Planning Commission Meeting   2/9/2021

And good evening.

I believe we are ready to begin our deliberation, so the commission will be in order.

And let's begin with the reports from the dais.

Let's begin with Ms.

So I attended

Something related to the Fontaine Smart Scale project, though I don't think it was actually a Fontaine Avenue Smart Scale meeting.

It was a meeting of the LIHTC working group and discussing, LUPEC, I'm sorry.

LUPEC is the Land Use and Environmental Planning Committee and discussed was the Fontaine Avenue Smart Scale.

Councilman Mitchell, I think you also attended that meeting.

So maybe you understood more than what I took away from it, which was not too much, except for that there is some discussion about the design of the Fontaine Avenue streetscape.

And the question is to what degree the project could be altered before it would require another review by VDOT.

It sounded like the group was going to be circling back to VDOT to kind of get an idea about this and then have an idea to move forward.

I went back and checked the timeline of when this Fontaine Avenue streetscape goes before council and the timeline previously proposed was

There was supposed to be a grant award, some MOP grant award.

I'll talk a little bit more about that as well.

I guess we had two meetings since we last met.

First, the place still did not meet last month.

Still sort of in a hiatus trying to figure out what that committee will become, but it will be meeting later this month to talk about ways to pick up pieces of the West Main Street scape.

and then two meetings that did happen.

One was the MPO tech meeting where, let's see, the big interesting thing is that they're doing bike ped counts at several intersections in advance of major intersection improvements to those places to see how they change over time.

There's also talk about a second crossing of the Rivanna River near the free bridge and then

I think those are the main things from that meeting.

Then we had a TJPDC meeting where, let's see, the rent and mortgage relief program has transitioned from one that's run through the PDCs, then through subcontracting nonprofits to one system for the whole state at devall.com, D-E-V-A-L.com to sign up for the intake.

It should be interesting to see how that changes, maybe in some ways for the worse, now that it's not being run through local nonprofits.

Major other event that happened in that TJPDC meeting.

We fired our executive director.

We heard he was going to quit.

So we got rid of him.

And now Christine Jacobs is the new interim executive director of TJPDC.

That's all I got.

And welcome, Ms.

Dowell.

I have no report from our last meeting.

Welcome back.

Ms.

Dowell, welcome.

Good evening, everyone.

I do apologize for my tardiness.

So the Ridge Street Task Force met on January 27.

And basically, during this meeting, we wrapped up

Some of the ideas that have been expressed about how to do some traffic calming in the neighborhood and what was and what is not actually possible.

One of the biggest things is that we got out of just as much as people want certain things in the neighborhood that it may not just be feasible from an engineer's point of view.

Like one thing that was a hot topic was adding shelters to the bus stops for our riders and then even possibly adding

A lot of people don't want to have an additional stop, but the way that the roads are constructed is just mission impossible to even try to consider adding shelters in the neighborhood and we even looked at on both sides of the road

Most of it is because it couldn't be ADA compliant and some of it is because then we start talking about getting into private property.

Thank you.

Sure, one second.

Bill, you are permitted to speak.

Hey, guys.

For some reason, I didn't have the link to the meeting to be a panelist.

Yeah, so that's all right.

The housing advisory committee discussed meeting, but chose not to just, we need, we need a housing coordinator to do our work.

Okay.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

I attended two meetings since our last Planning Commission meeting.

The first, the Board of Architectural Review met on January 20th.

We had seven certificate of appropriateness applications.

All seven were approved, no deferrals or rejections.

And then the Tree Commission met February 2nd

Here we spent the first part of the meeting getting ready for the presentations we're expecting at our next meeting from the NDS and Public Works and discussing the kinds of things that we want to talk about at that meeting and go over.

The Education and Advocacy Subcommittee reviewed initial planning for a neighborhood tree planting project that is tentatively planned for next fall, if COVID allows.

Then the Arbor Subcommittee also did, well, reviewed its plans for a virtual Arbor Day celebration in April.

Our codes and practices subcommittee is preparing for updating the city zoning ordinance by researching tree ordinances in other cities.

And then lastly, we discussed the proposed CIP plan and its changes relative to the urban forest allocations.

And you'll hear more about that later.

Thanks.

So as Ms.

Russell mentioned, the Lupeck Group met twice in January.

and the other conversations were around Fontaine.

So Ms.

Russell, the point you made three meetings back that, you know, we weren't thinking about Fontaine holistically, it was was heard.

And now we've got the water and sewage authority, we've got the county, we've got UVA and the city beginning to think about the things that we want to do with Fontaine.

There were presentations made by all these stakeholders.

And three or four things leap out at me that I just want to make sure that we're aware of.

The Fontaine Research Park, that's going to grow from 580,000 square feet to 1.1 million gross square feet in the next 10 years.

The Rivanna Water and Sewage Authority,

they've got mains running up and down Fontaine and they've got mains running through the research part.

So that's something we'll need to keep in mind as we do the improvements that we're looking at and as UVA does the improvements that they're looking at because the Water and Sewage Authority is looking to expand the footprint of their main and to do some improvements on the footprint as well.

Kyle talked a little bit about the expense of running sidewalks all the way to the park.

And that's going to cost us about $1.5 million.

We don't have the money to do that.

So we're not going to do that.

We're not likely to do that.

But as UVA continues to do the expansion and do the work that they're doing with the research park, it is likely that they might be able to help out a little bit.

The point that Ms.

Russell was making relates to where Fontaine meets the 259 and 250 bypass.

What they're looking to do is work with the Department of Transportation to do some improvements in that area that will enhance the safety and increase the traffic throughput.

And one of the ideas that they're thinking about is a divergent diamond.

So that would be my report, and I'll now defer to Ms.

Sure, I've got a couple of things.

First of all, there's going to be a planning commission work session on February 23rd, so that's the fourth Tuesday.

From 4.30 to 7.30, we'll be focused on the future land use map and materials will be posted next week on the 16th.

NDS has welcomed Allison Fincham to the city in a role as the ADA coordinator.

So we're currently in the process of recruiting for the building official, a GIS analyst and then a planner position.

So I just want to put a shout out to numerous staff who are taking on additional duties as we recruit for these open positions right now.

And we have reached out to the county staff concerning the rescheduling of the Joint Planning Commission work session that we had scheduled in January.

So we're hoping to be able to work to get that back on the calendar.

That's all I have.

With that, I think we are ready to open it up for our first public hearing.

So this is related to matters to be presented by the public.

that are not on the formal agenda.

So if you'd like to chat with the commission about the work that we do, now would be the opportunity to do this.

We will have a separate public hearing for the CIP a little later on in the meeting.

Thank you, Chair Mitchell.

And at this time, yes, if you'd like to speak to the commission, I ask that you click the raise hand icon.

You'll be called upon in the order of hands raised.

Once your mic is enabled, please unmute your mic and you'll have three minutes for comment.

Alrighty, then we'll move on to the consent agenda.

I believe the consent agenda is in order, and if it is, my belief is accurate.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I so move.

I second.

We have a motion and we have a proper second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And I only see one counselor.

So I think unless there's something else we can cover, we will be in recess until six.

Right?

I'd just like to add, I said devald.com.

That's apparently a shipbuilding website.

It's applications.devald.us.

And I sent a message to the chat with that link, which apparently only works for you guys.

So, you know, related to our discussion in the pre-meeting, while I agree that sending things in the chat is super useful, especially links, even if you select two attendees and panelists,

Because chat is disabled for attendees, they can't see any of it.

So while I still think it's useful just to point out things to each other when we need to, when it's something that affects the content of the meeting, I think it's just something to be wary of that the public is not able to see that sort of thing.

Of course when we share our screens.

All righty, good evening.

And I do believe we now have a quorum.

We've got a quorum.

Very good.

All right, we are now about to begin our second public hearing.

And this one relates to the Capital Improvement Program, running from 2022 to 2026.

So tonight you're being asked to consider the program that has been developed by staff.

There are at least four hot potatoes in the program that is in front of us.

The first and the most important is what is outlined in the documents we've got is not sustainable.

The budget cannot be achieved without significant, significant revenue enhancements, tax and fee increases, significant.

That's just to do what's in the program that we've got in front of us.

So as we are deliberating and putting together our recommendation for council,

Keep in mind that if you want to add something, you're going to have to also recommend that we delete something.

The second hot potato is the fact that West Main Street is not included in the documents we've got in front of us.

Now, keep in mind that phases one and phase three, those have already been approved, and they've already been funded through previous budgets.

But this document is silent, as though it's two days.

2, and Phase 4.

The third hot potato is the parking garage, the downtown parking garage, where we've allocated $8 million to develop that.

And again, that's important to do and to keep in mind to find a way to deal with because of the commitment that we've got to the county.

And the last hot potato is the $50 million that's been allocated for

the school reconfiguration.

We really don't know if $50 million is going to get the job done.

There are many who believe that once the consultants have finished the work that they need to do to walk us through the work that needs to be done, the number could be north of $100 million.

So keep those things in mind as we begin listening to public input, begin listen to staff input, and then begin our deliberations.

What we want to do tonight is not micromanage the numbers.

We don't want to get involved in an Excel spreadsheet to exercise, as we've done in previous years and that I've been guilty of leading us through.

But what we want to focus on is helping counsel understand what we believe are the priorities for the capital improvement program.

So with that, I believe we have a presentation from Ms.

Amell.

Oh, one more thing before you present.

And I can't hear you.

So before you present, just so that everyone knows, the public knows, we're going to do this a little differently.

We're going to have a presentation, and then we're going to open it up for public input.

And then we're going to have a Q&A.

The board and council will have the Q&A with Ms.

Amell.

and then the board will deliberate and then the board will begin crafting a recommendation to council.

So that's how this is going to flow.

Forgive me, Ms.

No worries at all.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners, council.

Joe, if you could bring up the PowerPoint, please.

I'm Chrissy Hammel.

I'm with the Budget Office.

Ryan Davidson and I are at the helm of the Budget Office.

And so we're here tonight to present you with the Capital Improvement Program.

Next slide, please.

Just a general description of what is a capital improvement program.

Again, it's essentially a five-year financing plan that is put together on an annual basis.

In terms of an official approval, each year the council formally adopts the year one of the plan and years two through five remain a projection or a plan in the future.

Number two, the projects usually cost $50,000 or more that are put into the CIP plan.

