City Council   4/3/2017

Music

Music

you

OK.

All right.

Calling this meeting of Charlottesville City Council to order.

Mr. Signer?

Here.

Ms. Szakos?

Here.

Here.

And I'd just like to welcome our communications director, Miriam Dickler, who is serving as clerk.

We have one clerk on maternity leave, one clerk who is sick, and so she is third in the line of a session here.

Okay, we're going to begin with, welcome Mr. Koehler, it's a treat to have you with us.

We begin with awards, recognitions, and announcements.

Let's mix them all together.

This is a recognition Daniel Montoya Castro Eagle Scout Award.

On February 6, 2017, Daniel Montoya Castro passed his Board of Review and earned the rank of Eagle Scout of the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 127.

For Daniel's Eagle project, he worked with the Ivy Creek Foundation, a local natural area, to create an educational display out of a piece of antique farm machinery.

This project involved clearing out brush, taking down trees, moving the machinery into place,

establishing a border with Cedar Logs and coordinating the donation, delivery, and spreading of several cubic yards of mulch.

On April 29th, Daniel will be presented his Eagle Award.

This award was a culmination of over four and a half years of hard work and effort.

Sure.

In observation of Thomas Jefferson's birthday, City Hall will be closed on Thursday, April 13th, and the offices will reopen on Friday, April 14th.

Ms. Galvin?

This is just an announcement.

So upcoming council meetings, council budget work session wrap up and final discussions.

Thursday, April 6 at 5 p.m. at City Space.

There's a joint council and planning commission work session on Tuesday, April 11 at 6 p.m. at City Hall and council chambers and city council meeting next Monday, not next Monday, but Monday, April 17 at 7 p.m. at City Hall and the council chambers.

Just one more correction or clarification.

If necessary.

Oh, very good.

And I have an announcement and a recognition.

The announcement is Charlottesville competes against cities nationwide to be most water wise.

For the fourth consecutive year, the city of Charlottesville is joining cities across the country in asking our residents to take part in the National Wyland Mayors Challenge for water conservation.

As the mayor signed up for this challenge, I encourage Charlottesville

Residence to conserve water, save energy, reduce pollution on behalf of the city of Charlottesville and pledge their commitment at www.mywaterpledge.com throughout the month of April.

Last year, Charlottesville placed third in our population category and pledged to conserve millions of gallons of water by participating in maintaining your commitment to water conservation

You can help increase our rankings with your pledge to water conservation actions for this year.

You will receive water conservation tips as well as be entered to win various eco-friendly prizes, including a Toyota Prius.

Wow.

Friendly competitions are great ways to have each one of our residents see how they individually can help this community come out as a winner.

So I challenge you, Charlottesville, to turn off the water while you brush your teeth, to use reusable water bottles, to fix water leaks, to put those

blocks in your toilet tank, and to help save water for Charlottesville.

I want us to do better than ever.

To find out more information on our competition and Charlottesville's involvement, you can go to the City of Charlottesville water conservation website, www.Charlottesville.org forward slash water conservation.

Now on a recognition, this gives me great personal pleasure to announce.

Mr. Bishop, would you come forward and I'll read this for you.

This is a proclamation and recognition of Robert L. Bobby Bishop and Wayside Barbershop, whereas Robert L. Bobby Bishop has served as the master barber and owner of Wayside Barbershop since 1960, and whereas for over 55 years, generations of customers have walked through the doors of Wayside Barbershop to get cut, trimmed, or shaved, including myself, and engage in spirit-lifting shop management with old friends, and whereas Bobby Bishop's motto of we are a brother's keeper embodies the spirit of community and giving

and contribute significantly the quality of life of those around him and whereas for over 20 years Bobby Bishop has lived up to his motto by giving pro bono haircuts and sodas to a group of special individuals from Region 10 monthly without fanfare or recognition and whereas Bobby Bishop promotes and perpetuates nothing less than goodwill for all individuals who step through the doors of Wayside Barbershop.

Now therefore be it commemorated that I, Mike Signer, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, do hereby recognize Robert L. Bobby Bishop and Wayside Barbershop for the services he has continuously provided

to community customers and his special clients at Region 10.

The thing about it is I'm getting old and someone's got to take my place and y'all people on the city council

is going to have to look at small businesses.

And taxes is going up so high.

We're not going to be able to stay in business.

So if I can't stay where I'm at, I can't take care of my special ed people.

I've done it for a long time.

I want to keep on doing it.

But the high taxes, not going to stay in business.

