City Council Meeting   12/5/2022

What is this?

That's mine.

Sir.

How you doing?

So we have all of our troops assembled?

I believe so.

Thomas, will you call the roll, please?

Councillor Payne?

Here.

Councillor Pinkston?

Here.

Vice Mayor Wade?

That's great.

So moved.

Second.

So we hope that you will join us either in person or by Zoom.

We have two reports on the agenda for this four o'clock agenda.

Misty, take it away.

I have a PowerPoint that I'll just share screen quickly, if I may.

There you go.

So I'm going to toss it over to Hunter to give you more of those details.

And we currently have the same allocated amount of money to share with these applicants and organizations that we have in the last bullet there.

And I would just add as a reminder one of the changes that we presented in September was that we are we moved all the housing and homelessness services applicants over to the office of community solutions so this analysis also does not include the housing and homelessness services providers since they're going through a different process so we wanted to compare apples to apples as much as possible all right thank you next slide Misty

So currently we are doodle polling, organizing meetings, the review teams are reading applications, and then we're moving towards having a recommendation for you guys after the year.

And if it's okay, I can stop sharing unless you want me to review any of the other slides.

I don't remember.

I was just going to say, do we know the total allocation has it, when was the last time it changed?

This is where I like to phone a friend, her name is Chrissy Hamill.

That's part of the feedback we're looking for for council as to if there's some amount that you're looking to fund or what is your philosophy in terms of how you would like to approach that?

So this is already apples to apples in terms of taking out the housing piece?

As much as possible, yes.

Right.

We also

So I just realized I haven't added that to them.

Well, we're not going to be making a decision tonight anyway.

I don't know about this year, but last year we received just over $320,000 in arts and culture, and we were able to fund about $154,000 of that.

My apologies, council, for not adding that to the presentation.

So we've been at roughly $2 million for

Many years.

I wonder if there's a way, I mean, if you think about what inflation has been like over the last years, I mean, that's essentially less money in real terms.

I'm sure it'd be easy enough to figure that out.

Not a COLA because that would be too low, but something where at least the real amount of money doesn't go down.

It's because we've got too many other competing needs.

I mean, I don't know.

I want to respect the work and the analysis that they do, and I really don't want us to be having to do that same work, but I also feel like we ought at some point be able to give them some guidance midstream.

you all or we all always would get requests afterwards to change and not you know but you know I think that trust me we put the hours in they put the hours in to review them and I think we best we can respect their their work and I'm not saying that you're saying that they're not but um I just I just wouldn't agree with changing the rules midstream at this point so I'm not suggesting changing rules necessarily but

We've got to figure out a better way to do this.

They were going to be making those hard calls for us, asking us to sort of validate that.

just feel very unsatisfying.

Graves, what would be involved in sort of giving us an update, say in January, where you all stand with all this and how you think the allocations are going?

So the earliest in which we would be able to know what the scores are and how folks kind of fall in that preliminary 1A, 2A category matrix, the earliest that would be able to do that would be February.

Okay.

And Hunter, did I just do that?

But whatever it's worth, I just wanted to add that.

So if you came back in February with sort of another update with scores at that point, would that be a point, Mayor or others, when you think we could have another crack at sort of directing them, not in terms of scoring, but just in terms of how we want to lay out the money?

But February is going to kind of be too late for the proposed.

I think that could happen at the same time because you're only concerned about the bottom line number for purposes of the city manager's budget, correct?

If the message is, hey, maybe we want to increase that a little bit, we just need to get that indication.

Well, my own view is we should increase it.

I would definitely like to see a few more dollars added to that 1.9 allocation.

We're actually funding our partners with less.

I hear from the other wing here.

One, I think we need to have a permanent ability to be able to raise this line item, but also how is it that we are tracking the results of what we're investing in?

So there's a couple places on the metric system in which we evaluate how well they were able to meet their goals and there's also an opportunity for them to say if you didn't meet your outcomes please explain why.

Any other pot of money that the city had had that that nonprofit might have received money from in the past?

So this was a pilot of being able to do that with vibrant community fund recipients.

But I guess that's one of the consequences of not investing more over several years.

Would it be possible to ask the city manager to consider a 5% increase to the total or 10% increase to the total and see how that factors into his overall proposed budget?

