRHA should be included as one of those intergovernmental organizations.

Last budget cycle, council had discussed moving CRHA into

was a contractual agency at that time and it happened at the very end of the budget cycle and just didn't come together.

But I think as we enter into this upcoming budget cycle it would be worth a serious conversation and consideration just because they obviously occupy a pretty unique role as a quasi-governmental organization.

not formally part of the city but we've made a significant capital investment that I don't know if we've matched in terms of operational investment and I wonder if that could be an avenue to just better formalize that relationship and provide them support given how unique an organization and role within the city they play.

I can follow up on that and let you know what I learned and see where the questions would lead.

I can look into that.

Yeah, but that's all I have.

I would just like to say that my goal out of the Vibrant Community Fund process is to make it so clear as to what has happened that counselors can look at each other and say, we've got no problems with this.

The last few years there have always been issues of, for example, why it is that certain agencies just never have scored very well at your end of things and they seem to be relying on coming and pressuring council in a political sense to make up for what might seem to have been deficiencies in the application process.

and in their application, I should say.

And one of my hopes is that we will not be in that situation, that they will have received enough guidance going in so that they're not going to have to say at the end of things, oh, gee, we didn't understand what you were looking for, or gee, if we had just understood that, perhaps we would have done something different in our application.

I think we wound up spending a lot of time, both the last few years, the last three years, sort of relitigating things that, frankly, we shouldn't have been relitigating, that should have been clarified from the get-go.

So I hope that you will, and it sounds like the direction you're headed with this is certainly the right direction.

and I particularly like the notion of being able to get some feedback both to them and to us as to what deficiencies you all see in the application and why somebody, why some application might have been downgraded relative to

what they're now coming and telling us in open meetings that they really wanted to tell us beforehand.

So I applaud that.

I hope you will get as much information like that as possible and make it as available as possible so that we can understand and everybody can understand without having to have the meetings on the point.

Yeah, and I guess there's just more conversation to have.

I know that they've been included in this process a couple budget cycles ago when they hadn't before.

They submit multiple different kinds of requests, but I guess the bottom line is

The purpose of their proposal last year that we discussed on Council is to provide permanent ongoing support based on the number of units that they're managing to cover basically that operational expense.

Whether that is under the CAF or not I guess is something we still have to

Every single request they make is going to be under CAF or whether some or not, I guess maybe isn't fully settled.

Thank you.

And the last thing I need to remind you of is the website has been updated with as much up-to-date information as possible.

So the information's been changed and we're going to work to keep up with that.

Can I ask a quick question?

So last year did the Jefferson School and all of that piece, was that part of the VCF?

Do I have that?

Well, it was not funded through the VCF.

They raised the issue at about the same time that the VCF discussions were taking place and we basically decided that we were going to deal with it not as part of the VCF process.

Actually, this highlights another point, which is that I hope that by spending a little bit more time and paying a little more attention right now, we can make it clear to folks who might want city money for some purpose that this is the way they should be approaching it, not coming to council off budget, out of cycle, saying, oh, we want $100,000 from you.

Because that...

that's not a good way for us to be doing business and it's not a good way for the organization to be doing business.

Sometimes I think that they were daunted by or didn't understand the VCF process and so they figured they had a better shot to come to us directly rather than going through the process.

But by having made that process now

so much more transparent, I think.

Any other questions, comments?

Thank you all.

I think that's it.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

And so, Council, we are actually ahead of our schedule, which is good.

And the next item on our agenda is to go into closed session.

Yes, I have that here.

Okay.

all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed all right the motion passes city council will now go into closed session we will return to a different link a separate link for the open meeting and with any luck that'll be at 6 30 so we're in recess so we're actually into closed session for now we'll see everybody back in an hour and a half

Do we have everybody assembled that we need assembled?

We've got all the counselors here.

We've got Mr. Rogers here.

So I hereby declare it to be 630.

And we'll begin the 6.30 meeting.

First of all, we have to officially come out of closed session.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Ms.

Thomas, will you take the vote?

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne.

Councilor Payne

Thank you.

So announcements.

Yes, I have one.

I would like to announce about the Men's Day Health event that's going to take place this Saturday from 9 to 2 at Mount Zion First African Baptist Church.

It's on Langford Avenue.

And it's an opportunity.

They're going to have some games there for men to do haircuts.

They're going to have transportation.

and is this going to be an opportunity for men, all men, just to come out and get more information about health and healthy options?

There's going to be transportation provided.

I'm planning to go.

I'm encouraging my fraternity brothers.

There's going to be a fraternity challenge there as well with different fraternities to come out and do some fun events.

But the main point is to get the information out about the health event and healthy choices and living.

So I'm looking forward to this.

Additional information, you can contact Jackie Martin.

and she can be reached at 243-8352.

That's 243-8352.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Wade.

Other announcements?

comments or whatever.

One, I had the pleasure this morning of joining Alex Zahn at a CYM event.

CYM stands for Close Your Mouth and it's an effort to get kids to close their mouth and open their ears instead.

And he had us talking to about 15 four-year-olds from Barrett Day Care Center and that was

Interesting experience.

Second, I know over the weekend there was a very successful Pride event and also a very successful Sobroso Festival.

Sorry, I couldn't go to either one since I was in Michigan with our daughter and our brand new granddaughter.

other things to be doing.

But both of these events I think are examples of how Charlottesville at its best is open and welcoming to diverse populations and diverse groups.

And both of these are good examples of that.

I should also add that today I had the privilege of issuing a mayoral proclamation to WNRN Radio.

So they're celebrating 25 years of nonprofit radio and very successful.

Boards and commissions, is there a motion regarding board and commission appointments?

I would move to a point to the Board of Architectural Review, Roger Birrell and Tyler Whitney, to the Historic Resources Committee, Dee Dee Smith, to the Jaunt Board, Lucas Ames, Christine Appert, and Ray Heron.

to the YMCA Board, Shanice Bradford, to the PVCC Board, Chinta Gaston, and to the Region 10 Board, Joe Sakos.

Is there a second?

Any discussion?

Not?

Thomas yes uh Councillor Payne yes

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, that motion passes 4-0.

We thank those folks for the expectation of their good service and also thank the applicants whom we did not appoint.

Consent agenda.

Ms.

I can hear her pretty fine.

Okay.

We can hear her on the broadcast as well.

Sounds good.

Consent agenda.

Number three, United Way reimbursement of community resource hotline staff costs, $26,333.76.

Second reading.

Four, resolution, Virginia Department of Social Services temporary aid to needy families grants, $100,000.

First of two readings.

Five, Resolution Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS, HIV Grant Amendment, $3,981, one of two readings.

Thank you.