And you can only charge so much.

And after that, lock the door.

Someone's got to take my place.

Some young barber has got to be willing to give the special people that are not as blessed as much as they are to give them a helping hand.

And they need our help.

And it's up to y'all to go around and talk to small businesses and see who can, who can't.

Now, I just got over having a stroke.

and I just got her at the hospital and I'm not going to be here forever and really don't want to because I got to talk to the man upstairs about y'all guys but y'all got to get someone y'all got to get somebody to replace me and it comes to the point it comes you're running them out with high taxes I hate to be awarded this to tell y'all this

because I tell you that in the shop.

But you gotta be kind to small businesses.

We cannot, we're not a large corporation.

And we cannot, corporations can't send money in.

We take money out of our pocket.

And I have done the special ed people and I keep on doing it.

But when I cannot do it, I want you as a mayor to tell me who's gonna take my place.

So you've got to be kind to small businesses.

And big businesses are going to survive because they're going to pass it on to us.

But small businesses can't pass enough on to take care of it.

And I thank you, and I appreciate this.

Thank you, sir.

I'll be visiting your shop for my next fee.

Well, I've got to say that that wasn't

The experience of hearing Mr. Bishop's recents, this was not altogether much different from the experience of having my hair cut by him.

So I would expect nothing less.

Thank you very much.

And we did have the good experience of talking with folks at Region 10 and hearing about your service from their side.

So that was a really good experience overall.

And stay healthy.

All right, we move on now to appointments to boards and commissions.

Mr. Fenwick, you have a motion?

To the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Commission, Michael Pritchard.

To the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, Adam Moore and Travis Patila.

To the Java Board of Directors, J. Brian Jackson.

OK, any discussion?

All in favor?

All right, that motion carries unanimously.

Mr. Mayor, just a couple of notes from the last meeting.

Mr. Paul Nelson expressed concerns about the closing of Ochum's winter sheltering initiative for the homeless.

That is scheduled to end on April 19th.

He also addressed homelessness at large in our community and the costs associated with it.

The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless, also known as TJAC, conducted a study in 2012 that showed that local cost estimates are around $20,000 per year per person to address homeless issues here in our community.

And that's the reason why the city supports the Haven's housing programs and has invested in long-term solutions for the homeless like

permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing programs in addition to funding emergency shelter services at Pacham.

and the Shelter for Help and Emergency.

The staff at The Haven and Potsham have been working very closely with Potsham guests before the end of the shelter season to identify safe and permanent housing options for them.

And they are also connected with needed community services and apply for available rental assistance as well.

So those are steps that the city has taken and our nonprofit partners to try to address the concerns that Mr. Nelson raised.

I will say that Pocham did extend its season of sheltering this year by a couple of weeks.

Usually they end about this time, but they've extended it to the 19th.

And so they are always looking for opportunities to do that when they can.

But right now there's not a plan in place to make the program

year-round, which I think is what Mr. Nelson was trying to drive at.

But in addition to that, the city has put a significant amount of money in the proposed budget to address affordable housing issues in our community, and we have used that fund in the past to address homeless issues here, including the crossings, which is located at 4th and Preston.

So I think the city's trying to do quite a bit to try to address some of these needs.

And as I said before, I think Pocham would be interested

and extending the year but right now they do not have any plans to extend it beyond this basic season that they serve the homeless in our community.

And one other issue to report back on you.

There was a question that came out of our discussion on opiate use in our community and whether our police officers carry Narcon with them.

on patrol to assist with reversing the effects of overdoses.

Our officers do not currently carry Narcon, but the Department is reviewing that policy and assessing costs associated with it.

All of our firefighters and EMTs do have access to Narcon in their vehicles and can use them on the scene of an overdose.

Mr. Jones, there were two other items that were brought up in matters from the public last week I wondered if you had any response to.

One was about the crosswalk at the library and just how we enforce crosswalks if police go by and see somebody driving through a crosswalk.

There is.

Since we did get that report of one, can we just pass that on?

And the other one was, do first responders get housing assistance, housing down payment assistance?

The Police Foundation offers with the police.

I do not believe there's a service that's in place for other first responders, although several years ago CAR offered a service like that.

I don't remember that being a staff question.

It's more of a policy issue.

OK, I'll now move on to matters by the public.

Our first session, there's another matter by the public after the meeting.

I'll read the rules that I read before every meeting.

Guidelines for public comment.

We welcome public comment.

It's an important part of our meeting.

Time is reserved near the beginning and at the end of each meeting.