Note it.

We're in hard times.

Some of the inflation just year-over-year costs have gone up about 40 percent.

Hamill can figure it out.

Can you think of a good way to do that that would be workable?

Hunter can chime in if he'd like.

and I guess what I would say is there may be a way to make this work out and Missy now are going to like probably come after this probably tomorrow are going to circle back and kick some things around but I think there's a way to tweak it a little bit to make it more efficient and effective for what I'm hearing and what I was going to say maybe what maybe you don't want a designated particular percentage in advance

would be sort of my suggestion.

is then not costing them, if we withdraw that, is not going to cost them 50, 60, $70,000.

So we should have a heads up on who those folks are if they answered those questions completely.

I just want to make sure we're very, I mean, I'm sure you are, I just want to bring that forward.

Anyway.

but that's something I've been considering is like asking some of those questions this time like what do you know what would this mean or how would this impact you just to maybe get a sense of that but it's not at this point built into the system to do it just like you said but there is a there are options within how we do it to communicate with the applicant during the review process to figure some of those things out that may help that may help with the decision making process in some way.

And I have great faith in you all to figure out a process that seems fair to do that.

Thank you all very much.

Okay.

Thank you.

So our next item on this 4 o'clock agenda is the report on our annual financial audit for fiscal year 2022 from our auditors.

And Mr. Cullinan I see is with us and some folks who look very much like auditors on the other side of the screen.

So Matthew and Michael, take it away.

I'd like to at this point thank the finance director and his department for the assistance during this audit process and all those departments, including the budget and treasurer's office that also assisted.

Any questions for the auditors?

Not now, but if we don't change something, maybe a year or two down the road.

But once the financial report is released, I think you'll see there's a positive increase in the general fund fund balance.

Other questions?

I just thank you for your report and congratulations to the finance team for their hard work.

I will second that.

We will be coming back to you as we discussed during the budget process with a full picture of the options we have based on the increase in fund balance.

Okay.

So anything else, Chris?

Thank you, sir.

We anticipate that the numbers that we will receive shortly will show a significant fund balance that much as we had suggested we would have eight months ago when we were in the budgeting process.

Yes, it will be a fund balance as I understand it that will be beyond what we discussed when we adopted the budget and that is positive.

and that the other piece that's important is that that was all generated by proper accounting procedures and there's nothing irregular in the process and that's what the auditors are telling us tonight.

That's correct.

Is there anything else we need to do before we go back into closed session?

Beyond read this.

Please do.

Second.

See you all in another hour and a half.

Thank you.

Do you have the motion to certify?

Second.

Thomas, will you take the vote, please?

Councillor Payne?

Yes.

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Waite?

So we're back in session for our 6.30 session.

First, we'll begin the 6.30 business meeting with a moment of silence, please.

So let's move on then to the consent agenda Ms.

But I heard reports of it being a lovely time and I know staff worked very hard on that with not a huge budget or a whole lot of assistance and just wanted to send my thanks and appreciation.

Absolutely.

Yeah, it was a great event, and a couple of us got to hang out by the bouncy house for the kids, and that was definitely very exciting.

Hopefully that's the only thing that was contagious.

Thomas, would you like to read the consent agenda, please?

Six, resolution, considering a special use permit request at 211 Albemarle Street, one reading.

Anybody online?

Mayor Snook, I see no raised hands.

So is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

Second.

Thomas, will you please take the vote?

Councilor Payne?

Yes.

Councilor Pinkston?

The motion passes 5-0 to adopt the consent agenda.

Mr. Rogers, is there a report from the City Manager's Office?

Sam?

That is my report.

Ashley, you have an update?

Mr. Rogers, that ends my update on this particular survey tool.

Thank you.

Questions, comments from counselors?

I just really appreciate that update from Mr. Sanders on the sidewalks and other street improvements that we're trying to make and that is those are one of the things that we in terms of the volume of emails and responses that we get from people are almost always at the top so thank you for that and for the new person that you have hired I'm really encouraged to hear that we have that individual on our staff

So thank you.

And the new employee is going to have all those answers for us by next week.

Welcome aboard.