So we will now take public comment regarding items on the consent agenda, those four items that were just read by the clerk.

Each speaker will have up to three minutes.

In the Zoom webinar, you may select the raise hand option to be placed in the speaker queue.

If you have joined by phone and wish to speak on the consent agenda you may press star 9 and I want to reemphasize if you are one of those folks who signed up in advance this is not your time.

Your time will come in a few minutes.

So just on those four items alone is there anybody in council chambers who would like to speak on a consent agenda item?

Correct.

Just the four consent agenda items.

Yes.

Josh Cron has his hand raised.

Yeah, I can hear you.

And I wasn't clear.

No.

Okay.

It is only on the four items on the consent agenda.

Okay.

Is there anyone else?

I guess there is nobody else wanting to speak on the consent agenda.

Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

So moved, Mr. Mayor.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any further questions or comments from Council?

Ms.

Yes.

Okay, motion passes.

City Manager Report.

Yes, sir.

There are a couple of items.

I wanted to note that tonight is the second Council meeting for this month.

We have been presenting quarterly financial reports to Council at the end of each quarter.

the last report we presented was for the third quarter of FY22 and in keeping with the schedule the fourth quarter report is now due note that we will not be presenting the fourth quarter report FY22 tonight as it represents the financial results for all of last year

and those results will not be final until after the audit is completed.

The city's auditors have begun their work and Mr. Cullinane and the finance director is scheduled to present the audit and year-end financial results to council in early December.

We're still anticipating a sizable surplus as we previously discussed and at this point we do not anticipate any material differences in what was previously reported.

for your reference.

The quarterly reports can be found on the city's budget webpage and can be viewed interactively using the budget explorer tool.

We will resume our established quarterly financial report presentation at the second meeting in October with the presentation of the results of the first quarter of the current year.

So that's on the financial

We have a written report, city management report tonight.

We do that the first meeting of each month.

I would like to note though, for your information, we promised last week that we would come back to you with a proposal for the transportation salary adjustment and pupil transportation salary adjustment this meeting.

We're not quite ready.

We have worked hard on it to get all of the issues resolved.

We will be back to you for the October 3rd meeting with the proposal on pupil transportation.

Any questions of Mr. Rogers?

So now we come to community matters.

We have eight pre-registered speakers leaving eight slots for additional speakers on community matters.

Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak.

Let's see.

I'm told to ask no comments, please, on public hearing items coming up during action items.

The only public hearing we've got

deals with the CDBG and home investment partnerships funds for program year 23-24.

So if you were intending to speak on that, please hold until we get to that point.

I don't see any indication that that was among the issues that the folks had indicated they wanted to talk about.

Anyway, if you are not somebody wanting to talk about that, we will now open the floor to pre-registered speakers.

Is Quinn Glover here?

Okay.

My own request to speak mysteriously disappeared.

After the SUP application for the 2005 JPA was submitted last winter, residents of the JPA neighborhood wrote to city staff, the planning commission and city council pointing out how the mass and scale conflicts with comprehensive plan guidelines stating that new development should have forms and scales that are respectful of the surrounding neighborhood.

We also pointed out the conflicts in height with the entrance corridor guidelines, recommending reduced height near low density uses.

We brought up the negative impacts this development would have on traffic, parking, the environment, and the quality of life of nearby homeowners, and noted that it includes no affordable housing.

The City Staff Report of March 30 acknowledged that, quote, the unbroken east and west elevations exceed what is typical within this corridor.

In fact, exceed what is typical in Charlottesville.

And further, quote, that a height of 75 feet exceeds the recommendation for this location and therefore results in adverse impact.

The developer asked for a postponement of the SUP review, but made no changes to their proposal.

Instead, city staff changed their report, replacing adverse impact with no adverse impact.

What happened?

Last May, this SUP was narrowly approved by the Planning Commission in a 4-3 vote.

Members of both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concern about the project's massing and scale,

and its negative impacts on the neighborhood.

The application was put on City Council's June 6 agenda, then got suddenly removed.

Mayor Snook explained in an email that Mr. Freese had concerns about the massing and scale and wanted city staff to work with the developer to make the massing, quote, less obnoxious.

Three months passed, and now the application is back on your agenda, completely unchanged.

What happened?

The staff memo on today's agenda acknowledges the concerns voiced by members of the Planning Commission and City Council last May, but it concludes that, quote, most of the massing and scale issues could be addressed and mitigated when the project comes back to ERB for design review and a certificate of appropriateness.

But in fact, there is no such thing as mitigating massing and scale besides reducing them.

If you approve the requested height and density, mitigation would just be lipstick on a pig.

This project would not only harm the neighborhood, it would effectively rezone it before rezoning has taken place.

This undermines the community collaborative rezoning process that the city is committed to.

You, our elected representatives, have the power to reject it, or at least to insist on major modifications before approving it.

Please use that power and don't sell out our neighborhood to the developers.

Thank you, Ms.

Cantini-Mirala.

The next person on my list is Martha Smythe, who I believe would be online.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Get rid of that.

Good evening.

Let's get it right this time.

Dedicating 10% of the units in all construction projects larger than 10 units will barely put a dent in the need for affordable housing in Charlottesville.

The city must take a direct approach to the problem rather than the broad brush programs outlined in the comp plan, flum, inclusionary zoning documents.

referred to next time as IZ.

I'm speaking on behalf of concerned city residents.

We support the goals of increased affordable housing, but need to call out the significant shortcomings that we see in these plans.

We are convinced the zoning derived from the public documents thus far will not produce what's required.

Charlottesville has grown around 5% over the past decade.

If that rate continues, we should expect to need some 2,300 new residents by 2030.

That would call for 975 new housing units.

If all of these residences were in buildings of 10 or more units, and they will not be,

we would gain a maximum of 97 affordable units.

That is less than 4% of the 2,700 to 3,000 affordable units the city has indicated are needed.

Charlottesville must demand a more focused straightforward path to produce affordable housing and make a stronger and deeper commitment to it.

Some of these ideas that are following would directly produce more affordable housing, incentivize infill with smaller homes on lots with traditional single family neighborhoods,

Adapt underused office and commercial space to residential units through cooperative relationships between the city and the owners.

Negotiate with owners of malls and sizable commercial parcels to build large affordable housing complexes that offer easy access to shopping, services, parking and public transportation.

Such properties do exist.

Commit buildable city owned land for dedicated affordable housing by establishing land trusts.

Again, such properties do exist.

Offer subsidies to local developers to build affordable housing instead of market rate units.

sells city-owned land in Albemarle County to raise money to underwrite some of the construction costs and help finance the promised $10 million annual fund, which has not yet been funded.