They're generally non-recurring and non-operational, so sort of one and done types of things.

And they typically have a useful life of more than five years.

Next slide, please.

So last week we met with council and again we presented this slide and as we mentioned to council and as we'll mention to you, we were very intentional to call this a draft.

The draft that is put before you, this five-year plan, was an attempt to

to signify the idea that we have listened to council, we've been meeting, we've been talking about this at least through November about what the CIP would look like in a post-COVID situation, but also moving forward.

And one of the things that we try to do, which is highlighted here, is to make sure that we are funding what we have heard council say are top priorities.

So in the order of funding here, education over the five years is the winner of the three.

Transportation and access and then affordable housing are the top three categories.

This is

This is a five-year summary of totals.

If you're interested in actually seeing the details behind it, you can find that at Charlottesville.gov slash budget.

And there's a work session tab that you can click on and you'll find documents throughout the budget development process there.

And there are further details that describe what's actually contained in these categories.

Also, as Commissioner Mitchell highlighted for you, some of the big things here is that there were no additional dollars added for West Main and there was a $50 million placeholder put in FY 2025 for the school reconfiguration project.

Next slide, please.

So as we have these work sessions, we typically talk about bits and pieces in isolation, if you will.

And so the point of this slide here is to keep in mind that what we're talking about tonight are two very small slivers of the big pie that we call the city budget.

One piece is the debt service that would be required to fund the CIP and then also the cash contribution that is sent to the CIP to cash fund projects.

So when we look at the pie of the entire general fund budget, as we make these pieces bigger, other pieces have to get smaller to maintain the full picture.

So just to keep in mind, even though we talk about big dollars and big numbers here, it is just a small part of a lot of other things that we do to fund core services and other projects that aren't CIP related.

Next slide, please.

One of the other things we frequently talk about when we talk about capital budget is selling bonds and our bond rating and what the implications of that are on our bond rating.

And so I wanted to take just a second to talk about this.

The city is very fortunate to be AAA bond rated.

We are actually one of only seven cities in the entire state that is AAA.

That is the top rating that a locality can receive.

I believe there are 18 in the state of Virginia cities and counties.

Seven are cities and we're one of those.

And so what is a bond rating?

It's basically an independent agency that comes in and rates us on things that are more than just our numbers.

They look at our management policies, they look at the economy, they look at the financial part of it, and then they also look at our outstanding debt.

So one of the things that they're trying to assess is what is our ability and our willingness to repay the debt?

So as we take on more debt, what are we willing to do to ensure that we're making those payments?

The city has been AAA bond rated from Moody's since 1973 and Standard & Poor's since 1964.

So we have a long history of our AAA bond rating.

One of the benefits of a AAA bond rating is that it allows us to borrow money at the lowest possible rate because of our good credit.

So that means that we end up having more dollars that are available to go to capital projects instead of dollars that are being used to pay back interest.

And one of the other factors is that a AAA bond rating is also attractive when we look to economic development prospects.

Again, I touched on these, the four factors that a rating agency focuses on when they come in to do this review, our economy, what are our demographics?

What is our employer base management?

What are our policies?

What are our procedures?

And what do we do to make sure we achieve our budgetary targets and adherence to financial policies?

And then finally, what does our outstanding debt look like based on when compared with what our future needs and obligations are?

So next slide please.

This year with our CIP process, quite frankly, we didn't have an opportunity to have much of a process, mostly because of the financial impacts of COVID.

We also, for 2021, passed a budget that did not cash fund any projects.

And so many things were deferred, as we know with the budget last year.

So we went into this budget process, knowing that we are, our revenues are still down.

And so we looked to this to be a level funding process, meaning that

We started with the plan that we put out for last year and asked departments for no more than one request and only really if that was necessary.

And so what came out of that for the draft that is before you is basically just a few highlighted changes which we've already noted.

West Main Street, there was four million dollars that was removed.

There was $100,000 deferred for new sidewalks, mostly because there's already available funds there.

There are also funds for sidewalks and other smart scale and other projects that are happening.

And then there were a few deferrals for things like traffic signs and we added $500,000 back to paving and milling largely because there were a lot of deferrals that were required last year to that.

And so this is an effort to try to catch up.

Housing Rehab Dollars, they were deferred in FY 21.

And unfortunately with this current draft, they are not in again, but we are willing to look at the CAF process and applicants can apply for rehab through that competitive CIP process.

And then finally, the Friendship Court Project,

The total dollars are not reduced but when we went back and looked and spoke with the folks managing that project we were able to reallocate those dollars and spread them out so there was a reduction there.

And then there was a request that was put in last year for a citywide fee study and given the impacts of COVID that was removed.

So those are essentially the only changes that have happened from the draft that was put out in FY20 last year, sorry, FY21.

That's essentially the only changes that have happened in the plan that we're proposing or have submitted here for consideration for 22.

So next slide, please.

With all of that, this was a slide that we also shared with council in the work session last week.

Again, this was a draft that tries to focus on council's strategic priorities or key priorities.

This draft does not attempt to speak to projects on any level in terms of is one better than the other, but it looks to

Basically, if the school reconfiguration is an important priority for council, how could we best do that?

So therefore, we added the $50 million placeholder.

And the big key takeaway, as again, Commissioner Mitchell noted, affordability.

The plan as is, is not affordable without significant revenue enhancements.

Can't say that enough.

One of the scenarios that we put out last week talked about a scenario in which there was a 10 cent tax increase to make it affordable.

But there are other ways to do that.

It will require, excuse me, some reallocations, perhaps.

And I guess one thing I want to stress here is that by reallocations, i.e.

one of the reasons for not committing new funding to West Main, is that if that is an option, it does not help with the affordability issue, but it does help with the capacity issue.

So those dollars could be reallocated to a different project, but they're already baked in the projections.

So simply reallocating does not make this more affordable.

Again, we also talked about the fact that the future needs, if the $50 million stays in for schools,

It will limit future CIP in terms of abilities to add new projects or new initiatives for quite some time.

Unless there's a bunch of cash that can be added and then of course at any time you can add cash funded projects.

The other thing is that even with the additional tax revenues that were put in, there is a healthy fund balance in the debt service fund that we have been using to buy down some of these increases in debt service.

With this plan, and even with the 10 cent tax increase, the current proposal would deplete all of those funds within the next six years.

Next slide, please.

So again, as we presented this draft to council, again, not to make a value judgment or statement on any project, but to simply say, if this is how you want to move forward, what would be the recommendations?

And so what did we put in the draft?

Again, the $50 million is put in for the school reconfiguration project in 2025.

The West Main Street additional funding was removed.

The $18 million that was previously approved in prior CIPs remains intact and would be available.

The scenario we presented again looked at a property tax increase of roughly two cents per year, beginning in FY23.

The point here being is that in order to make this affordable, not only do we need to look at revenue enhancements, but we need to start doing that now.

And we didn't want to do that in 22, but it is something that would need to be considered starting in 23 if we're on the same time scale with the 2025.

Again, one of the options we also offered is in addition to tax rates.

There are other things that we can do.

The school formula would be one of those that could be considered and then

Essentially, once the projects start, if we move forward with this plan, it's one thing to start or to budget for a million dollar project or a $10 million project, and if it slides one way or the other, we have some room to adjust, especially when we're not spending all our capacity.

But in this case scenario, we're looking to a scenario where we're actually would be spending all of our capacity,

using up all of our debt service reserves.

And that would mean that future councils or commissions would also be limited in what could be recommended or added to future CIP budgets for several years.

And so with that, that is essentially what we have put forward and what is the story that's kind of behind this draft.

What we're gonna do is open it up for public hearing and we will then come back to you with questions after we get some feedback.

Our questions may be informed by what we get from the public.

Thank you, Chair Mitchell.

This hearing is now open to public comment.

If you'd like to address the commission during this time, please click your raise hand icon, and you'll be called upon in the order of hands raised.

Once I call upon you, you will have three minutes for comment.

Our first speaker is Peter Krebs.

Peter, you're on with the commission.

Welcome, Peter.

Thank you.

Good evening, Planning Commission, council members of the public.

Tonight, I'm here to talk about potatoes.

Well, actually, I'm here to talk about the CIP and some complicated issues it contains.

There are two capital projects that are garnering a lot of attention, or I'll speak to two of them.

West Main is a complicated project that has been in the works for a long time.

In addition to making more safe and more pleasant, our Main Street and a road VDOT currently rates as a top 0.1% corridor of safety concern,

It replaces water, sewer, and gas lines.

Numerous ADA violations, replaces broken sidewalks, out of compliance push buttons, outmoded lights, overdue repaving, and more.

Something needs to be done about West Main.

That is not optional.

And we have to be real.

It will be expensive.

But can it be cheaper than the current plan?

We don't know.

And the answer might be no.

But while we wait, I think the current proposed freeze on funding for West Main makes a lot of sense.

But you should avoid reprogramming the funds allocated in previous years until we have a satisfactory answer to that question.

I think likely what will make the most sense is to proceed with the two phases that are funded and look for alternatives to the other two.

But we'll see, and we'll have to give it some time.

The other item that concerns me is the proposed new parking garage, which has not been subject to much, if any, public process and seems counterintuitive given the times that we are in.

Not many localities are investing in more parking right now, and I'm not sure our ambitious climate goals or our commitment to a healthy, walkable community.

I fought to keep the courthouses downtown, and I speak all the time about shared winds with the county.

We clearly must honor our commitment, but I also think we can get much more value from our capital dollars and this prime marquee site.

A much more creative mix is needed, and frankly, a more open design process that is more reflective of our values and our community goals.

To summarize, I would love to see all four faces of West Main funded, but that might not be feasible, but some major work will need to be done.

The memo I sent lays out some options.

On the other hand, it would be very dismaying to spend $2 million on a simple parking garage, which is counter to so many other things that we're working on.

We need a more creative solution and a much better return on the investment and sacrifices that will be required.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Kathy Galvin.

Welcome, Kathy.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Do you see me?

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry for the time.

Um, thank you very much.

I'm Kathy Galvin.

I'm 712 Lyons Avenue resident.

And, um, I'm speaking mainly about West Main, but we'll talk a little bit about reconfiguration.

So the draft affordable housing strategy calls for more multifamily housing and densities that can drive down unit costs.

in locations close to transit and jobs.