For matters by the public, please follow these guidelines.

If you're here to speak for a public hearing, please wait to speak on that matter until the item has been presented.

The public hearing has been open.

We have one sign-up sheet for the budget.

Oh, no, actually we have two.

I'm sorry.

We have a public hearing on item number one, the Historic Conservation District, and then on the proposed fiscal year budget.

So there's two sign-up sheets here.

Each speaker has three minutes to speak.

You follow the timer here.

It shows you three minutes at the beginning.

When you're 15 seconds out, it goes to yellow, and when you're out of time, it goes to red.

And everybody, when you're out of time, you're out of time.

Please give your name and address before beginning your remarks.

I'll read the other rules from our

The guidelines for our rules, improper comments, disorderly conduct are not permitted, persons appearing before the council will not be allowed to campaign for public office, promote private business ventures, use profanity or vulgar language or gestures, threaten violence toward council, city staff or members of the public, engage in behavior that intimidates others,

interrupt other speakers or engage in behavior that disrupts the meeting.

Any speaker who violates these rules will be called to order by the mayor.

If the remarks or conduct persists, the mayor shall order the speaker to cease speaking and be seated.

If the order is not heeded, the mayor shall direct the sergeant at arms to escort the individual from the meeting room.

OK, and we're under the second meeting under our new rules.

For anybody keeping track, we now have 10 spots that you sign up for in advance and five spots in person.

Today, we had eight folks sign up in advance and four sign up in person.

So we have a total of 12 folks who are on the list tonight.

My name is Benjamin Randolph.

I live at 423 Meade Avenue.

First, I'd like to congratulate Charlottesville's newest Eagle Scout.

As an Eagle Scout myself, I understand the commitment and time it takes to reach this level in scouting.

And it's a lifetime commitment afterwards to continue the leadership that he has shown in Boy Scouts of America.

I'm here to speak about the special use permit for 1011 East Jefferson Street.

I'd like to say that I'm generally in favor of development along the Little High neighborhood.

But in this case, the developers have asked for an increase in density of over four times that allowed by right.

I would gladly welcome a proposal from the developers that would limit that density to say two times or two and a half times the density allowed by right.

The developers have requested an increase in the allowed density from 21 dwelling units per acre to 87 dwelling units per acre.

They would like to build a 126 unit apartment building on less than one and a half acres next to a low density residential neighborhood made up almost entirely of single family homes.

Again,

I'm not against development.

I think it's an ideal spot for development, but the density needs to be reasonable.

I recently attended the form-based code event that was sponsored by the city of Charlottesville.

The guest speaker brought in by the city, Marina Corey, is an architect and an expert in sustainable urban development.

She stated that proper transition is very important

in urban planning and that appropriate urban planning should place, and I quote, small-scale buildings next to small-scale buildings, medium-scale buildings next to medium-scale buildings, and large-scale buildings next to large-scale buildings.

Further, in a recent news article, Jim Boyd, the architect overseeing the first phase of redevelopment at Friendship Court, is quoted as saying

Friendship Court is located at a critical transition between high density commercial and low density residential areas with diverse architectural styles.

Phase one will primarily front single family homes in the Belmont neighborhood and must be sensitive to the small scale and high level of detail in these existing structures.

and if this type of transition is important in the strategic investment area and in the redevelopment of Friendship Court, it should be that much more important next to other single family residential low density neighborhoods that are farther from the downtown area.

When considering whether to approve the SUP for 1011 East Jefferson, I would like to ask you to please consider the appropriateness

of allowing a 126 unit apartment building next to a low density residential neighborhood.

Thank you.

Hi.

Tina Reese.

I live at 520 Lexington Avenue.

And I'm going to try not to read this, but it's an emotional subject for me.

I will have to refer back to it.

A few years ago I was at that time in my life where I was becoming the parent to my parents as their health was failing.

It's a difficult time, all the transitions, watching my parents begin to fail, taking over the responsibilities of becoming a caregiver and managing the health and welfare of them.

My mom has Alzheimer's, my dad is 87 and has far too many ailments for me to list here in three minutes.

At first, I was in need of information.

How do I transfer my dad's VA benefits from Florida to Virginia?

What about supplemental health insurance?

What about transportation?

Because they could no longer drive.

I went to Jefferson Area Board for Aging and got so much information and realized what a valuable resource they are to our community.

Soon after, I needed to know about in-home care providers.

Where do I find them?

How do I find trustful ones?

What kind of agencies are there?