Required during the first few years of new zoning compatibility, quote unquote, with adjacent residences in GR and MIR areas, as mentioned in the IZ document, then gradually permit the substantial changes in form and height as outlined.

We have heard that it won't all happen at once.

So let's ensure that by phasing it in.

Retain city reviews and opportunities for residents to comment about future development.

Expanding unfettered by right features in the new zoning will close the doors on public input.

The city must maintain fairness and be responsible and accountable for the outcomes of significant projects.

Okay.

Phil Haraway will continue these comments when he speaks shortly.

And of course, we got the written submission that you sent to us earlier today.

Matthew Gillican.

Is Mr. Gillican online?

Mr. Trail, do we have Mr. Gilliken online?

Can you hear me?

So the next person after Matthew Gilliken is supposed to be Ann Benham and it says in person.

I don't see Ann here.

Is she online?

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with our

Okay.

The next person up would be Marilyn Poling, who said she was going to be online.

Is she online?

I don't have that list in front of me.

Can we get her up?

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm Marilyn Pauley.

I live at 123 Observatory Avenue and I'm speaking about the 2005 JPA project.

Yesterday I reviewed the comments by the public from the May 10th Planning Commission meeting.

The majority of comments from those in favor of the project cited the need for affordable student housing.

The 2005 JPA project will have market rate luxury units, not affordable.

If current more affordable housing in the JPA neighborhood is replaced by such projects, affordable student housing in the neighborhood would decrease and students needing affordable housing would need to move to other neighborhoods.

A major concern of mine is traffic and parking.

When university classes are in session, JPA is lined with cars.

When trying to exit observatory onto JPA, there is no visibility of traffic to the left and exiting onto JPA is frightening.

Adding even the cars from the 125 parking spaces planned for the project would increase the danger.

It is debatable whether 265 of the expected 390 tenants of the project

will decide against cars.

Whether or not tenants park, legally or illegally, on Washington and Observatory, their visitors will.

Earlier this year, one of my neighbors tried to turn from JPA onto Observatory while a fire truck was parked on Observatory at the corner of JPA.

She was unable to pass the fire truck to get home.

If her car, a Honda Civic was unable to pass a fire truck, a fire truck would be unable to pass a small car to get to a fire further along Observatory.

Any extra parking legal or illegal on Observatory would be dangerous.

The City claims interest in aging in place as well as affordable housing.

My home on Observatory Avenue bought in 1987 when all housing was more affordable is my affordable housing.

I couldn't afford to buy a house elsewhere in Charlottesville.

Ms.

Okay.

So I want to be clear.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Okay.

The next person on our list is Louisa Candelario.

Is Ms.

Candelario online?

Okay.

Then the next person up would be Phillip Harway.

Mr. Horway, are you there?

Let's go back to Okay.

I apologize in advance.

We're having some technical difficulties.

Okay.

My name is Philip Haraway.

I live on Alta Vista Avenue.

Martha Smythe read the first part of our comments, and she addressed a few things that we think the city should do to achieve its affordable housing goals.

And there were one or two more I want to mention because she ran out of time.

Do budget for affordability.

Do budget in advance of projects to expand and improve the city's infrastructure, including the streets, the water, sewer, sidewalks, bikeways.

Previous speaker mentioned problems there.

Do involve UVA more actively in housing.

UVA students create a burden on Charlottesville affordable housing.

and the university pays very little on taxes in exchange for city facilities and services.

If it provided more housing on grounds that would alleviate the shortage in housing and the pressure on the city to up zone everywhere all at once.

Many in our city believe this is the key for the city to make meaningful progress on the issues.

Now, I want to address some of the things that are potential pitfalls or seem to have been skimmed over in the plan, given what's been revealed so far.

What to avoid?

Avoid abandoning strategy and proven clear approaches in favor of an unproven theory called upzone.

Good planning and management are essential to a well-run city.

Avoid attempting to impose changes in any and every part of the city at the same time.

This would increase costs for infrastructure, spread the city's personnel thinner than it already is, and weaken its control.

Avoid throwing neighborhoods open to the desires to develop in any old random neighborhood.

We don't oppose free enterprise, but this one is a case where having a few gardens would be very wise.

It would also minimize chaos throughout a city.

Avoid minimizing protections for our environment so the city remains livable and healthy and the region remains capable of sustaining agriculture.

Avoid allowing developers to call all the shots, failing to negotiate enforceable contracts and not procuring contributions for the profits from developers who refuse to build affordable units.

We commend the city's efforts to right the wrongs of the past and the present.

We hope our city will succeed in that intention, but we sincerely believe this plan and subsequent zoning will not achieve that goal of affordable housing.

Moreover, we see many risks and possible unintended, undesirable consequences from this plan.

We ask that the city take these concerns into consideration before rushing headlong into citywide upzoning with objectionable and destructive features of the plan.

And I'm not sure whether we mention in here getting rid of the special use permits, I think personally is a very big mistake.

Thank you for your talk.

Okay, so a couple people we skipped over because maybe they weren't on or maybe we couldn't get hold of them.

Let's go back to the beginning of the list.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilor.

Sorry, I was a little late to show up.

You're running ahead of schedule.

Sorry.

Let's keep that up.

I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Livable Seaville.

First of all, I want to offer support for the comprehensive plan and the work that's being done to help make our city more affordable and livable as we address our affordable housing crisis.

Second, I am very excited that, and we're very excited that the city is considering dropping the speed limits on Cherry Avenue.

We think this is a long overdue step, but I also want to lift up what the Fifeville Neighborhood Association is saying, which is to make that stretch 25 miles an hour for the entirety of Cherry Avenue.

And they've highlighted their reasons for that, which are very good reasons.

And then finally, we're speaking, I want to speak on behalf of Louisville Siebel in support of the 2005-2007 Jefferson Park Avenue Special Use Permit.

We think this is an important project that should be approved.

A key to fixing Charlottesville affordability crisis is building more housing.

The rental vacancy rate in Charlottesville is very low, possibly below 2%.

There simply aren't enough homes to meet our needs and rents continue to rise as a result.

Increasing the supply of rental homes will help shift power to the nearly 60% of city residents who are renters and shift that power away from landlords.

Every part of our city needs more places for people to live but the JPA corridor is a perfect spot to add capacity.

The future land use map and comprehensive plan call for this type of density along JPA and for housing with good transit

bike and pedestrian access to key locations like UVA.

Best of all, by meeting student demand there, we can prevent students from sprawling into nearby neighborhoods like Tenton Page and Fifeville and worsening displacement of longtime residents.

This is a location where students, who are nearly all renters, have said they want to live.