Before the automobile, such densities from 17 to 34 dwelling units per acre in compact walkable areas and small lots and low to mid-rise buildings were typical.

Gross densities today, however, are one-tenth of these historical norms due to sprawling large lot, low density suburban development patterns enabled by the vast distances that can be crossed by automobiles.

Transportation is now a prime contributor to greenhouse gases and human fatalities due to speeding.

But you can't go back to pre-war densities without going back to pre-war walkable street networks.

We learned that lesson 20 years ago when the pedestrian-oriented improvements for West Main were never implemented, even as its zoning was changed to spur more intense development and foot traffic.

West Main Street today is one of the city's top 10 priority corridors for safety reasons.

Since the pandemic, crash fatalities are rising due to more reckless driving on emptier streets, ill-equipped to handle more bike and pedestrian traffic.

So why would we abandon our commitment to improving West Main Street now when the need is now more urgent, especially to those who can't afford cars and already suffer disproportionately from fatal crashes involving walking?

That's 18.3% for Black people versus 12.4% for White.

How can higher densities be achieved without re-engineering our streets to accommodate more bike-ped traffic?

Our goals are within reach on West Main.

It's been the product of countless meetings and is one of at least 11 studies across 33 years.

It does everything Peter Krebs says and more so.

in terms of accessibility, in terms of widening sidewalks, in terms of making it multimodal.

Since 2016, it has been awarded $15 million in smart scale and revenue sharing funds for the first three phases.

That's close to 40% of the total cost for all three phases.

Do we turn down state money?

If we do, how could we ever afford to re-engineer our streets to be less car dependent?

Zero-sum games of divisive, like West Main, a reconfiguration plan is a long-term capital project that transcends terms of office.

But unlike West Main, which garnered state funds to drive down the city's $49 million obligation across four phases, the school configuration plan is apparently paid in one $50 million phase with no grants or revenue sharing.

Why hasn't this been broken down into phases as first proposed by Maurice Jones years ago?

Has the federal COVID-19 relief package been considered?

Finally, failure to follow through has a cost.

Please do not pit two initiatives that have been the product of extensive public engagement against each other at a time when the community cannot fully participate in the discussion due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Please find a way to do both.

Full disclosure, I voted for both as a school board member and then as a counselor.

Work with Chip Boyles, who knows infrastructure planning, municipal budgeting, and state politics.

Give him time to assess these decisions before a final choice is made.

Otherwise, failing to stick to long-term capital project priorities that have been thoughtfully incorporated into an organization's ongoing responsibilities for over eight years, like West Maine, will mean that progress is rarely, if ever, achieved.

As stated by the 2017 efficiency study, it will also lead to frustration and disappointment on the part of elected officials, staff, and the community.

If a council and planning commission continually fail to execute long-term capital projects across different council tenures,

Capital projects take more than four years.

Then how can we hope to ever promote stable government in accordance with established governing norms within a work environment that empowers city staff as per the commitment city council made to the public on January 14, 2021.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Matthew Gilliken.

Matthew, you're on with commission.

Welcome, Matthew.

Hi Planning Commissioners, this is Matthew Gillican.

I live at 726 Orange Dale Avenue.

I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the things that I'd like to see you all consider as your priorities in this capital budget.

One thing Ms.

Galvin didn't mention in her comments just now is that just two years ago, she told me in an email that this was going to be a $30 million project to redo the West Main Street scape.

That was what the project was pitched as.

That's what council voted on up until this past year.

Suddenly it's at least a $50 to $55 million project with an indefinite timeline.

We have no timeline to the renovation of the middle school, it would seem, if we decide to go in on West Main Street Scape.

I think the pet projects actually do kind of pit against each other.

We only have so much money, as Ms.

Hammel just told us.

And then when you factor in other things, like maybe affordable housing and what we should be spending on that, we really have a conundrum.

I personally would like to see money spent on schools and affordable housing for our capital projects.

I have three small children, two of them are in elementary school right now.

I'd like for them to go to a, I think you might've just heard one of them.

I'd like for them to go to a middle school that isn't falling apart at the seams.

I really would like you all to rethink the recommendation of funding for the parking garage downtown.

The current design is,

A disaster, and according to the numbers that I've been shown by Chris Ingalls' budget projections, that parking garage on prime real estate in downtown won't turn a profit for 25 to 30 years.

That is just irresponsible beyond measure, beyond belief.

And so West Main, let's scale it way back to something that works.

and is functional and fiscally responsible.

The Market Street Garage, I think, I mean, maybe in terms of our obligations to the county, there's a path where we need to put more parking there that doesn't seem environmentally responsible to me, but let's go back to the drawing board.

So I would encourage you all to not approve funding based on the current plan.

And one little thing that I noticed is that was rejected.

This is a small thing, but I think it matters.

It was rejected and the tip was to resurface the spray grounds in the city.

And as someone who spends a lot of time in those spray grounds,

I think that the couple hundred thousand dollars that's being proposed for that that was not put on the proposed KIP is actually money really really well spent both in terms of providing an amenity that lots of our families in the city use but also for safety those surfaces if they as they get worn out over time become much more slippery

And I've seen a lot of kids fall and get hurt.

So I would suggest adding that back into the KIPP.

It's a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

It's not a huge investment, but it will have a big, big payoff.

Our next speaker is Jeffrey Fogle.

Jeffrey, you're on with the commission.

You have three minutes.

A rare time in my life.

People will want to know the trick.

What I really want to talk about is taxes because I think that we really need to raise taxes and at a considerably higher rate than is being proposed by staff.

and not simply for capital projects, but for operational expenses as well.

We do not have enough money in the city to do what needs to be done.

And secondly, we have an incredible opportunity here to make property taxes progressive.

The CHAP program has to be fully funded and expanded so that people who cannot afford these increase in taxes will not have to be paying them.

While the richer people in our community who've gotten away with really low taxes

We'll have to pick up the slack in order to provide the kinds of services that people in town expect.

So I would encourage you to increase the taxes twice as much as the staff offered.

It's critical that we start to enhance

and enforce the CHAPS program and fully fund that program increasing the income limits as well as the values of the houses so that the lower middle class is not harmed either.

There are many, many rich people in this town

who can afford to pay more taxes and we have the opportunity to make a progressive system that has not existed in this country.

Most people in real estate taxes were set at, as you know, a flat rate and those real estate taxes had traditionally been used to fund education.

And of course, they become the most regressive form of taxation because they're set at the same rate for rich people as they are set for poor people.

So we have that opportunity to change history and to supplement the monies that the city needs in order for its important capital improvements, as well as the important services that it wants to provide, but can't because of a lack of operational expenses.

Our next speaker is Peggy Vanyaris.

Peggy, you're on with the commission.

Yes, I'm Peggy Vanyaris.

I'm Vice Chair of the Tree Commission.

And I'm here to support the tree planting budget in the CIP.

That's our first priority.

But first, I'd like to tell you kind of a sad story about our trees in the city.

Our forests are declining.

And I'm going to give you three illustrations, quick illustrations of that.

Since 2004, we have lost over 480 acres of forest of trees in the city.

Now, picture this.

Start on 250 north, go down to the downtown mall in the south, go east to Meade Avenue, and go west to McIntyre Road.

Think of that whole area.

That's the area of trees we've lost.

Number two, every year we remove more trees, and these are large trees, than we plant.

And of course they're small trees.

And number three is the $75,000 that is in the budget for tree planting won't even let us plant our community goal of 200 trees a year.

Another thing I want to let you know is that the primary goal for the Tree Commission over the next really number of years is to plant in our low canopy, low income neighborhoods.

These are our most vulnerable citizens and as the science has pointed out, loss of shade, loss of trees is resulting in higher heat related illnesses.

and higher energy costs for these people.

So we're going to work with nonprofits.

We're already talking with the City of Promise that's going to help us reach out to the neighborhoods.

So that's an exciting project for us.

I'd like to address, we had asked for ash tree removal, but we know you are incredible under budget constraints.

So we're not gonna ask for that now, but I want you to know that every single ash tree in this community over the next four years is going to die because of the Emerald Ash Borough.

In the city, we are treating our most important trees and it's going to become a significant cost for the city.

And we'll have more to talk to you about that in later years.

The other thing I'd like to just point out two more things the way you can help us.

To city council, we really liked some help planting trees in Star Hill and 10th and Page.

Those are our two lowest canopy neighborhoods.

It's hard because we have to plan on private property, but we think that we can have a conversation with you about how we can use staff or materials or websites to help us reach that goal.

The second thing I'd like to talk to the Planning Commission.

There are two ways that you can help us with the urban forest.

One, as you review development projects, look to save our existing trees.

And also the another thing you can do is be careful about

waving front yard setbacks.

If there's no front yards, there's no trees.

And guess what?

We are just creating heat islands of the future.

Our next speaker is LaTanya Allen.

LaTanya, you're on with the commission.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Perfect.

First, I do want to say thank you for your commitment to affordable housing.

I currently live in Charlottesville, Virginia.

My name is LaTanya Allen, and I am a home buyer through Habitat.

And I'm just here to emphasize on the importance of affordable ownership in our area.

So here's a little bit of my story.

I didn't grow up.

I grew up in a single parent home.

It was four of us and we lived in a projects for

what seemed like a lifetime.

We went from the projects to an apartment complex and never into a home.

So I never got to experience what it was like to actually live in or grow up in a home, a home that I own myself.

And so

My husband, on the other hand, his parents were able to have a home built from the ground up, which was awesome.

So in saying that, where we are now, we have five kids of our own, all different age groups.

The oldest is 14 and the youngest is seven months.

And what we always desire to do, having kids, is to pass down something

to our kids and you know our own home would be like amazing for us to just pass down to them and leave a legacy from our family to like different generations to come so I'm just advocating on behalf of families who will come after me seeking this opportunity because you know affordable housing is an issue you know in our city and I know that from experience you know we just came from

You know, a small two bedroom home, you know, where we were forced out due to, you know, the asbestos we had in our basement.

So going from that to where we are now, which, you know, it's a pretty penny to stay where we are now.

And it's, you know, having five kids and a family of seven, it's hard.

You know, we make it, but it is hard.

And this is not our home, but we're paying a lot for it.

So, you know, affordable housing is always needed and needed even more.

And not just for the communities that have the money forward, but for communities like where we grew up in, like public housing.