Is there a list of them somewhere?

And of course, Jabba had all the information I needed.

I found somebody fabulous.

Her name was Judy.

I could afford her for 10 hours a week.

But that was really helpful to me.

Then Mom's Alzheimer's progressed, as it does.

And Dad fell down and broke a few ribs.

He was in a rehab facility and mom was at home and there was no way I could leave her there at home alone for any period of time.

I was able to get her into the JAVA Day program and dad was in rehab for at least two months and they would not release him until I had 24 hour care.

So mom was in the JAVA Day program and I was sleeping on her couch and Judy would come in the morning and I would go to work and then I'd pick mom up and bring her home.

but they wouldn't let dad out until I had 24 hour care for him so I was able to get dad also into the Jabba daycare program.

I have to say mom had a difficult time transitioning at first.

I think that's something that comes with Alzheimer's.

But eventually when I came to pick her up she didn't want to leave.

The only way I could get her out was to bribe her with a trip for ice cream.

The staff at Jabba are so compassionate, so respectful, never demeaning, never belittling,

My parents enjoyed the activities and they especially enjoyed when the preschool came in on lunch time and for other activities.

My parents were safe, they were engaged, they were respected, they were fed, and they could even take naps, which is more than I could say for my job.

There is no other service like this in our district.

No other organization comes near to providing the information, the resources, and the care that JAPA provides.

My parents ran out of money, but the fees for JAPA were manageable and included two meals and snacks.

It's not a membership organization.

You don't have to pay a fee and then pay for additional activities and meals.

Thank you.

We'll read anything you email.

I'll ask everybody.

Good evening.

My name is Althea Kupo.

I am from 2775 Lindhurst Road in Waynesboro.

And I am here to speak about the Lee statue in Lee Park.

Removing the statue in Lee Park communicates that the city of Charlottesville denounces racism and white supremacy.

But this isn't about the city.

It's about the people of Charlottesville and bringing understanding and reconciliation between us.

Making a $300,000 decision to say nothing of legal costs, to move the statue, does nothing towards this end.

The history of Lee Park is painful for African Americans, segregation and oppression, and white Americans, the reality of white privilege, but endeavoring to face it does nothing towards reconciliation.

The statue is gone, but the knowledge and the wounds are not.

Removing the statue preserves the perception of black Charlottesville and white Charlottesville as separate and competing entities.

This issue is currently framed in terms of race, but it doesn't have to be.

We as citizens need to collaborate to recontextualize the monument in an unflinching pursuit of truth.

We must dare to lay aside our personal narratives and realize that the black story and the white story are equal halves of our shared story.

When we are objectively pursuing historical facts, competing agendas disappear because we have a shared goal, completing history.

The plan that I would propose is that proponents of keeping the statue and those in favor of removing it work together to do historical reporting.

With the objective accuracy of journalists, they'll collect oral tradition and compile primary sources from different perspectives to present a full view of history.

They'll collaborate to present their findings in an exhibit in Lee Park.

This method has had incredible success in Australia in a similar situation.

We as citizens can acknowledge and denounce past evil together and present a boldly accurate portrait of a famous Virginian.

By adopting this solution, Charlottesville will be on the vanguard of dealing with painful history and Confederate monuments in a way that builds community and brings reconciliation.

This method has not been used in the United States before.

Charlottesville has the opportunity to pioneer an innovative solution to a widespread issue.

Thank you.

Lena Seville.

Hello.

Hello.

How are you doing?

I'm Gene Philippi from Helios Path in Barbersville.

I want to make a comment on the Ragged Mountain Trails, the new proposal.

When I first saw the current proposed map, it was hung on a wall, just like that.

My first reaction was very positive.

The Council had been responsive to requests from various advocates, and the Parks and Recreation Department did their usual excellent job of being faithful to Council's directives.

But when I looked at the map a second time, unfortunately, it seemed as if someone had taken a plate of spaghetti and thrown it at the wall.

There are trails all over the place, in every spot imaginable, and they crisscross frequently.

It's a very crowded scene.

I spoke with the people who were on the Parks and Recreation walking tour.

They were shown the locations of the planned trails that included both the biker trails and the hiker-only trails.

They were able to see very realistically the actual impact of the trail design.

They were shocked by the extensive nature of the network.

Reluctantly, I have concluded there are just too many trails.

The plan doubles the trail mileage compared to what there is today.

It will be doing more damage to the natural environment and the beauty of Ragged Mountains than most people realized.

As a result, I feel strongly that we should reduce the number of trails in the plan.