I will definitely forward my notes and I plan to drop that into the full city managers report at the second meeting so the public will have access to it as well.

Thank you.

Braley is standing up already.

Hi, I'm Kate Francis.

Oh, hold on a second.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Braley I beat the beat

Seeing no one, is there anyone online who wishes to speak in community matters?

John Hasek has his hand raised.

Okay, Mr. Hasek.

You are on with council.

Only three Councils are present at the Planning Commission and I'm fearful that tonight you're going to change your mind effectively and we'll do that without any substantial public process.

A new arrival.

The power is yours.

Is there anyone online who wishes to speak to us next?

Next up we have Stuart Walton.

Mr. Walton.

Yes, can you guys hear me?

I mean, there is safety at hand of the residents, and I don't see how this can be voted in as it currently stands.

Anybody else online?

Yes, Mayor Snook, we have Chris Meyer Thank you, Mr. Meyer You are on with Council Good evening, Councilors, and

Thank you very much.

Anybody next on line?

Mayor Snook, I see no additional hands.

There will be another opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting.

First, Mr. Engel and Mr. Sanders on the City County Courts Memorandum of Agreement and the lease.

I'm going to turn it over to Chris who will go into the details of that agreement but before Chris begins I just want to confirm up front because I know it will pose questions later this agreement does not I repeat it does not impact the Lucky 7 or Guadalajara that will be dealt with in any future decisions that will come to council and council will be a part of making those decisions so Chris you can go ahead and give us the details of the parking

It's a two-reading ordinance and if you have any questions, we're happy to try and answer them, but that's a quick overall summary.

So any clarifying questions from Council at this point?

I think it's a good resolution to where the city was.

Is there any speaker online who would wish to address this?

Rory, you are on with Council.

Thanks.

Anybody else online?

Mayor Snook, there are no additional hands.

Is there an agreement to do so?

I'm totally in agreement with that and just echo the comment that thank you to staff I know this has been hard to work on but I think this is a tremendous victory for the city to not spend 10 to 15 million dollars on a parking garage we're not raising a minority-owned business in another affordable business on the mall and have come to acceptable resolution without doing those things which I know a lot of people said was impossible for years but it's done and I'm very happy to see it and happy to have it on the consent agenda

Yeah.

Thank you.

Mr. Rogers?

Thank you very much.

Councilors, are there any clarifying questions to Mr. Rogers?

No, sir.

or maybe Mr. Rogers you could be specific about some of the references that you did check.

Right.

Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia pursuant to Section 20.2 of the City Code that the City Manager's Appointment of Michael Kochis to the position of Charlottesville Police Chief is hereby approved by the City Council.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Discussion councils?

But I believe we can set out on that path.

So all of the references that I checked when I went looking for other opinions and other information, all the information was very positive.

The process was very thorough that we went through to get public input and so looking forward to moving Charlottesville forward and I think that Michael Kochis can take us there.

And I got that sense from Mr. Kochis and I'm very confident that that's where we're going to end up.

I'm good.

Everyone's already said everything I would say anyway, so we're all good.

Thomas, would you take the vote, please?

Councillor Payne?

Yes.

Councillor Pinkston?

Yes.

Mayor Snook?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Wake?

Five to nothing.

Welcome, welcome.

Thank you, Mike.

Great.

He's had some tough challenges and we want to publicly thank him for what he's done and we look forward to his future years participation in the department and helping being a part of the path forward.

Thank you.

Very grateful for Acting Chief Durrett and his service.

Thank you, Chief Kochis.

Okay.

Mr. Mendez, are you going to present this to us?

That's the sum total of the change that's involved.

Counselors, have any questions for Mr. Mendez about the ordinance changes?

I'd be happy to move to amend and reenact Chapter 2 Administration, Article X V 1 of the Police Civilian Review Board.

This is one of two readings, so can we move it to December 19th meeting for the second reading on the consent agenda?

Yes.

All right.

A lot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just don't feel good about asking folks to sign something we haven't actually finished.

Will the procedures require two hearings?

So let's continue it then to the next meeting in December and we will take it up hopefully no more than about three minutes to talk about it.

That's fine with me and I'll just say the substance of it seemed good to me and I'm prepared to support.

Just let's get the language right and then we'll pass it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Carrie Rainey, City Planner, to present.