And, you know, I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't want to stay in public housing for the rest of their life.

But, you know, we have to make housing affordable for ones who want to live.

Our next speaker is Ernest Poku.

Ernest, you're on with commission.

Welcome.

Thank you, members.

I applaud you for the good work you guys are doing.

In fact, I mean, it's very, very encouraging.

I've seen you guys are doing a very good job.

And somebody like me, I'm a home buyer through Habitat for Humanity.

My main objective is to see more people benefit from this housing because one thing that is killing us is

the higher rent that we are kind of paying and we still have children too that we are taking care of so if we kind of get a little bit less on this low income housing and we can channel the rest of the money towards our children's education

and also we are willing, I say hard workers, I mean I know people here are very, very hard working.

We are willing to do more.

I mean it doesn't matter if you guys can just increase the task so that we can get more money towards, I mean, helping people to get a low income housing.

That will be very, very effective.

I know you guys are doing a good job.

So my main aim is that you guys need to help us to come out with a little bit more money towards housing.

And having seen that too, I mean, I think the development of shelter is being pretty good.

I mean the constructions, I mean you see constructions here and there and my main channel is that we need to let those inspectors who go on the site, making sure that we are building at a good place but not even clamping the whole city together at one particular place.

Let's extend our arms so that

Charles Wells will get a nice, I mean, landscaping and all kinds of stuff so that our city will be very beautiful.

Meanwhile, our city is good already, but let's do more to do that.

And I applaud you a good rest.

I'm not going to talk too long, but all what I'm saying is that keep on the good job.

I thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Anthony Harrow.

Anthony, you're on with the commission.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all tonight.

I'm Anthony Harr.

I'm the director for Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless.

And earlier today, a letter was sent from the Charlottesville Albemarle Affordable Housing Coalition focusing on affordable housing and this upcoming budget.

And I just wanted to talk a bit about the CAF, in particular, or the Affordable Housing Fund.

First, also, I want to

call out the planned investment in the current redevelopment efforts at Friendship Court and CRHA, which is critical, so thank you.

And we also want to, and I also want to support funding of being available for the entire continuum of housing needs from homeless services to low-income rentals to affordable home ownership and rehab.

And the current allocation of about $800,000 for the CAF for FY22 is a great start, but it is not enough to cover the need

for other areas of the housing continuum that are needed to really address affordable housing in our community, such as permanent supportive housing, again, affordable home ownership and rehab efforts.

And there's some significant projects coming down the pike this year in each of those realms with opportunities to leverage several millions of dollars of federal, state, local government, philanthropic dollars towards development.

and having more flexibility in the CAF to really to make those happen is important.

And one of those opportunities that I wanted to bring up and share with you all is something that TJAC has been a part of which is a partnership to purchase and develop the red carpet in on Route 29.

It's a really unique collaboration that addresses immediate needs for people experiencing homelessness to be able to have non-congregate shelter, as it's called, which is essentially private rooms to shelter during this pandemic, which is a critical need.

And in the medium term, so one to two years that the existing structure will be able to provide shelter there, which is amazing.

And then,

Development would occur for permanent supportive housing by Virginia Supportive Housing, which would provide about 80 units of permanent supportive housing.

And then further development would occur as well for affordable housing in general.

So just market, not market, but affordable housing rentals on the site.

So a pretty amazing collaboration between different organizations, PHA, Virginia Supportive Housing, TJAC,

and the Charlottesville affordable housing, I'm sorry, Charlottesville Area Community Foundation.

And so I just wanna bring that up as one of the options that the CAF can support.

Having that flexibility in there is important to really try to address those other types of needs along the continuum of housing needs.

Thank you very much, Anthony.

If anyone else would like to speak on this public hearing item, please click the raise hand icon, or if you're joining us by phone, press star nine.

And we have Don Gathers.

Don, you are on with the commission.

Good evening, everyone.

And I'll be very brief.

I'm just hopeful and prayerful that

In this day and age and in a modern society, what should be a civilized society, that we're not trying to decide or debate the necessity between streetscapes and schools.

I hope that that's not the point that we find ourselves at.

Rather, we're talking about beautifying the street or actually putting money into our educational system.

I would much rather

that we not even entertain the discussion at this time about parking or about what Main Street may look like or it may be envisioned in someone's dreams in the future because it won't matter if we don't invest in the schools.

I believe that Mr. Krebs, the first speaker said something about a return on the investment.

And I can't find or think of a better return on investment than in our school children.

So if we're looking for avenues and trying to decide where money should be spent, at this point in time, it certainly is not on streetscapes or street beautification or parking garages.

We have too many other very large fish to fry, if you will.

We can direct that money towards the school system.

We can direct that money towards even more affordable housing.

We can direct that money towards trying to solve the homelessness situation in our city that continues to plague us.

And if necessary, put some money towards feeding our citizens.

The beautification of a street or building additional parking has to be way down the list of priorities, especially now, especially during the pandemic, and especially when so many people in town are hurting.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Cliff Fox.

Cliff, you're on with the commission.

Sorry.

You're back.

I would just ask that the city

develop a physically responsible plan.

As we're seeing with West Main and the schools, there hasn't been a coherent plan for reserves and replacement in place over the past decades.

If it were, we wouldn't be here now.

Thank you.

Right.

Well, then I will gavel us out of the public section and open it up to the commission to begin asking questions.

And for the first round of questions, just go from left to right, and we'll begin with the university.

I don't have any at this point.

I'll wait to hear what other commissioners have to say, and then if I have anything, I'll speak up.

So I'll just start out with a couple big talking points.

Gosh, there's been a lot of talk about West Main.

And I think I'm interested in understanding what the minimum, well, first of all, there was some questions going back and forth today about whether or not we would lose committed funds or have to pay back funds.

And I would think we would want to avoid anything that requires us to pay something back, pay back VDOT or smart scale.

So, you know, my big picture question is, what would be the minimum we could commit to to meet obligations, you know, possibly like Peter Krebs said, you know, retain matching funds.

I won't go into this more of a discussion thing.

I am also questioning why the $500,000 for rehab is not selected.

May I interrupt you for one moment?

We're going to have an opportunity to have a stream of thought and discussion after we do Q&A.

So do you have any direct questions for Ms.

I don't know.

I mean, I don't know.

There was a question that was asked that was specific to the project that Ms.

Hammel said that she couldn't answer.

I believe there are a number of members of staff that are available to help with that.

So what was the question?

I think most of it was pretty comprehensively covered by email.

I would like to follow up on my question about

The revenue from dockless mobility or e-scooters and e-bikes.

So we committed when we approved that program to redirecting the revenue to bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

So in the email, staff said that there was in fact $33,000 of revenue in that account in the previous fiscal year, which is

Lower than we expect in the next fiscal year because the fees were waived for several months during COVID.

So I guess my question is about the flip side of that.

We have the revenue.

Where is it going?

I don't see it being put in the CIP as revenue.

I see sidewalks and bike infrastructure getting reduced in funding yet again.

I think Ryan was going to take that.

Those dollars do not specifically go into the CIP plan in this way.

Because those dollars come in on a regular basis throughout the fiscal year, we have created the appropriations of those funds as they come in and as they are collected or automatically deposited into this account.

And so there's not a need to re-appropriate those funds every time we get a new check from those vendors.

So they're going into that pot on a regular basis.

OK, so I can clarify.

So we're, for example, supposed to put, what is it, for new sidewalks, it's $0 this year.

So, all right, I'm not gonna use that.

For bicycle infrastructure, it's gonna be $150,000 this year, right?

And so if we fund it at $150,000 and 33,000 comes in from this other source of revenue, does that mean there's $183,000 available to be expended?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Okay, that makes sense.

Second question, and again, this was sort of addressed by email.

So in the Shriek million paving account, we see a big increase this year to one and a half million dollars, whereas it had previously been

Projected for the entire five-year CIP to be $1.25 million.

I think we had only approved $1 million in FY20.

That was the whole request.

And so that amount has gone up significantly.

That's $250,000.

That's more than we're spending on these other programs.

So I just want to clarify your numbers a little bit, make sure I understand your question.

In the 21 CIP, there was a total of $7 million over the five years allocated for milling and paving.

And it's only, with this new version, it's up to 7.5.

So...

I guess now would be the time.

Is there two points?

Joe, would you please start the clock?

Is any objection to Mr. Stolzenberg sharing the screen?

Mayor Mitchell, he has the ability to share.

Three minutes is for the short meeting, five minutes for the big meeting.

This is all I wanted to show.

It should be quick.

Yeah, sure.

I mean, there are costs associated with paving.

They do increase annually.

There has been some deferrals on those paving.

And in terms of maintenance, this is just an attempt to get back on schedule to keep in touch and keep on track with the scoring matrix that's currently being used.

Mr. Brown.

I'll wrap back around.

Why are you thinking?

I'm sorry, I interrupted somebody.

Yes, I just promoted him to panelist.

Thank you.

Good evening.

In response to the question, as presented by Chrissy, is that the situation, as I understood, in the previous budgets, the request for the resurfacing was higher, but because of budgeting necessities that was reduced.

But for the purpose of the increase, what we're seeing right now, we are experiencing increased costs and our operational costs.

and for construction costs as well.

Therefore, that's the reason why you're seeing the increase requested.

Yep, got it.

That makes sense.

I appreciate that.

So if you begin to start reducing the costs or the amount that's being funded, what you end up doing is prolonging the inevitable.

So if we reduce the cost, we're not able to do the amount of work that we've programmed.

So that just continuously builds.

And in the long run, that costs you more because you've put off that work.

Our maintenance costs are going to increase.

Material costs are going to increase.

So it's just going to continue to build and build as you put off what work is scheduled.

So what we're trying to do is at least maintain a certain level of operational maintenance on our infrastructure.

Also keep in mind that the roadways themselves are multimodal, they serve bicyclists as well.

Okay, and I know at our last year's CIP work session, I think we talked about a pavement quality index.

We have, and actually we're planning to do another conditional survey this coming spring, an assessment of our pavement conditions, which we're referring to as a PCI, Pavement Condition Index.

Thank you.

Yeah, I had a question about the state and federal funding of the entire project and if in the revenue side of the budget

There are connections between specific parts of the improvements.

For example, when we apply to get state or federal funding for smart streets, is the application for that funding allocated to specific parts like undergrounding the power lines?