UVA student council said last fall in an excellent letter about the comprehensive plan that more student housing should go on the JPA corridor allowing more housing where students want to be is consistent with the city's affordable housing plan which expresses a need to quote increase the supply of housing slowly increase in housing costs while protecting lower income and other marginalized communities

Another key to addressing our housing prices is subsidizing affordable housing.

The developers planning to contribute $1.05 million to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund.

This will help groups like CRHA, LEAP, AHIP, PHA, and Habitat in their work to address local housing issues.

while the increased real estate tax revenue from the property will help fund other city services, including schools.

Approving this development will signal that the city wants more housing built along the JPA Fontaine corridor and will invite further development there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gilligan.

So next person on our list, Ann Benham, is she on at this point?

Benham, B-E-N-H-A-M.

Okay, how about Louisa Candelario?

No.

Okay, so that gets us through the pre-registered speakers.

Next person we've got on our waiting list is Nina Barnes.

Is there anybody else here who would like to speak on any matter, community matters?

Yes, sir.

I'm Jack Morala from Montevideo Circle.

I'd like to speak on behalf of Lerner Martins, who is unable to be here.

Okay.

All right.

The City Code standard for special use permits states, in considering an application for a special use permit, the City Council shall consider the following factors.

Number one, whether the proposed use of development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood.

2005 JPA is as harmonious with the existing neighborhood as a whale in a goldfish bowl.

The Interest Corridor Design Guidelines suggest techniques for reducing the perceived massiveness and apparent height of large buildings.

But there is such a thing as mass, not just the perception of mass, and such a thing as height, not just the appearance of height.

You can Photoshop the whale to make it look smaller.

Nevertheless, it's still a whale.

It doesn't belong in contexts that were designed for goldfish, period.

The Side Streets Observatory and Washington were built in the 1920s.

The homeowners live in one and two story houses from that era.

It's not just that the proposed building appears too tall and too massive.

It is too tall and too massive.

It would tower over adjacent homes, not just the one behind it, but also the ones across the street from it on Observatory in Washington.

It would cut their light in view.

I speak from experience.

I lived in a ground floor apartment next to a five story apartment building.

That apartment was dark all day.

You couldn't see the sky.

The City Code General standards for issuance of special use permits continues, point four, that the City Council shall consider whether the proposed use or developments will have any potentially adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood or the community in general, and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such contacts.

Potential adverse impacts to be considered include the following massing and scale of project.

The 2021 draft comprehensive plan likewise emphasizes context sensitivity in new developments.

Strategy 3.1 specifies utilize context sensitive planning tools to maintain and embrace and enhance the distinct identities of Charlottesville's neighborhood and corridors.

Some strategies include encourage development that responds to the character of contiguous historic buildings and neighborhoods while allowing intense

enhanced intensity of uses including multi-family units in forms and scales that are respectful in the surrounding neighborhoods.

The entrance corridor guidelines similarly state when making transitions to lower density areas modulate the mass of the building to relate to smaller buildings.

Reduce height near lower density uses.

Page 52.

The proposed building would dominate and overwhelm the entire neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Good evening.

Calling tonight about

the tax that was spoke about last council meeting on the car tax for the sticker, for the city sticker.

So for 14 years, we have been paying for a sticker that we haven't had on our car.

And instead of wanting

to give the taxpayers back some of the money that really wasn't supposed to have been taken in front of us evidently from what the gentleman was saying because the purpose of that tax was to display this sticker.

And for 14 years,

We have been paying for an invisible sticker.

And instead of quickly saying yes, I know some of you all did say yes, we need to stop this.

But a few of you council members wanted to divert that money somewhere else to continue taking from us

when it shouldn't have been taken from us for 14 whole years.

So instead of worrying about what the city is going to lose for taking this tax away, please worry about what the taxpayers have lost over these 14 years.

paying for something that we evidently were not supposed to be paid for.

I really think you should take something into consideration now knowing the purpose of that tax, the purpose of why you all took that money from us.

And I think you all should at least try to give us some kind of rebate

instead of thinking about how to continue putting it in the city.

Thank you, Ms.

Turner.

Is there anyone else in person who would like to speak?

Okay.

All right.

Hello, I'm Peter Krebs.

I live at 1022 Tufton Avenue.

I work for the Piedmont Environmental Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

I'd like to express support for the idea of reducing the speed limit on Cherry Avenue.

Really, for the whole length of Cherry Avenue, 25 miles an hour is appropriate for a neighborhood street

which is what Cherry Avenue is full of businesses, residences, parks, and schools.

I think this is something that residents have been asking for for a really long time and I am happy to hear that it looks like it could happen.

Please let's get it done.

Speaking of Cherry Avenue and Fifeville, I also wanted to let everybody know that the Fifeville Trail is going to have its official opening on October 1st.

That's 1115 at Cherry Avenue.

We're going to open the trail, which already exists.

People can walk there, but a ribbon cutting is always a nice thing.

I'm going to cut the ribbon and then we're going to walk over to Greenstone on 5th via the trail and then we're going to also walk along the trail up to the shops on Cherry Avenue which are those shops that are right at the corner of 9th Street that have the barbershop and the Payne's Check Cashing and those places that community block party is going to benefit the Music Resources Center so that's really all afternoon from 12 to 5

at the shops at Cherry Avenue.

So reduce the speed limit, please, to 25.

Join us for celebrating the Fifield Trail at 1115 on October 1st.

And then a community block party, which is a great neighborhood event, all afternoon on October 1st.

Thank you, Mr. Krebs.

Jennifer King.

Ms.

King, are you there?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Good evening, counselors.

My name is Jennifer King, and I reside at 221 Montebello Circle in the Jefferson Park Avenue neighborhood.

Sorry, you've undertaken a significant responsibility and time commitment to serve as counselors.

And I appreciate that you take the time to consider issues before you from all sides of the community.

I'm sure it's extremely challenging to balance the needs of the city with the needs of its various residents.

And I'm here to ask you to do just that this evening with my request that you deny the SUP request for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue.

I've been a homeowner in the JPA neighborhood for well over two decades and while our neighborhood association may often have questions or request changes to propose developments at least in recent history we have been fairly supportive of appropriately sized and scaled developments in the neighborhood to help meet the needs of the city and the community

For example, the most recent development in the neighborhood on the corner of JPA and Montebello Circle was generally supported by me as well as many of our neighborhood residents.

The reason for my support was that it was an appropriate size and scale for the neighborhood and was generally within the parameters of current zoning.

The proposed development at 2005 JPA is substantially out of scale with the existing neighborhood.

specifically the residential properties on observatory, which would essentially be relegated to the shade of this enormous development.

To be clear, I wouldn't be here tonight if what was being proposed was a buy rate development under current zoning.