Rainey?

Mayor Snook, would you like me to present material on the related sidewalk waiver at this time or wait until the completion of this zoning map amendment item?

I think we heard most of the words said.

My apologies, I had no visual information up.

that you were trying to, if you were trying to give us hand signals or something, we didn't get them.

My apologies.

No.

I'd like to have them two separate things.

Okay, so let's keep them separate then.

I believe Alex Ikifuna with the Office of Community Solutions is available as well as the applicant team.

Rainey, first of all?

Is that a fair statement?

But as I noted earlier, there was some discussion and general support for their proposed density and the building forms and other elements as well.

I don't know if there's something wrong with your speaker or microphone.

Is this better if my camera's off?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm not sure I'm having so much trouble.

Okay.

Should I repeat what I just said?

Yes, please.

But as Councilor Pinkston noted, there was concern focused on the affordable housing proffers, but otherwise there was some general positive discussion on the agenda.

I think you were there.

There were concerns about the affordability period as well as the affordability levels as well as the specific wording of proffers, but not the overall density we're going for.

And so we have, there's some technicality here, Mr. Mayor, in terms of we have to, how we handle these modifications or amendments to the plan that's submitted post the Planning Commission.

Robertson?

That's correct, yes.

Or if not, we can vote on what we are seeing here.

Then we can go ahead and vote if we wish to, correct?

Yes.

Would you all agree to that?

Yeah, and I was at that PC meeting as well, and I think it was just a, not that it was in a rush, but it was a timing thing that it would have to go back through, and this addresses many of their concerns.

Maybe could we have the applicant step up at this point?

Okay, good.

Good evening.

Thank you very much.

Is that right?

Clair.

And then there was some, the new road that you're constructing into your site, what is the name of it?

So there's no formal road name for the internal entrance.

On Ladonia or?

I'm assuming you all are still working out the engineering piece in terms of how you get out to 250

Is that right?

And the final engineering and road design of any future improvements to Landonia Circle will all be sorted out at site plan.

Or maybe I'm thinking another part of the property.

It's not for River Vista.

Is what you're describing right behind the Papa John's or the bank?

That's right behind Doodle's Diner.

So are you doing like on-site storage or is it going straight to the river or how are you doing that?

That just comes with the more detailed engineering once we have our final calculations for impervious surfaces.

Okay.

I would prefer to vote on it after it has been back through them.

Could you just comment on that?

So that's why we put it in there.

And then what is the affordability period in the draft inclusionary zoning ordinance?

They need to follow the provisions in inclusionary zoning.

What would the density be under our current existing zoning that would be allowed?

So it's a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

I'd be happy to hear your answer as well.

It's in the 16 to 18 unit range.

So I guess a question to staff is would you say that it would be fair to say that approving this in part is based upon approving it based on the standards of our recently adopted future land use map?

I'm sorry, are you asking if this conforms with our future land use map?

Or if we would, correct, and part of the reason we would approve it is based on us evaluating that it conforms with that future land use map.

It does not specifically conform with the future land use map, which proposes general residential land use, which would be defined as, you know, perhaps up to four units on a lot generally smaller building sizes, you know, not development in these size of buildings.

Thank you.

And there are other components of the comprehensive plan that we noted at the point of public hearing that it does align with in terms of providing other potential benefits.

What substantive changes have you made to the wording of the proffers?

Okay.

The revised proffer is much, much improved in terms of the language and the offer itself from the previous proffer that was presented to the Planning Commission.

Was much improved, okay.

Is that something that staff had any concerns about?

So it's a concern to Office of Community Solutions.

but I'm just concerned continually about this weird gray area that we're in with that.

I mean, hopefully by next May or June, is that?

Not saying I know what that process looks like, but I am saying we know for a fact that if we don't start figuring out how we're going to do it, we are going to lose out on dozens and dozens, arguably over a hundred if you look at the developments coming through of deeply affordable units.

So what changes would need to be made to this, Mr. Payne, to get towards that?

It's the affordability period, which is off by over 70 years from the draft inclusionary zoning ordinance.

But in any event, I haven't developed my position as succinctly as you have to be able to say, hey, if it doesn't meet this, then forget about it.