A part of the state funding is that if we don't do that, we don't get the state funding.

Is it broken down that way?

And can we see that?

Or is it all just very much up to our own municipality to decide where that funding goes?

Because I can't see that in the budget, so I don't know if it's even a possibility to cut back on different parts that are not a part of the smart streets.

So Ms.

Janicek is on the call and can answer your question specific to the project.

I just want to make a point regarding your question as it relates to the CIP budget.

We do show, in many cases, offsetting revenue, federal and state offsetting revenue.

However, in this case, the dollars that you see that we've been talking about related to West Main are strictly the city match that would be required for the state and federal dollars, which would then be appropriated later once we're ready to undergo those

Expenditures, you would have an appropriation that would go before council that would actually increase the expenditure budget with an offsetting increase in the state and federal revenue for the project.

But the dollars you see in this budget that we're talking about, the 18 million or the four that was not put in are strictly state dollars.

So there's really no way for us to assess the consequences of withdrawing one part of the project.

I will let Miss Janicek check answer that question.

Good evening, everyone.

So when the city submits a grant application, we have to identify what we're going to do with the funds.

So revenue share is a little bit more open ended.

That would be on phase one.

only.

There are no smart scale funds on it.

We have more of an open door to re-scope that portion.

Once we do a smart scale application, again, we're identifying what phase we're going to apply, what the project limits are, and then we identify what the benefits are that we hope to achieve with this funding.

So we do have smart scale and revenue sharing on phase two.

And then we have phase three, which is just smart scale funding, no local funding.

Undergrounding, just so you know, transportation dollars cannot be used for that, state or federal.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Dell.

Mr. Stolzenberg.

Oh, we talked about revenue.

You've opened a door.

I've got a few ideas.

I'm remembering that the University of Virginia mentioned an interest in giving $5 million for West Main at one point.

And hey, University of Virginia, increasingly a large landowner in the city.

I believe they're the largest landowner in the city.

pay no property taxes when they own the property as opposed to the trust fund.

Other college towns do what's called a payment in lieu of taxes.

They'll say, hey, federal or state entity or nonprofit, here's the taxes you would have paid.

We wonder if you would pretty please pay a portion of that this year to help us out.

To my knowledge, we've never done that formally.

Other localities do.

I suggest that we could consider that if we haven't already considered that.

Second question, have we considered asking the state for permission to do more kinds of revenue?

So in response to your first question, we do actually bill for a payment in lieu of taxes to UVA.

There are states that actually require restrictions on what is eligible for that.

And most of that property is actually in Albemarle County, not in the city of Charlottesville.

So we do get a small amount that's billed annually for what is eligible.

And that's, again, those are billed with property taxes.

I have a question in regard to the small area plan allocation.

And it's, I guess, a question for us and for NDS staff.

I'm not aware of a small area plan that has high importance and priority at this point.

Are the other commissioners aware of anything or NDS staff?

Is there something queued up that is of high importance that needs a small area plan?

Okay, thank you.

$100,000 every year over the next five years.

The only question I've got is about the emerald ash.

I think Ms.

Creasy sent out an email suggesting that the infestation would be dealt with using Park and Rec's operating budget.

Todd Brown may be on this call.

Parks and Rec Director, he can maybe answer this better than me, but my understanding is, to answer your question, it does not cover it all.

I think this is one of those programs where, you know, there's a lot of need, but we are basically triaging the most critical and working from that standpoint, given the limited funding.

Mr. Brown, you're muted.

Thank you.

No, you're exactly right.

The amount of money we have left, we'll take care of the most dangerous trees first throughout the year.

And what amount of money do you have to do that?

What amount of money have you dedicated to that?

That's hard to tell.

Okay, because you've got almost $2 million in your lump sum account.

It's only 50,000 bucks that I think the tree commission's asking for.

And you're already going to deal with some of it.

You're going to deal with 32 of the trees using separate funds.

Again, just something for us to think about as we begin deliberations.

All right, let's go back around.

Bill, any questions yet?

No questions at this time.

I did also have that question about the implications to the SmartScale funding if the West Main Street was not funded or deferred or whatever.

And that was a half a million bucks we had in SmartScale, right?

Right, Jody?

whoever asked that, yes, it happened to be both.

Ms.

I was kind of hoping for a little more clarity and maybe it came from Sunshine earlier today on the question around public housing not getting as much funding as requested.

And the response from staff was that there were no LIHTC applications for new projects in 2021.

So my question is, is that expected to change and increase in the future?

Sorry, I was having some technical problems.

So the housing authority, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority is not planning on making a LIHTC application this coming March.

I don't know if they have any proposals for March 22 yet.

That will depend on if they start planning sometime this year.

to start looking at an application.

However, they have requested the 15 million or whatever that number is now over a certain amount of years.

And that's what we continually look at as we still allocate funding so that we can cover overall redevelopment projections, but there are no specific proposed projects at this time to go forward.

Crescent Halls and South First Street Phase 1 are proposed to start construction anytime and South First Street Phase 2 will probably start construction about this time next year and right now there aren't any proposed projects in the future planned but they are looking at all their other sites.

Thank you.

No, I don't have any more questions.

Ms.

Dowell.

I think we lost Ms.

Dowell.

I'm prepared.

Nothing more.

All right, let's begin our deliberations and let's begin deliberations with thoughts towards a recommendation to Council.

And Ms.

Russell, you had some thoughts, and I interrupted you when you were trying to present them.

Forgive me, but let's get it out.

Well, would it make sense to sort of talk about, kind of have a discussion around some of these bigger ticket items?

So what I was starting to say about, or kind of thinking around in the best

in the West Main project was thinking about coming up with a way to fund the minimal amount.

I don't know what that would be.

That doesn't completely kill the project.

I'm not entirely clear what would be gained from just walking away from it.

There's certainly others that have much more historical knowledge than I do.

Is that possible?

Is it possible to find a solution?

Peter had an idea that I thought was somewhat appealing, but I think I'd grow that idea a bit.

I think we definitely need to move forward with phase one and phase three, those are funded.

But I think that if we could downsize the parking deck to the minimum, just to meet the needs of our commitment to

to the county, we could then move those funds into West Bay and then leverage the smart scale funding to at least do a little bit of what you're suggesting.

Maybe don't hit the home run, but we can get a double out of that.

But again, that's what I'm thinking about this, but I interrupted other people.

Yeah, so I like the conversation beginning with revenue.

I mean, I think that that's the smart place for us to come less around.

And if we can agree on that much, that which is funded, that which is provided, then we can say there's nothing to be gained by putting that off the table.

So then what are we looking at?

What specifically do you mean by... The smart scale funding from state and, you know, just what you were saying of phases two and three.

But I think it's also not a lot to be gained by just completely wiping off improvements that need to be made that have, you know, residual benefit to the community long into the future.

And that's why I mentioned the undergrounding.

because I think undergrounding helps everything, pedestrians, bicycles, but it may not be part of the smart scale funding, but I think it'd be foolish not to, if you're spending that kind of money and you're doing that kind of renovation work, you underground it while you've torn up the street.

So that's,

That's what I, if we're gonna talk about, rather than talk about what we're gonna take out, let's talk about what are the things that we should do while we're doing this project, pick the ones that we think help the most and find a way to fund it through the city.

I like your idea about downscaling the parking garage and using those funds to, so let's talk about what we think is most important

And I think I skipped Rory.

Yeah, I think you skipped me in the last question round, too.

I was hoping to get staff's input on this $10 million commitment that our consultants are talking about with the affordable housing plan.

I mean, it seems like in the budget offices, budget projections, there's a hard stop to any bond issuances after 2027, even with the tax increase, because we've maxed out our entire bondable capacity.

And so with just what we're projecting here, any new programs

for affordable housing or otherwise are going to be off the table.

And it seems like we're about five and a half, $6 million per year in this CIP.

So, I mean, does staff think that $10 million a year is outlandish?

So a couple of things there.

I just want to caution you about talking about hard stops, especially when you talk about debt capacity, because as we talked with council last week in the work session and as we displayed that debt table, there are a lot of moving parts there.

So there are a lot of things that could be subject to change in terms of timing.

I do think you're correct, though, that the big idea here is that with this current CIP plan, it does make further bonding capacity and future CIPs strapped.

And so again, if you're talking about adding new dollars for affordable housing in a scenario in which we are putting forth a proposal that

plans to basically spend all your capacity, you're correct.

There isn't room to do that for a while.

The other thing I would say is, and I don't want to preempt, I'm certainly not the expert here and I don't want to preempt anything you're going to hear later tonight, but I think it's important when we talk about the $10 million number, it's not just what's in the CIP.

So in other words, the $10 million for affordable housing, there are other programs and things that are being funded throughout various budgets in the city.

There's a large portion in the general fund as well as the CIP, which is the biggest contribution.

And then the third point I would also make is there are a lot of affordable housing opportunities such as the friendship court opportunity that is in the CIP that is not bond funded at all.

And can't be for certain reasons.

Great, thanks.

So yeah, I mean, moving on to kind of what I think about these things.

You know, I think

We have a problem in the city and it's evident in some of these plans where we think about everything in a vacuum and we talk about these hard decisions and all these different things we want out of a project and we just say, yes, please, I'll take it all.

So I think that's what happened with the street skate project where that's why it went from a small or a $30 million project to a $50 million project.

you know we said we want to make the streets have wider sidewalks and be safer for bikes and pedestrians but then we said you know we don't want to get rid of any parking we want to you know have a nice new park we want you know fancy pavers on the street and

Like, I mean, I don't know if you guys have read the value engineering study that was presented to staff last week, but it is appalling.

I mean, you've got half a million dollars in there for rocks, literally just a boulder that's sliced into pieces for decorative purposes.

You've got half a million dollars for custom concrete benches that look incredibly uncomfortable.

where you could have bought regular benches for like $20,000.

And I think with the streetscape, you know, we really need to get back to what's important.

And I think, I mean, phase three, let's do the whole thing.

Great.

We're probably going to get state funding for everything, all our fancy bells and whistles, which is wonderful.

We got lucky in smart scale this year and the Culpeper district got a lot because there was more money in the pot than I ever expected.

But

For phase one, I think you've got to focus on what's important.

We do want to close that slip lane.

That's incredibly dangerous at Ridge and Main.

We could use some wider sidewalks.