Even a buy rate development would be larger than the current neighborhood properties, but there is a substantial difference between a three-story building and a five to seven-story building budding up to a single-family home.

It is my belief that the surrounding residential properties will be severely negatively impacted by a development of this size.

While I understand that the developers are permitted to ask for what they want to make the development profitable, I also understand the City Council may deny the SEP requests.

I believe there can be a healthy balance between what may be a benefit to the city, the developers, and the current residents and property owners.

My neighbors in the JPA Neighborhood Association, like me, appreciate the environment of the JPA neighborhood and the benefits it offers for aging in place, raising a family, or starting out as a young professional in Charlottesville.

This neighborhood offers so much more than a student neighborhood and focusing so specifically on housing more students in luxury accommodations is a missed opportunity for the city with respect to affordable housing in a neighborhood which offers the benefit of access to public transportation, excellent schools and health and community services within walking distance.

I urge you to deny the SUP requests and encourage development which would better support the identified priorities of the city.

Thank you, Ms.

King.

Josh Krohn.

Josh, you there?

Apologies for jumping the gun earlier, but I just want to call in and say I want to support the plan to build more housing on JPA.

Our city desperately needs more housing inventory in order to slow down the rapidly increasing housing costs due to scarcity and high demand.

We also desperately need to increase density to create a more sustainable, less car dependent community that meets our climate and public health goals.

I think we're decades behind on building the inventory and density that cities like Charlottesville need to be strong and healthy places to live for everyone, not just the rich and or lucky.

and every time we delay new housing projects, we get further from meeting the goals outlined in the comprehensive plan.

I think the apartments plan for JPA will provide both inventory and density in a place that already has relatively good access to transit and high walkability.

It will also help reduce cost pressures on the nearby neighborhoods like Fightville and Tenth and Page, which are seeing high cost increases due to their proximity to UVA and downtown.

So I'm urging council to approve this development on JPA and also to fast track other housing approvals that come before you.

Thank you.

Hi, City Council.

This is Greg Weaver, Fry Spring.

First, I just want to voice disappointment that the line item about the budget amendments to address the cat driver shortage, which was removed from the agenda tonight after it was teased last meeting.

I do understand that it's important to get this right, but also the bus driver shortage is more than two weeks old.

And now we, and more importantly, the affected drivers who are pulling 60 plus hour work weeks, we'll have to wait another two weeks to see what y'all are thinking.

To me it feels like a bit like a dangerous game of chicken and like the sacrifices of the drivers, sacrifices the drivers are making for the community are being taken for granted even if that's not really the intent.

Similarly, allocating some CARES money to conduct an internal payroll audit for CAD is good because pay ban adjustment is critical to solving the issues at hand, but napkin math doesn't present a favorable timeline for that.

Tonight's the first reading, next reading's in two weeks.

After that passes, you'll have to pay the firm that will have to play in and then allocate time to conduct the audit and generate

You got to digest the report and decide what to do.

And that will take more votes and readings.

And the same goes for the CBO.

You've heard from drivers in the community alike that you have to pass a strong CBO, but implementation of that will take a lot of time.

My point is you have all these like mid and long-term initiatives and they really need to be paired with immediate ones because this is such an urgent issue.

If you don't take urgent action when you can, you're not only risking the system collapsing in the near term,

you're risking the health and well-being of your most vulnerable communities.

Last meeting I mentioned that over the past couple of months the CBL DSA Eco-Socialist Committee and I've been speaking with dozens of riders many of them rely on the bus as their main transportation to their job to necessities to recreation and I'm sure you're all aware of that but there are a lot of them and just think about them and we have to imagine how are the current issues affecting them every single day.

It's harder for them to face these than it is for us who don't rely on the system, right?

So please make these strong mid- and long-term movement

Long-term actions, conducting the payroll study, allocating money towards regional transit authority, and passing a strong CBO, but also pay drivers now.

They deserve it.

They need it.

Our community deserves it.

Our community needs it.

I also support Mr. Gillikin and Mr. Cron's comments.

Also, as someone who lives just a street over from Cherry, definitely support a lowered speed limit its entire length.

Thank you, Mr. Weaver.

Mr. Hasek.

Good evening.

I would like to talk about medium-intensity residential up-zoning.

I live this nightmare today.

Some people are already getting offers to buy their home unwanted many times a week by people who are unclear about who they are and who they represent.

There are instances of anonymous LLCs being used to buy adjacent properties and then consolidating them.

This is evident in the case in the Mountain View Baptist Church BUD rezoning, and this

Anonymous buying up and then consolidation as a primary fear amongst MIR impacted residents.

In the case of the Mountain View Baptist Church community rezoned, the matter of teardowns didn't even come up once despite the assurance that teardowns are actively discouraged as part of the new upzoning plan.

Why should we now trust the Planning Commission and the County Council when it comes to teardowns as part of the future impact of upzoning?

As has been clear by previous speakers in the context of 2005 JPA, why would we want new development of three to four storey up to 12 unit apartments to be by right?

It's simply a developer giveaway.

There's no city county coordination.

Why are we animated about high density development in the city while the county continues to promote sprawl, especially North Point that is entirely car dependent on which being on the northern edge of the county is likely to impact the northeast quadrant of the city, that being the portion along the axis linking US 29 north to and from I-64 and Pantops.

I request that you reconsider our medium-intensity residential.

I'm unaware of such a radical upzone based on so flimsy evidence in any town of our size.

I'd also recommend that you be wary of the rezoning ordinance process once a giveaway is made, e.g.

to eliminate some level of review, e.g.

by right.

Our higher density will become near impossible to reverse.

While one councillor lives in an MIR street, the public record shows that three current councillors and one former councillor live with a happy coincidence of being amongst the one-quarter of initially mapped MIR owners remapped to general residential during the evolution of the final version of the flum.

I accept that this is a happy coincidence, but it really looks bad, imposing pain on others, also statistically unlikely, like around a 1.3% probability of this happening.

I would also like you to walk a street such as my own, Davis Avenue, and see if you can find the overprivileged people that are supposedly living in these streets.

They simply don't exist, at least not in mine.

Thank you, Mr. Hossack.

Gene Gratz.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm Anthony Ara.

I'm executive director for the Blue Bridge Area Coalition for the Homeless, formerly known as TJAC.

And I simply wanted to follow up on the letter that I sent to you all last week detailing a need for funding for operations at Premier Circle, our community's non-congregate COVID relief shelter being operated by Posh and

Usually we use the city's grant opportunities for requests like this, but because of the immediacy of the need, I submitted this unique request and it's gap funding essentially.

And primarily, I just wanted to clarify that the need for this gap funding is resulting from a grant source called

Home ARP.