I suggest we modify it, starting with two assumptions.

One, retain one complete loop around the reservoir.

Two, all of the trails of any type would be considered for elimination or changes.

An initial thought is that we probably need more shared trails.

Also, it may make sense to block off some of the current trails and let nature regenerate the area.

I understand the county has become involved.

As a county resident, I feel badly that there is a conflict.

No matter how that is resolved, the most important point to me is that there are fewer trails than are now in the current proposal.

I believe that scaling back the trails significantly is critical to the enjoyment of Ragged Mountain.

and I'm confident in saying that other people would agree.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of City Council.

My name is David Rogers.

I live at 2739 McElroy Drive in Fry's Springs neighborhood.

I've lived in Charlottesville for 44 years.

Several weeks ago, I sent an email to the council about the decision to spend a great deal of money to move the statue of Robert E. Lee from its current location.

My position at that time was that we could best use the money towards our current community needs while adding a permanent placard or something like that by the statute explaining Robert E. Lee's historical significance.

I received a reply from Vice Mayor Bellamy asking me, but what if we could do both?

And explaining the city's and the council's now adopted plan to move the statute

and improve public housing, fund several highly needed support services for our citizens who do need greater support.

You know, I had originally wondered why we just couldn't spend the money on the current needs and not bother with the statute.

But Mr. Bellamy reminded me to think of the importance of symbolic victories.

The prominence of the Lee statue in the city center is symbolic.

It is a monument to the lost cause of maintaining slavery, even if it meant fracturing the United States of America.

The Lee statue celebrates the values of the man and of those old days, including the institution of slavery.

The relocation of the Lee statue symbolizes our modern commitment to equity for all of our citizens.

I want to congratulate you on taking this step to honor the good as well as to acknowledge the mistakes of our past.

You know, history is history, whether it's good or bad, but it's still there.

Glorification of certain aspects, however, of our history are our choice in how we do that.

Mr. Bellamy, I'm going to thank you and to you all on the council as well for your commitment to making it worth everyone's while to acknowledge and learn from our past.

Movement of the Lee statue is a powerful way of saying that we have learned from our past.

Slavery was wrong.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Rebecca Quinn, 1044 Street here in the city.

I signed up to speak on environmental issues, rather vague.

Well, I have three of them.

One, not surprisingly, I'm delighted City Market has again started food scrap drop off for composting.

I want people to use this handy, environmentally responsible opportunity.

Get a free compostable bag.

In fact, get several and encourage your neighbors to use the service.

When I recycle, I put out one bag of trash, one purple sticker every four to five weeks.

So that's savings in my pocket along with landfill savings.

And I have a pretty good feeling when knowing my kitchen scraps are being returned to the earth somewhere as mulch.

About Ragged Mountain Natural Area, I submitted a foyer request about whether the tentatively proposed trails will impact regulated wetlands and threatened and endangered species.

I know about the biosurvey, and I do know now that there is some documentation about trail planning and avoiding sensitive areas.

But in my opinion, there is not a definitive answer regarding those regulated resources.

Perhaps it's a little early, and that will be done once the final trail alignment is settled on.

But it is the responsibility of city parks and recs to do this.

not only because the city is a landowner, but also a permittee, and so we can't ignore those responsibilities.

And I concur with reducing the total length of trails.

And third, when was the last time you walked by the main library?

Did you notice the sad condition of, well, it's hardly a lawn.

And that's, so I'm talking about the steep, bare, eroded slope

especially on the east side of the entrance stairway.

I understand the property is co-owned by the city and the county, so maybe each assumes someone else is taking responsibility for it.

Well, I've started exploring a solution, but the first thing I hear is, oh my goodness, you've got to pass the BAR, like that's a fatal flaw.

That should not be a fatal flaw.

I will come back to you once I've talked to NDS

sort of pursued and maybe developed even the solution.

I hope to approach the board and the members, the friends at the library about joining me in finding a solution because our city property should not look so bad in the middle of downtown, nor should it shed so much sediment when we have what is supposed to be a good water quality and storm water program.

Eric Hurt, 1502 East Market Street.

I put a petition together with some folks from the neighborhoods, and thank you guys for looking over it.

We'll be updating it soon.

But this is about the proposed Willow Mills Historic District.

And it seems now that the NDS is circling back around, which of course will drag the situation out into the foreseeable future.

We believe though there's enough information to end this decisive situation so that our neighborhood and its association can go back to focusing on common goals of the neighborhood.