Once you close the slip lane, you have space.

We're going to remove the statue.

There's no need to so heavily program that park space, at least now, while we're budget trapped.

The funding isn't dependent on that sort of thing.

On the whole project, the silver cells and the undergrounding, like they're luxuries, but none of these are necessities really.

And so I think it's important to address the safety of West Main.

And I think we can do that for a much more limited cost without allocating any new funding for it and possibly while reclaiming some existing funding.

You know,

Yeah, I think, you know, we've assembled a sort of working group on some place members, some BPAC members, and some BAR members.

We haven't really met or discussed yet because we're waiting on council to make a call, but I think we make some tactical improvements in order to increase safety

We can fit that in with the rest of the stuff ongoing.

There will need to be a capital investment to fix that intersection.

And there's another smart scale project for Ridge Street improvements that just got approved that that can slot into as well.

And I really don't think the, you know, overall $50 million project for, you know, all those fancy bells and whistles and beautiful designs.

I mean, it looks great, but, you know, there are trade-offs.

And I think it's also important to recognize, like, the problem with the streetscape is we're spending all of our

money on improving safety sort of I mean kind of mostly aesthetics for one street and it doesn't even get you a protected bike lane and so by removing some of that money I would hope to see that we have bike and pet infrastructure on other streets like across the city we've got sidewalks that are completely missing that drop out every half block

In our FY20 plan, we had $2 million in the five-year CIP for new sidewalks.

We had $400,000 a year, and now we've dropped it down to $600,000 in the whole thing.

We're not even gonna fund it at all for two years.

You know, I think that's usually problematic.

And on affordable housing, like, I think it's a similar deal, right?

Like, you know, we talk, we have, you know, kind of designs, we engage the community, and we, there's no sense, you know, there's no explanation or trade offs presented to people.

You know, I think, you know, with the Friendship Court vision plan, you know, it's a great plan and I think it's really important to, you know, have the community decide what they want.

But I don't think the Friendship Court community would say, like, we want exactly this plan, even if it means wiping out all of the funding for affordable housing anywhere else in the city.

So, you know, I think it's important to make sure that, A, we're maximizing the available federal LIHTC funding and other funding that we can get for that sort of thing.

but B, to make sure that we're planning this and designing it in a way that doesn't eat up the entire budget.

It's $288,000 a unit for Friendship Court Phase 1 and that seems high to me.

So that's probably why they needed so much in external subsidies.

I think we have that problem across the whole city.

I'd also say I think we should

Deep on the smaller plan account, there are no plans planned and there's a bunch of money sitting in it that could probably be pulled out.

And I think the same is true for the economic development fund account where there have been no recent expenditures and there's literally a half million and a half dollars in cash just sitting in an account doing nothing.

Let's do two over there.

No, I've just been sort of writing down people's ideas.

I don't think I've got any unique ideas.

I'd like to see increases in funding for the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund, increased funding for tree planting, and providing more funding for essential parts of West Main to best use matching funds for health, safety, and cost and risk prevention.

We're not ready for that.

I also have that.

Well, tell us about it.

I was thinking about delaying funding on small area plans until Seville plans is complete.

Delaying funding on SIA improvements until Seville plans is complete.

Okay, but if we move the money out, and there was a memo on this someplace,

I think it was in the memo that Missy said.

How does that affect the timeline we've agreed to with the county?

Yeah, I will.

Sorry, apologies.

Yeah, your question is regarding the timeline?

If we move the money out a year, does that impact any commitments we've got?

It likely would, yes.

There's 2 million that was committed next, last year.

And the estimated cost, bear in mind that the facility has not been designed and has not been costed.

There was a conceptual design done.

It's really not a design concept, but we won't have firm costs until such time as it's designed and the contractors on board.

But to maintain the schedule that the MOU lays out, which is November of 2023, there's really no time for the process to delay.

We're not exactly sure when

Chunks of money would go out the door.

But suffice it to say that the 2 million that was allocated last year would likely not be enough if that helped you.

Thank you.

Oh, forgive me, Lyle.

I interrupted you.

Please.

I'm just a listener.

And sorry, Mr. Angle.

Delay funding on economic development.

And that's what I see, right, currently.

All right, start thinking about that motion.

Mr. Leitre.

I'll skip Ms.

Dowell.

Ms.

Dowell, I'll be right back.

For you eating.

Okay.

Just a couple comments.

One, I'm

fine with deferring, delaying, or cutting from this allocation, this year's allocation, the West Main Street, but I think Travis with Southern Environmental Law laid out some very good points regarding the money that's been allocated in the past, been given, granted,

and how we go forward and looking at options.

It seems to me that we're not gonna solve that here, but I would certainly recommend that those issues be addressed by staff for the city council presentations so that council can make an informed decision.

And the other comment I would make is just to be careful with, it seems to,

To say that cells are a luxury in the West Main plan is to ignore the fact that Planning Commission has already cut back the setback next to nothing along West Main.

And then we want to have trees along West Main.

The cells are there to allow the trees to be put in West Main.

You can't have both.

So they're not a luxury.

Thank you.

Dowell.

So I actually had a question.

Well, first, let me start by saying I also agree with you, Mr. Mitchell, that I think that at this point, because we do have a commitment with the county, that it would be essential not to break that commitment, but to reduce the funding for the parking garage to the bare minimum to meet that commitment.

And then I hear we have to talk about revenue, income and

earnings.

So I heard Mr. Fogel mentioned about a possibility of having appropriated tax, I guess, allocations based on, I'm pretty sure, the amount of the property.

I'll let Ms.

Hamill jump in, but we actually are going to have, if we can,

to do what this budget is asking us to do.

We're going to have to increase the taxes over five years by up to, I think, 10 cents.

So that's going to happen.

What Jeff is suggesting is that we might want to even double that.

So, but how, Ms.

So, so the thing is, I'm aware that I'm aware that we're going to have to raise the taxes, but, um, as Mr. Fogel had mentioned in his public comment, not only just raising taxes, but to be able to raise the taxes where it is appropriated based on the amount of that you're assessed.

So therefore somebody that can afford easily to pay in

to pay more into their property taxes can do so versus coming into a neighborhood where your house may be worth $350,000 and your neighbor's house is only worth 150,000 that y'all should not be taxed at the same rate.

So I'm out of my weight class here on responding to that.

To be honest, I think that from the my limited knowledge of real estate assessments is that there's not the way that we do that is not a way to pick and choose, but the assessments have to be comparable to similar properties.

I think Michael, and Michael you're muted, but if you want to jump in, please do.

Yeah, I would just say to that, you know, unfortunately under state law and the Dillon rule,

The state government explicitly lays out what taxes we can levy, and they're all regressive.

We do not have the legal authority to base taxes based on income, value of land, or value of property, which I think is a huge problem because I would agree that's really the fundamental solution, land value tax, other things.

And I know that's something that Vice Mayor McGill and other councillors

I've been advocating to get that in our legislative packet to lobby the General Assembly to make those changes, but

Certainly, at least at this point, the General Assembly has not been favorable to that.

And then last thing I would say as well is with the CHAP program, one of the difficulties there is, again, under state law, there are strict limits about the value of the property that can qualify.

And so again, there's strict limits set by the state in terms of who can qualify and the amount of subsidy, I believe.

So that's my understanding.

And I just wanted to there.

So the value of the property, that is what I've been told in the past is the most restrictive, but we still got quite a bit of ways that we could go with in the law that we have now to ensure that lower income citizens receive the grant relief from the CHAP program.

So over the past three years, when I got here, we were still giving out 525, $525 and $375 as the grants.

And now we're up to anyone $25,000 and under annual income, they don't pay any real estate taxes.

The 25,001 to 35,000, they receive $1,000.

$35,001 to $45,000 is $750 and $45,000 to $55,000 is $500 so we can expand all of those categories at this time and last year we didn't make any changes to CHAP and this year I've sent in two additional proposals which would take

The changes we didn't make last year, that's one proposal.

And if we have made changes, very progressive changes last year and this year, then that is also a proposal that's included.

So that's something that we'll have to discuss during the budget cycle.

So we do need to get values up.

I mean, I just sent counsel an email last week that even my property, my older home in Belmont increased during the pandemic by almost $40,000 from $240,000 to $279,000.

And so that was a significant increase.

So a lot of families are experiencing that and they're going to be priced out if we don't figure out how to, one,

Thank you.

And my thought process behind all of this was is that clearly we cannot, I mean, Ms.

Hamill started with saying we cannot fund every project.

We know that.

So at some point we're going to have to figure out

how we're going to increase our revenues.

And so we're always talking about, well, let's take this out or defund this or remove this, but we rarely have the conversation or we're not having the conversation of well, how are we ever going to get the projects done?

How are we ever going to move forward?

And I do have a hard time trying to debate in this forum tonight.

Do I want to say that we need to finish West Main Street, which are streets, or do I want to invest this funding into our education system?

Safety and education are both high priorities.

So I was trying to look at it on the flip side of both of them need to be funded and what can we do to try to increase revenues to be able to fund those?

So at this point I would just say, let's work on that.

And then definitely one way to maybe ease that dollar amount is to reduce the funding of the parking garage to the bare minimum to meet our commitment.

I wanna just briefly walk

Walk you guys through what I'm thinking about this.

And then I'd like to ask counsel for a little input before we begin deliberating on a recommendation.

The school system got to do it.

Don't think we ought to touch it.

Just leave the money there.

The small area plans, that's half of the money we can get back.

Let's take that back and put it in the budget, put it elsewhere.

The

Parkland Garage, I would downsize that just to do the absolute minimum and put that money back in the budget.

With that money that we put back in the budget, I would send that to affordable housing and I would send that money to begin phases three and phases two and four.

One and two, one and three are funded.

So phases two and four are not funded.

I would move that money, that additional money into West Main Street and do some bare minimum and then go after the smart scale funding.

I would recommend the council then go after the smart scale funding to get as much done as we can get done with the smart scale funding.

And the other thing is I'm not certain I agree, we can talk about it more,

with Defunding Economic Development.

Hopefully by the end of the year, everyone will have had a shot in the arm that wants a shot in the arm.

And we'll be at the point where we're going to need to start getting our downtown mall and other parts of our city back up and running.

And we're going to need Mr. Engel to have the infrastructure he needs to help us get back in the game.

So let's think about that a little bit.