We expected it originally to be available around October of this year.

It is intended to be dedicated to homelessness.

However, recently we learned that it's likely not going to be available until mid next year.

And so I just wanted to express my appreciation for you all considering this request.

Appreciate the opportunity to speak and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

over phone or email, anything that might be convenient for you.

Thank you, Mr. Harrow.

Let me go back and see if we have some of the other folks who had indicated they wanted to speak.

She's there.

Ms.

You need to unmute, Ms.

Okay, hello, City Council, Mr. Snook, Mr. Wade, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Pinkston, I assume Ms.

Okay, so I'd like to speak about the 2000 JPA-SUP.

As a resident homeowner, I request that you reject this application to build a student high-rise complex for reasons of

very disproportionate building scale, excessive density, as well as safety, parking, environmental and quality of life issues.

The proposed building will also provide no affordable housing units for the city only luxury student housing.

Observatory Avenue is a narrow dead end street with only one lane of traffic.

available when there are other vehicles parked on the street, which is most of the year when the UVA fall and spring classes are in session, when large vehicles such as garbage trucks or UPS trucks

or on the road they block traffic.

A fire truck or ambulance would be unable to drive down Observatory if there were other large vehicles on the street or other parked cars.

Earlier this year I was prevented from returning to my house by car for over an hour because a fire truck was blocking the street entrance at the corner of Observatory and JPA.

The proposed new complex calls for almost 400 students with underground parking provided for only 125.

This leaves scores of students without spaces many of whom will want to park on our street.

The man who owns the three-story student complex next door to me told me only a few months ago that in over 10 years of his renting to students, not one student has ever not had a car.

the five to seven story proposed building is way out of proportion with the existing structures on observatory none of which is currently higher than three stories with setbacks that have allowed for growth of the existing mature shade trees the proposed density of 300 or

390 occupants will bring more artificial light at night more noise and definitely more parking and traffic the construction is estimated to take two years this is a very long time for observatory residents especially I have to say myself who live right across the street from the proposed construction to have to bear the noise

Thank you, Ms.

Banham, your time is up.

Thank you.

Okay, so that means we have room for, how about Nina Barnes?

No.

Okay.

Ms.

Gratz?

That's better.

I'll be short.

I'm on Cherry Avenue and I am so happy to see finally the proposal to decrease the speed limit to 25.

This has been a request forever and was included in the small area plan of Cherry Avenue that was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council.

So I'm so happy about that but I would like to see the entirety of Cherry Avenue

on B25.

As cars come down the hill on Ridge Street onto Cherry, I can tell you, as a pedestrian, they're not very good at stopping at Consular Park crosswalks at 35 or probably a third hour.

My car was totaled while parked at Cherry Avenue, Newhouse.

I primarily became

a pedestrian a cyclist and a cat user so I think we need to work continue not just with the speed limit but continue to work to engineer and safety for the pedestrian cyclists and drivers and not just

Rely on humans to voluntarily comply so I'm so happy about the proposed decrease in speed limit but we do need to do more and to think more about perhaps 25 citywide except on the bypass getting rid of right turn on reds which is chaos for pedestrians

and look at all the slip legs in Charlottesville, which are extremely challenging.

So happy to see this on the list and looking forward to more progress.

Thank you, Ms.

Gratz.

Ms.

Good evening.

This is Sarah Malpass at 626 Bailey in Fifeville.

I'm also the Vice President of the Fifeville Neighborhood Association and very much wanted to thank the City Council for two things.

First, your support of the Fifeville Trail that we've been working on for the last several years.

We're very excited to be hosting a ribbon cutting on October 1st at 11.15 a.m.

as Peter Krebs from the PEC mentioned and just

I want to give a huge shout out to him and to all the other partners who have worked with us to get that trail opened up and certainly would love to see City Council and others from the community come out for that ribbon cutting on the 1st I also wanted to thank Livable Seville and PEC for their support of reducing the speed on portions of Cherry Avenue

The Neighborhood Association is very much in support of changing the speed limit to 25 miles per hour.

And as Ms.

Gratz said, I'm certainly excited to see the recommendations for any reduction, but very much hoping that you all will consider reducing the entire portion of the road that's under consideration for a new speed limit to 25 miles an hour.

Thank you, Ms.

Melfast.

I think we have room for one more.

Is there one?

I've got 15.

If you say 16, then we'll have to hold up and other people will have to, there will be another opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting.

and we can now move on to the action items portion of the agenda.

The first action item is a public hearing resolution review of program performance and setting priorities for community development block grant and home investment partnerships funds.

Erin Attac will present.

Ms.

I am.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of City Council.

As an entitlement community, the city receives grant funding from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development each year.

The first is the CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant, and the second is the Home Investment Partnership Program, also known as HOME.

At the end of each program year, a report called the CAPER, the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report, is submitted to HUD that shows each locality's progress, goals, and objectives.

Tonight's public hearing has two goals.

First is to serve as a form of public comment for fiscal year 2021 consolidated annual performance evaluation report and this covers CDBG and home.

The second is to discuss priorities for fiscal year 2023 CDBG and home.

So first we'll talk about the CAPER.

For fiscal year 2021, the city of Charlottesville benefited approximately 4,485 people.

About 63% of CDBG beneficiaries and 74% of home beneficiaries were minorities.

The city was awarded a total of $433,471 in CDBG funds and $84,576.88 in home funds.

and met HUD's timeliness test on May 2, 2022.

Under the home program, the region experienced COVID setbacks with the consortium locality partners.

However, the city was still able to achieve its planned goals.

The 2021 programs included the Community Investment Collaborative Entrepreneur and Financial Management Workshop, the Public Housing Association of Residents Resident Involved Redevelopment Program, the Local Energy Alliance Program Workforce Development and Assisted Home Performance Program,

Literacy Volunteers for Charlottesville and Albemarle Beginning Level Workforce Level Tutoring Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Homeowner Rehabilitation Habitat for Humanity Down Payment Assistance Community Investment Collaboratives COVID Microenterprise Financial Assistance Workshop the Blue Ridge Health Department Community Health Worker Program and Habitat for Humanities COVID-19 Financial Assistance Workshop

Now we'll look at setting priorities for fiscal year 2023 CDBG and Home Program.

Before every CDBG and Home Program begins, City Council sets the new list of priorities for that program year.

Last year, Council set priorities on September 20th, 2021, which included access to affordable housing, workforce development, microenterprise assistance,

access to quality childcare, homeowner rehabilitation and down payment assistance.

Council also set the admin and planning portion and the public services portion of the budget at the HUD regulated maximum capacity amount of 20% and 15% respectively.

The remaining portion of those funds were set aside for economic development, public infrastructure and housing projects within the Ridge Street Priority neighborhood.