It's not just pulling out of thin air.

Is that correct?

And so the buildings are largely, I mean, all of them are basically two stories over a basement working with the grade, with the way that the grade falls across the property.

So I know it gives them some options as well.

But this is also creating a tremendous opportunity for Mountain View.

Can you talk a little bit about that connection to make sure that it's safe for the residents and everyone that's using it, existing and new?

We fully expected that, but we're really tasked with coming up with a good development proposal that promotes interconnectivity.

Are we in line with our policy?

It was a courtesy email and not a formal requirement to me.

Thank you.

I mean, it looks like it's, on your drawing, it's a new road that will have sidewalks on one side, and I can't see how it's unsafe, just that there's not a road there now, but there will be.

So Mr. Walton lives directly adjacent to the proposed entrance off of River Vista.

On the east or west side?

On the west side.

Okay.

We went through many design iterations and one of them was much easier for somebody just to drive through quickly, but we added angles and turns and so to really try to slow traffic down.

Not in that location.

You're working through...

But there will be a full accounting for the volume of runoff before it leaves the site.

In other words, there are clear rules and criteria by which you have to decide this that aren't arbitrary.

You'll never break ground until you've proven to the regulatory folks that you design meets all those requirements.

Thank you.

I guess unless you had questions, Mayor, but what do people think of Councilor McGill's request to have it be deferred back to the Planning Commission versus deciding on it tonight?

I don't know that that would add any value personally.

I feel the same way.

whether, to put the question directly to you, Councilor McGill, do you share enough of Michael's concerns about the definition of affordability so that that would be a deal breaker for you or is your desire to have it go back to the Planning Commission based on something else?

I mean, right now I would be voting no about this project.

I can see that point.

I guess I would I'm not sure what I want to do.

This isn't a vote tonight.

It would.

Does the developer have any feedback on the, I guess, term?

Sure.

and if it can't be rethought is that a public hearing process then back at the Planning Commission?

Is that essentially your question?

That's my question.

Robertson, any thoughts?

That was really helpful.

If we send it back to the Planning Commission, then all of this stuff can be buttoned up and so forth.

Well, the other is if we moved it towards the full agenda for the next City Council meeting for the second meeting, anticipating changes to it, and then making a determination at that point.

Right.

The public needs to have some idea what we're talking about before we change it and vote on it without any notice to anybody.

It sounds like what she said was that as long as we did the appropriate notice prior to the next meeting, like we would do, that would be sufficient.

Robertson?

Yes, and specifically the agenda materials for the next council meeting should include an updated cover sheet prepared by the developer showing not only the proffer changes that were presented to you tonight, but adding an item showing any further changes made between tonight and the next reading.

Essentially what that would do is give us a week to try to figure out what additional changes might be made as long as we got them into the agenda packet on the 14th thereby providing public notice of what we're talking about then we'd be on good footing.

your agenda materials for that next meeting.

I would say with the obvious expectation that there would be substantive changes, I would be comfortable with that.

Would you be, what's your thought on the approach?

I mean, I just

So no matter what they do, you may not still support it because they're not going to come back and it's going to be floating condos or anything like that, you know.

I just, I mean,

I don't think so.

I guess your point, Councilor McGill, is if it goes back, at least we have sort of the, not the paper trail, but the sort of coverage or support, whatever you want to call it, of our planning commissioners I just, again, have a very difficult time voting positively for a project of which the entire planning commission has said no to

I just I really do and I I just think when that is something that happens it should go back to them to make sure that is that they are comfortable with the changes and that they do feel that that met their concerns

I guess the question is, supposing they say 6-0 again, does that change how you think about this?

That means I definitely won't be voting for it because if there's 6-0 again, that means that their concerns were not met.

Okay.

So some people stopped paying attention as well.

Do you all know?

I mean, we would, and just one note for the record.

And I don't want to waste people's money and time unnecessarily.

And then I'll let Bryce or Justin weigh in on the time delays.

So that's why we're here.

Is Mr. Freeze on this call?

Yes, Mayor Snooki is being promoted to panelists.

Have you been listening to what we've been talking about?

I have been, yes.

Any thoughts for us?

I mean, in terms of contemplating returning to the Planning Commission?