But let me let Councilman to see if Council's got any thoughts.

Mayor.

Any thoughts from Councilor Lloyd?

Yeah, one point that I wanted to make, and I

I will be happy to admit my own ignorance here as it was exposed last week.

I think if I'm correctly understanding what Rory was saying, he may be making the same mistake I had been making, which was to assume that when the budget document that we received talks about a project balance, that there is actually cash sitting someplace.

There isn't.

and maybe Ms.

Hammel can give the explanation that she gave to me.

It's a series of paper transactions, essentially.

It's sort of like the difference in Congress between something that's been authorized and something that's been appropriated.

We have authorized that we haven't appropriated it yet.

There is no cash sitting in that $1.5 million, as I understand it, for the Economic Development Fund.

Is that right, Ms.

So the conversation that we had relates to bondable versus cash funded projects.

If it's a cash funded project, which I believe the strategic initiatives account is, there is actually cash for that.

If it is a bond fundable project, because we don't actually sell bonds until the project is well underway or

There is no cash until we actually sell the bonds.

So in this case, in the strategic investment account, there is money there for sure.

But, you know, as we talk about some of these other things like with the CRHA project, and then there was talk about the school reconfiguration, because they're bond funded projects, it really does not save in the long run in terms of

phases and funding in phases because we are selling the bonds at the time of the project.

So, just like there was a question earlier about the 1.5 that was put in for CRHA, should that timing switch around because we've built in the five-year total, if we needed to sell bonds earlier or later, we could.

Actually, it clarifies something to a greater extent than you had

last week when we spoke, so I appreciate it.

And Rory, I apologize.

I was insulting you.

The only thing I've just heard the small area plans come up a lot and not having a you know something on the block to kind of do that.

I just know that last summer when it was being discussed if the Grady-Preston intersection was going to be considered for smart scale that we heard loud and clear from the community that they just felt like there wasn't any

I know that one of the ways to do that was to propose having a small area planning process in advance of getting to that smart scale funding and so maybe that's not the direction that you would recommend.

I'm just mentioning because I feel individually I heard that loud and clear and I've brought this up with council and I feel like that's a commitment that

in some form or another we need to make to ensure that, because what was proposed in the Smart Shield funding was not a design that either the neighborhood got behind.

There just, there was not a lot of support for that.

And we gave assurances that that doesn't mean that this is the direction it has to go.

We're going to do a lot of meaningful engagement to get there.

I totally hear that loud and clear.

That's true.

I have one quick question about the garage.

I, what is considered to be the least amount necessary?

Both in project, I guess.

I just because I don't know if that includes then replacing the businesses on the ground floor.

Um, I just want to because I keep hearing everyone's talk about how, you know, if moving forward, you know, move forward with the garage, but it being

It's a good question that I can't provide a good answer for at the moment.

The $10 million estimate was derived based upon the concept, which the engineer and consultants helped us flesh out, which is roughly the buy-write envelope.

three stories with ground floor retail.

So the bare minimum, I don't know exactly.

People have different meanings for that.

But that would have to be relooked at to figure out what a cost would be for what we might all agree is the bare minimum.

I don't think we know what bare minimum means.

What I do think we know is that we don't think we have to spend $8 million to give the county, what is it, 90 or 190, I forget what the number is, but the number of our parking spaces they need.

And I do think that, and Ms.

Russell, I think you wanted to say something.

I'm going to let you do that in a minute.

I do think that there are creative ways to meet our commitment without spending $9 million.

Ms.

Yeah, I think I'm well what I understood, at least in the immediate in terms of meeting our obligation and not understanding that we have a commitment to the county and that there's a timeline to do something and the longer we don't do anything, the harder it is to build anything.

but that there could be a way in which, especially in light of the current economic state of businesses, that we could still meet our obligation to the county by providing the 90 spaces in the other garage while then also figuring out a better

a better use of the space in the long run and just sort of looking at it again.

Rory's talked about that.

I think he has some good ideas.

Yeah, so I didn't mention the garage earlier, believe it or not.

So I mean, my thoughts on that, you know, I've always from the start been an advocate of meeting the commitment we made to the county with a 90 space, you know, parking podium on that site.

I think the important thing is that

We don't build this concept that we're going for now that is three and a half times as much parking as we promised to the county, which gets us to three stories of parking, which means any additional structure above, as we saw in our housing needs assessment bonus height analysis, has to be concrete and steel construction, which is very, very expensive.

If you get it down to one or two stories of a parking podium, which could conceivably get like 200 spaces in it even, depending on how you configured it, and whether you drop some spaces to have a token retail space in the bottom.

And I'd note that those are not replacing the existing businesses.

It's too small.

You know, what I would envision would be a one or two story parking podium with a stick built structure on top that could very conceivably be housing.

You could fit on a 40,000 square foot footprint across four floors.

You could easily fit 160 generously sized apartments on that site.

And you can do it with federal funds and loans that end up not costing the county anything or the city anything rather.

At this point, obviously I've been talking about this for a very long time and the clock has been run out to the point that maybe, I still think we could probably do that plan and still hit every deadline in that MOA.

We'd have to pivot in the near term, obviously.

Other options would include building the podium now, but with preparing to build the stick built structure on top, which is going to cost less than the white paper, which envisioned a concrete and steel structure on top.

And then, you know, the third option would be, and I've never advocated for this in the past, but going to the county and asking them if they're willing to kick the deadline a year.

given that COVID happened and all of a sudden we have hundreds and hundreds of spaces available free in the Market Street Garage every single day.

And we've always had hundreds of spaces available in the Waterfree Garage.

So my expectation is that they'd be perfectly fine with taking a hundred spaces in the Market Street Garage like the agreement specifies in order to buy us a little bit of time so that we can end up giving them the 90 spaces we originally agreed to on that site.

So, I mean, again, I think the most important thing is that you build two stories at most of parking so that a stick built structure is possible.

And I mean, ideally as little parking, you know, as we promised 90 spaces, but, you know, obviously there's going to be some parking demand, arguably, for any structure you put on top.

You know, there'd have to be a zoning waiver or an expansion of the urban core parking zone to accommodate any use like that.

We've been talking about revenue, right?

We've been talking about it in terms of raising taxes, but I think

Former counselor Galvin raised a good point earlier.

You know, we talked about the West Wayne streetscape and density.

The revenue is supposed to come from the additional development that enabled, right?

From adding a bunch of housing, which both solves our housing problem, which makes assessments stop rising as fast so that people's taxes don't go up as much just from assessments and not even the rate.

And we get all that extra money as a city, right?

And so we can do that by building housing on the garage site.

You know, of course, for West Main, we down-zoned the whole thing right around when we approved the streetscape.

That didn't make a lot of sense.

But, you know, there's an opportunity for us to have our cake needed too, but we have to accept

Right.

Sorry, if I may.

Just a couple, I mean one on the parking garage.

I think technically the least expensive option would be the county exercising their option to either revert back ownership of the existing surface lot or have I think it's 100 spaces in the existing garage.

So that's certainly technically the least expensive option.

And I think

I mean, I think one of the challenges if we're talking about a more productive use of the site, which I think would be better than just a parking garage, it's not gonna help us in the short term on the affordability question.

It would still be a much better use, but not gonna make an impact on the affordability.

But I still maintain, I don't think there's any need for a structure there and that we can meet the agreement building

as few spaces as possible.

And I certainly understand all the details, but when you step back, there's certainly a deep and wonderful absurdity about coming up with a $10 million plan to provide 90 spaces when there's a lot that already has 67.

But that is what it is.

But the bigger point is I would just caution as I did at the work session about the importance of us

I think just honestly confronting the budget picture.

Again, even if we were to cut West Main, cut the parking garage, raise the real estate tax by 10 cents over five years,

One, if school reconfiguration is closer to 100 million rather than 50, we're still not there at all.

And two, again, even if we're cutting these projects, raising taxes by 10%, that means that the debt service fund is completely depleted, that there's no room for new CIP projects, and there's no room in our general fund.

And that's gonna be a huge challenge because we have so many deferred investments in our departments.

You know, we're talking about these CIP

If we haven't invested in departments to give them the resources and staff they need to execute these plans, we haven't really done a whole lot.

And I think that's the situation we're in.

And so I think it's just a much more difficult budget reality than I think council or the community has really fully dived into yet in terms of thinking through what really are the trade-offs.

Because again, even if we're cutting West Main,

assuming school reconfigurations at 50 million, cutting the parking garage, and again, 10 cents of real estate tax.

That means no new affordable housing CIP investments, no new significant general fund expenditures or investments in departments and staff positions.

So I think it's just a, this is a much more difficult conversation than I think we've yet gotten to as counselors and community.

If I can just follow up with what Councilor Payne just said.

You know, part of what we haven't done well that we need to do is that the money that we are spending, we don't know how efficiently that money is being spent.

a year or so ago, maybe two years ago, part of the feedback was that there was one of the money that the housing fund had funded for over a decade that I think it was between 10 or 12 million dollars that they had received in that time frame and we can't point to what we have to show for that 10 to 12 million

I don't have my notes in front of me, but I know it was in that range.

So part of what we have to get a better handle on is where the money is going and are the individuals that we're giving the money to, are they doing what they say they're doing?

As I'm thinking about that, I'm thinking about my headline in the newspaper.

But anyway, we need to make sure that we fully understand where the money is being spent.

And we don't.

I don't know that.

I remember Jeff Levine, the last time he was before us, he said that the 600 West Main Street, the apartments in there that was supposed to be affordable were empty.

So as we are approving SUPs, they are empty apartments that apparently they can say they're going to build and then not fill.

But how do we know it's empty?

Like who's checking on that?

Other than him saying it, how do we know that?

In terms of building our way out of this, if you look just back historically, there have been a lot of units built.

I think about even looking in the Sixth Street neighborhood.

There are people buying those old homes, knocking them down, and then there are newer homes in those spaces.

There are barber shops where people used to live and people native to the community, like native Black people.

a black-owned business that we funded through the CIC is now an architect firm.

I think it's Red Clay.

And all this is happening on 6th Street.

And then there's a new development that's coming up there.

And based on what a friend told me who was asked to sell their property and it's Holly's property,

that they just want to build new apartment units and they won't be affordable for affordable housing.

So I don't think we're at a space where we can talk about building our way out of this.