The current fiscal year's adopted budget is attached to show how the funding has been allocated to different funding categories.

Following today's public hearing, staff is asking for Council to provide guidance in CDBG and home priorities for fiscal year 2023 and any additional guidance on how you see CDBG and home funds you would like to see spent, we'll take that into consideration.

Okay.

Council, any clarifying questions before we open the public hearing?

No.

Pretty straightforward for me.

Okay.

So is there anyone wishing to comment on the CDBG and home funds for program year 2023-2024?

Anybody online wishing to comment?

Anybody there?

Apparently not.

Okay, so we will close the public hearing.

The matter is now with counsel.

This is just a process question, Mr. Tack, since I'm new to this.

Correct.

And that looks at last year's programs.

So I scanned through that list, which was quite extensive.

I'm assuming that there's sort of standard rules that you all follow and best practice in terms of how that report is put together.

Yes, it gets put into HUD's computer system.

They will receive it at the end of the month, yeah.

Okay.

There's usually some back and forth, like one to two little edits here and there between us, TJPDC.

Okay.

So I'm fine with the report.

The priorities, I guess, can we discuss that?

Yeah, that's a good question.

I was sort of expecting that there would be a point where we would say, all right, Council, what are our priorities for this coming year?

Right.

And it appears as though we're basically just readopting the priorities expressed last year.

Is that what's going on here, Ms.

Well, to be honest, I don't remember any significant discussion of priorities to say, you know, that caused us to add anything, add workforce development, for example, or to decrease emphasis on something else.

Yeah, I think in the past council usually they take a look at the priorities, you know, and they are usually comfortable with the priorities of the previous year.

So basically what they do is they reaffirm those priorities and staff can move forward with that in terms of developing the action plan.

However, if after taking a look at the summary of the priorities and council thinks

that you want to scale it back or make any changes.

Yeah, in my previous life, I served on the CDBG task force, and of course, things change, but usually in one or two or three or four years, you never address all of the priorities that you had, and you just kind of keep plugging away until, you know, there's kind of a big initiative or move to say, okay, you know, before it was neighborhoods or, you know, you know, but...

I think that these priorities, I certainly think that we still can address them, you know, another year or two, but we certainly can have discussion to add.

I don't think that that would

We're not necessarily going to have more money, so the pie is not going to get bigger.

And Vice Mayor Wade, does that task force help develop the priorities and help assign the way the money is allocated?

In previous yes and yes, you know, we would make recommendations, you know, to the city council and they would, you know, certainly have their input in and make the final say and we will make definitely make recommendations on what to do with the funding.

Yeah, I would appreciate a little more sort of process explanation, Mr. Kifune, in terms of how the CDGB task force works or MISATAC in terms of like allocating these funds as the I'm sorry, I just am ignorant of the process.

The task force, the advisory in nature and once council adopts the priority staff will work with the task force in putting together the action plan.

The action plan is essentially like budget and that budget will mirror the priorities of the city council in accordance with the consolidated plan which will be coming to the city council.

to provide some kind of educational process on how the consolidated plan works, the action plan, the KPAP, which we are considering right now.

Yeah, these are the priorities that were set in 2021.

Yeah, they did.

I had one question, just a picky question on page 41 of the report, page 41 of the package.

which would be the first page of your report.

The second paragraph says based on current projections the city can expect CDBG funding amounts similar to funds received in FY 2022 or about $414,907.

The city can expect home funding to be similar or less than that received in FY 2022.

which is about $93,478.13 per locality or $747,825 total for the home consortium.

Is there a reason why you included the $747,825?

It would seem to me that the only numbers we need to know are the $414 plus the $93.

You're right.

The city's awards are the 414 and the 93.

Generally, we usually include the 747 because the city is the lead entity for

Cdbg and home so the home consortium award gets awarded to the city so next May you'll be getting the letter that's addressed to you saying cdbg award is the 400 whatever thousand and the home award is the 700

and whatever thousand, but it gets divided out by all six localities.

So 747, 825 is for all six localities, not just us.

Correct.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure.

So the amount that we're actually talking about here today is roughly $508,000.

Totally.

That's correct.

So I'm just re-reading the priorities that exist here that are laid out in this document and they certainly seem noble and good ones and are in line with things we talk about all the time in terms of housing, micro-enterprise assistance, workforce development, access to quality child care, homeowner rehabilitation, and down payment assistance.

Okay, so the staff is asking us to do the following things.

First is to set priorities for the CDBG and home programs.

And I take it, Brian, then you're saying you're good with the suggestions they've made?

Juan?

Michael, are you fine?

Fine or none.

Okay.

All right.

So number one is good.

Number two, the amount of capped by HUD at 20% of the total CDBG budget is $82,000 for admin and planning.

When we accept the CDBG and home funding, the staffing grant program reporting

and community engagement requirements are supported with admin and planning dollars as mandated by HUD.

Do I gather then that we are supposed to be affirmatively saying, yes, we want to take that $82,981.40 for administrative and planning?

Well, the regulation requires 20% for CDBG goes to admin and

and also a smaller percentage, I believe 10%, error incorrectly if I'm wrong, for home fund.

I think 20% is within the overall amount.

20% of the total is going to happen.

Yes.

No more than 20%.

Right.

Yep.

Yep.

And so...

Okay, so we've got a resolution that's been set out at page 47.

So I move the resolution approving the consolidated annual performance evaluation report for 2021.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Okay.

Ms.

Yes, I move the resolution establishing council's priorities for expenditure of CDBG and home funds during fiscal year 2023 to 2024.

Second.

Any discussion?

Ms.

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Mayor Smith?

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

The next item up is Ordinance Air Rights Conveyance to University of Virginia for Pedestrian Bridge over Emmett Street.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Hold on.

One second.

There we are.

All right.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.

So the item before you tonight is a request for air rights granting of air rights for the University of Virginia for a new pedestrian bridge that would run from the Contemplative Commons project which is located on Emmett Street at the Dell just south of Thompson Road.

We run over Emmett Street and connect into the Newcomb Hall Plaza

which sits between the bookstore and parking garage building and Newcomb Hall.

Effectively this pedestrian bridge is intended to replace the existing pedestrian bridge that's just south of that location which is not ADA accessible.

So this new bridge is both in a better location for pedestrian circulation and would be fully ADA accessible.

The bridge will sit 23 and a half feet over the street, which exceeds our requirement of 16 feet substantially.

And I think that's all I have to share.

Now, unfortunately, the required advertisement was not put in for the public hearing tonight.

So it appears that we are going to have to take up this item

again at your next meeting and conduct a public hearing at that time.

That is my understanding.

This one will.

Correct.

So is the reason that it's, what, seven feet over the

I'm sure it's a combination of all of those.

The pedestrian bridge is beginning on the

second floor of the structure on Emmett Street and it's going to ramp down to ground level from there and then goes across.

Okay.

So tonight is a first reading only.

If there are any other clarifying questions, we can get those out of the way now.

If not, shall we

Yes.

Okay.

That will work.

Okay.

The next item up is the ordinance that would reduce the speed limit on a portion of Cherry Avenue.

Brennan Duncan will present.

Good afternoon, Mayor Snook and city councilors.

So what we have for you tonight is a proposal to re-change the ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Cherry Avenue.

Going through a little bit of the history of this,

especially with the renewed push for safe across the schools and the recent school bus shortage you know staff's attention has been redirected to some of our older efforts I believe you've heard from several residents that you know this was started back with a small area plan and so we're really kind of picking up from where that had left off

The traffic counts were obtained and I completed a traffic study to evaluate whether the speeds along Cherry Avenue were appropriate or should be changed.

As a result of that study, I determined that the current speed limit along Cherry Avenue is not appropriate for the character of the corridor and should be amended to better reflect the current speeds along with the desired field for the mostly residential corridor.

As such, I'm recommending a change to the speed limit for the section of Cherry from Cleveland Avenue to Roosevelt Brown to be reduced from 35 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour.

This section of roadway is entirely residential with two of the city schools located along it.

on the section of roadway between Roosevelt Brown and Ridge Street I'm proposing that it would be changed from 35 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour this is much more of a commercial nature connects directly to Ridge Street with its speed limit of 40 miles an hour which was recently reduced and is on the direct route to the UVA hospital

We also did look at Elliott Avenue on the opposite side of Ridge, but the speeds along that corridor were significantly higher and at this point in time, I cannot recommend reducing them based on the criteria for setting speed limits.

There's really not much of a budgetary impact here.

It's just using maintenance funds to put up some new signage.

Councilor's questions?

Yeah, could you say a little more about the, I guess, the theory or the practice of traffic engineering when it comes to determining, I guess, VDOT sets a certain speed limit that is sort of the max, and then you have to prove, you know, establish a case, I suppose, to go lower than that?

No, so we set the speed limit.

We don't have to go through a VDOT to do that.

As the city, we own and maintain our own streets.

But we do have to have an engineering study to justify those speed limits.

Generally speaking, traffic engineering principles use the 85th percentile of the traveling public.

as kind of the threshold for which speeds should be set.

So that's basically saying 15% of the driver base is going above the speed limit and 85% are following the speed limit.

So I guess the only sort of or a counter to that, I suppose, is that if you have a street or just the sort of geography of a street and the way it's laid out and people are just everyone is driving too fast on that road,

I guess my question is if you're setting speed limits based on what people are actually driving as opposed to what sort of the physics of the situation would say safe, how do those two I'm sorry if this is like an unclear question but I'm trying to get at part of what I think what you're saying is that

Right, and so in the instance of 5th Street, since you brought that up, we reduced the speed limit mainly to try and mitigate the rear end and angle collisions that we had on that street.

So the crash history is part of that analysis.

We don't have that necessarily on the Cherry Avenue corridor.

More broadly, again,

There is a design speed that roads, as you are building or designing a street, you can design it for a certain speed limit.

Usually that comes into play when you have curves and those types of things.

You can design it in a way that a car can't physically travel at excessive speed around a curve.

In this particular instance, there aren't a lot of curves on the section of the roadway there.

In the cherry piece, you're saying the design speed would be higher?

Correct.

For now.

I do think that when, I mean, we do have a, I believe an unfunded or partially funded project for Elliott Streetscape, you know, that will change the characteristics and possibly change some of the driver behavior in that area.

And so the section between Roosevelt Brown and Ridge,

The neighbors are saying their strong preference is that it'd be 25 miles an hour, right?

Correct.

And is there any objection that you would have?

I mean, I believe the objection is that if you do so, you're just creating a situation in which police have to enforce a speed limit that probably will not be adhered to.

Got it.

Speed drive.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think that the city made an error when they put 250 at 35 miles an hour back in the day.

If we take the actual average speed on 250, it's probably 45 miles an hour with an 85th percentile closer to 50.

So you're creating a situation where you're

No, I concur with staff.

I literally did hundreds of these when I did planning for the county for a lot of neighborhood streets in the county.

Brennan, I concur with everything you said, brought back old memories, so thank you.

Michael.

You know, I'm

I'm torn because on the one hand, I don't really want to have the city council be in the business of second guessing the traffic engineers.

On the other hand, I also acknowledge that the

The crosswalks at the bottom of the hill by Tonsler Park are some of the most dangerous crosswalks we've got in the city right now.

And that's because admittedly, I don't know that it's going to be affected much by you can put a speed limit sign saying, oh, by the way, you can only go 25.

But as you're going down the hill, you're going to accelerate.

beyond that in any event.

And I also wonder whether it would make more sense to say, okay, we're going from 25 to 35 on the other side.

Yeah, if it were up to me, I would have 25 miles an hour, the entire length of Cherry up to Ridge.

I can appreciate, certainly respect and appreciate the traffic engineer's position.

Maybe that's just emotion on my part, thinking that five miles an hour less would be

better.

But the people in the neighborhood have asked for that.

It seems like a small thing to do.

Perhaps it sets up a situation where it can't be enforced.

Well, my preference is also for 25 the whole way, but it's also a position that I hold lightly.

Yeah, I mean, I'm supportive of 25 and 30.

I just, I've done too many of these studies to, you know,

Now, I guess I'm in a position of, you know, decision making.

Before I was making recommendations to the decision makers, but I know that in these type of things that, you know, just like if we own 64 and we put the speed limit at 50,

The road is made to build a certain way.

People are going to go what they feel.

So I'm like you, Lloyd.

Are there things that we could do, Mr. Duncan,

A lot of those have already happened.

I mean even

The bump out where you're talking about the crosswalks.

There's an island in the middle there.

The lanes have been narrowed.

We've installed rapid flashing beacons.

How upset does it make you, Mr. Duncan, if we went 25 the whole way?

I've done my analysis.

I have my recommendation.

I'm not sure council can adopt the ordinance.

Mr. Payne, what do you think down there?

Not looking for you to change your recommendation.

Not at all.

What do I think?

I mean, I think I'm in a similar boat.

I would say my instinct is that 25 the whole way would be the best, but because I'm not a traffic engineer and I have absolutely no knowledge of that world, I have a really hard time feeling in any way confident about that instinct because I have no idea what the implications or engineering reasons for the recommendation are.

So I guess that's sort of

where I'm at.