I don't think we ever had the conversation around the schools where we thought we would be able to do rehab or reconfiguration or build new buildings without increase in revenue from somewhere.

and so until we get that information we won't know what that is and whether we can reduce it to what because until the experts come back and tell us what the possibilities are we won't know that but we have a lot of money going to a lot of different spaces and we don't have a good handle on it and because it's normal because that those are the organizations we've been giving money to

We are sitting here having these conversations.

I think West Main and that stretch and what has been presented over and over again.

You know what's been proposed versus what is the bare minimum for that mile.

I mean, it's something that we have to think really hard about, especially when we're going to get this plan back that we need to invest $10 million a year in housing to even stabilize the community.

And we're not quite sure what that even means or whether we can make those commitments.

So there's a lot of things that are going to enter these discussions that

If we max out or if we go on these discussions thinking that we can do it without raising taxes and if we are not a little bit more creative about how to make sure the money that we're currently using is more efficient and to track those housing developments to make sure that they are actually even affordable by any standard.

But hopefully by a standard we can agree upon that we are going to base things on here.

We are not going to

Great.

I think we're ready to begin thinking about crafting a recommendation and Lyle has been keeping track of some of these ideas so I'm wondering if you can just kind of toss them out there and we can deliberate them and then begin crafting a recommendation.

What I'd like to do

is not give council a negative recommendation, but just recommend amendments to the amendments to the budget as it has been presented by staff.

That is the pleasure of the body.

You've read my mind.

Okay.

I don't see anybody else's head nodding now.

Okay.

All right.

You're good.

So the language I have right now, I'm happy to have a discussion.

In fact, I propose, I move.

I move to recommend approval with the following changes.

There are several.

First, delay funding on small area plans until Seville plans is complete and reassign the existing pot.

Delay funding on SIA improvements until Seville plans is complete.

Let's stop for just one minute on the garage.

It's vague.

It's vague.

It is vague, but you still are suggesting a delay in funding.

And I think that's what gives Chris a little bit of a heartburn because that means we would be in the position of not meeting our commitment

So... Unless you're thinking that we could... We would have to find another... I'm sorry, I'm interrupting.

Who am I talking to?

Oh, Gary, Alex and Kerry.

Alex is trying to get in first.

Yeah.

Does that make sense to you?

Well, delaying funding it makes a lot of sense to me, but shifting the existing fund in the account, that's what I have trouble with.

Can you explain why?

Yeah, I think it's a bad idea because we have some minor commitments that we need to fulfill.

Would the word sum be helpful?

I think that is actually underway and that is the important part of the commitment to the county so I don't think we should mess with those funds.

Is that true?

Some is a great word.

I could change some on that.

Delay some funding on garage, courthouse, and east high by one year.

Reduce funding on garage.

I don't think we should mess with the courthouse at all.

I'm not sure that it really helps us to move funding for bondable projects, given that we already have a large authorized but not issued account.

Is that right, Ms.

Yeah, you're correct.

It's still baked into the five-year plan.

I'm removing the word courthouse.

Delay funding on economic development.

Delay.

That's the part I'm confused about as well.

I'd be happy to chime in there, Mr. Chair, if you'd like.

Typically, staff would recommend putting some in every year, and thus the 150,000.

In past years, it's typically more than that.

It's not the end of the world if 150,000 doesn't go into it this year.

There is a pot available for any

unique needs that might come up over the next year, of which there could be some given the economic situation and the assistance that might be needed there.

But it's not the end of the world if 150 doesn't go in this particular year, although it does kind of lead to a precedent where you might

I love that word.

Increase funding for the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund.

Increase funding for tree planting.

Cool.

One and three?

One and three are already paid for.

Three is paid for.

Well, yeah.

But four is way off in the future, right?

Would it be more helpful to say two then?

I mean, personally, I would say hold off on two for now.

and I would not agree, I would not mess with one, I would not mess with three and I would move as much money as, I frankly agree with the purpose that you outlined Lyle, it was pretty much all run for me.

Can we do a straw poll?

Chair, does that make sense to you?

Sure.

That's good.

I can live with that as well.

I'm concerned about who decides what are unnecessary aesthetic features.

Council will, right?

And I just have a pet peeve about undergrounding.

I believe that health, safety, and that is not merely an aesthetic.

It completely transforms a streetscape.

I know, but it opens up so many possibilities that you can't even imagine.

Why don't you walk us through the motion once again?

And go line item by line item.

What I'd like to do is either get consensus.

OK.

First section, I don't think we need a vote.

Recommend approval with the following changes.

That works.

I would say uncommitted funds.

Can you remind me what the reassigns and funds means?

There's a chunk of money sitting there, real money.

Actually, no, that's bondable.

Well, so it does matter to remove bondable funds if you're actually removing it forever.

Good line.

Let's do another line.

Well, Ms.

Creasy, that one's here.

Delay funding on SIA improvements until Seville plans is complete.

I see no objections.

Beautiful.

Delay some funding on the garage and East High by one year.

Sorry, Lyle.

Yes.

Thank you.

Of course.

Delay some funding on garage and East High by one year.

I'd like to make that proposal more specific and recommend council take immediate action to refocus the garage plan in order to fulfill the commitment to the county while

pursuing a more productive use for that site, pulling it straight from last year's motion.

Out of my head.

But as we said, in order to meet the deadlines, we're going to need to move in the near term.

And if we want to work with the county in order to flex those deadlines or potentially provide spaces in the marketry garage in the meantime, we need people who are above our heads to act on that, to coordinate with them if they'd like to.

Ms.

Sorry, I was just trying to summarize what was being said.

The first part was Lyle's information and then Rory

What's going on?

I'm just trying to put that in terms of budget recommendations.

Okay, Missy wrote something down.

Thank you in the chat here.

The thing you said.

fulfilled kind of commitment and a lot of time.

Sure.

Does that seem reasonable?

Yes.

Yeah, I think that works.

While we keep moving, Rory, write it down and put in the text.

How do we feel about what I've said?

I'm good with it.

Rory wants to make it more

So Rory's typing it up now and he'll get to us.

Get back to that.

No.

That was another line.

Yeah, yeah.

Great.

and Mr. Ingalls says it's at the end of the world, so I'll zip it.

Cool.

Increase funding for Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund.

This includes rehab, it includes biotech, all the things.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yep.

Okay.

For tree planting?

Was that even the name?

Tree planting.

Or the ash borer?

This is tree planting.

It's a little bit outside the scope of funding, but I'd like to add something about increasing the visibility on that donation program for trees.

I see no negative hits.

Okay, yeah, you like that?

Yeah, that's good.

Wonderful.

Isn't that signalization project lining up with a smart scale?

So timing matters for that one.

Also, it's bondable, so timing doesn't matter from that perspective.

Okay, so East High is scheduled for construction, I believe in fiscal year 24.

Beautiful.

Thank you.

Okay, I've got some new language from Rory.

Adjust garage funding to an appropriate level to pursue a re-scoped, more productive garage project that fulfills the commitment to the county and maximizes the value of the site.

Let me see if I can... Yeah, I have no problem with that either.

And Ms.

Lyle, you mentioned

I'd be comfortable adding that.

I recommend diversifying portfolio.

Let me do those last two again that have changed.

Delay some funding on garage in East High by one year.

Produce funding on garage.

Fulfill county commitment and allow time to look at additional options.

Adjust garage funding to an appropriate level to pursue a re-scoped, more productive garage project that fulfills the commitment to the county and maximizes the value of the site.

I'm good with that, Rory.

You good with that?

Rory's good.

Liz, you good?

I know what Rory means by maximizing the value and productive garage, but I'm pleased to think that it's still vague enough that the others might be able to still work with it.

So does that mean you're good with it?

And last but not least, Reverend He's good with it.

All right.

I would have insisted.

I'd like to add one more thing at the end there, which is to restore new sidewalks to historical funding levels in out years in order to meet our long term commitment

Right.

I'm comfortable with that.

Great.

Recommend approval with the following changes.

First, delay funding on small area plans until Seville plans is complete and reassign some funds.

Delay funding on SIA improvements until Seville plans is complete.

Delay some funding on the garage and East High by one year.

Reduce funding on garage.

Fulfill county commitment and allow time to look at additional options.

Adjust garage funding to an appropriate level to pursue a re-scoped, more productive garage project that fulfills the commitment to the county.

and maximizes the value of the site.

Take a breath.

Delay funding on economic development.

Increase funding for Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund.

Recommend diversifying portfolio.

Increase funding for tree planting and pursue external donations.

Provide more funding for essential parts of West Main to best use matching funds for health, safety and cost and risk prevention.

All right, we have a motion.

Is there a second?

We have a motion and have a proper second.

Ms.

Sure.

I was just going to put this in the chat, the entire motion, in case anyone wanted to look at that from that perspective.

perspective.

All right.

All right.

Ms.

Dow.

Aye.

Ms.

Russell.

Aye.

All right, Lyle, thank you.

Very good helping us to moderate, moderating us through that, leading us through that.

Would we like to take a five minute break before we, I think, see the plans together is next, right?

Just to clarify, I asked Ms.

Racey, this next agenda item is the same presentation that's going to be presented to council next week.

So I'm just letting you all know I'm going to depart.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Rice, start the clock.

Five minutes.

Mr. Rice, start the clock.

That's okay.

It was hard to be so patient.

Oh, that was very good.

Thank you very much for making us do that.

Thank you.

That went well.

So Jenny, I think I get to turn the meeting over to you and just get to sit back and listen.

For a little bit, yes.

For a little bit.

So I can kick back.

Should we go ahead and get started?

Let's wait another.

We need Gary and Danita and... It's Danita.

Gary, Jody's here.

Hi guys, I know you're probably wondering why I keep looking back and forth, but I am also not only attending this meeting, I'm on my other computer in a live Zoom for the school reintroduction and I have some really major questions and issues.

Great, thanks.

So thanks for having us tonight.

I'm Jenny Koch from RHI, part of the Seville Plans Together team.

Also with me tonight is Sarah Kirk from HRNA.

HRNA has led the development of the affordable housing plan.

So she'll be talking you through some of the revisions tonight.

But before we jump into that,

I just wanted to note, you know, we've spoken with with you several times about the recommendations in the affordable housing plan.

So tonight, our intent is not to go through the entire plan, but we want to talk through some of the main revisions that the team, mostly HR&A has