It may be insinuated by the Willow Mills Neighborhood Association that since the city has been advised that there's likely not an option for an opt-out that in the way these rules are written that the petition we put together is less than viable.

This is far from the truth.

The petition sent to you all, soon to be updated, signed by the majority of Willow Mills residents within the proposed district, clearly states that if the city cannot provide an opt-out compromise, the majority of people of Willow Mills neighborhood asks that the district not be passed.

Therefore, the fact that the city cannot or is unwilling to provide an opt-out does not diminish this petition.

In an email from Mary Joy Scala on March 27th, she states, quote, the opinions of property owners within the proposed district may be of general interest to city council members, end quote.

We do hope that to be true.

It would also be great to hear that the Department of Neighborhood Development also finds the opinions of the majority of residents in the neighborhood of great interest.

Speaking frankly, if the city is truly not able or willing to ever provide an opt-out, which seems to be the case from Mrs. Scala's email, we believe this petition is sufficient evidence to show that the neighborhood does not want this district imposed on them.

Because of this, we would like to ask the city council members to help our neighborhood in this decisive decision by advising the NDS to forego any additional attempts to form this district in the Willam Mills neighborhood.

The majority of people through this petition would like the NDS to stop trying to create this district without some sort of compromise.

and if the NDS does continue to attempt to create the district without a compromise and therefore against the will of the residents, we ask that City Council not grant the district.

The Willow Mills Neighborhood Association shows all indication of continuing its attempt to form this district without a compromise.

All but one of the individuals in the neighborhood association actually lives within the proposed district and will not have to live under the regulations and impose costs if this district is passed.

A number of us who do live in the proposed district have taken time and effort to meet people face-to-face and gather signatures for a simple, straightforward petition.

Through this, the residents who live there and have property in the district have spoken, and those voices and the desire they share should be taken seriously and acted upon.

We ask that the City Council do so.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, Common Council.

I've come here for two purposes.

One is to support your decision to create a Black Youth Achievement Coordinator position.

I think if you're really serious about uplifting the young people in this area, in the city here, this job position is very critical.

The other reason I'm here is because the school district, Charlottesville School District, raised the summer rates for Excel summer camp.

And I understand that you will be allocating about another $2 million to the school board.

Well, I ask that, well, I can't put a condition on it, but I would ask that you would have them think seriously

about retracting that, increasing the rate of the summer school camp.

One of the reasons I'm so concerned about it is because many of these kids that use the summer camp have mothers who are single.

Some of them work two and three jobs.

And this is the opportunity that they have is to keep their kids off the street.

and we want to try to raise productive young people and the way to do that is to give them things, creative things to do during the summer and this summer camp is, as I understand it, is very popular but to put the burden on single mothers I think is the wrong thing to do and they should consider retracting

that increase in the pay there.

And I think they did it because they were saying that they had a $12,000 deficit.

And so it became a big concern.

But I think if you give them the extra $2 million as you plan to do, I think this should give us more clout to ask them to retract the increase in Excel camp zone.

Thank you.

I'm here also on the same subject as Eric Hertz spoke to earlier.

This is the Willam Mills Conservation Overlay in the proposed district.

My name is Jason Ivey.

I live at 1808 East Market Street.

My house, which was built in 1997, is considered a contributing structure and part of this proposed historic conservation overlay in Willam Mills.

Eric and I work with several people together.

Signatures went door to door with this opt-out petition and we spoke with many of the great residents that lived there and gathered the majority of signatures to either add an opt-out clause to the overlay or not pass it at all.

Our petition is really simple.

No opt-out clause equals do not pass it, the conservation rule.

The Willam Mills Neighborhood Association Board has ignored our petition in most part.

and basically lobbied the city to do yet a third vote, poll, petition, whatever you want to call it.

It's been called many things, despite the majority of our petition per their motivations and not the will of the residents that they represent.

I propose that you do not allow this conservation overlay to go forward and respect the will of the residents if another vote or poll is utilized.

We demand that there's transparency in it.

and the collection of it of the votes and full disclosure of the method of said poll as not necessarily before.

I firmly believe that the people have already spoken about this conservation overlay and I think it's dead on arrival to the council.

No further action should be taken and if it's passed I believe this thinly veiled form of gentrification zoning is at its best should not go forward.

I know this will prevent many of our elderly and working-class residents

from remaining in the overlay.

For example, if an elderly person is forced to go before the BA yard or repair their house or install, say, like a handicap access ramp, this is cost prohibitive and probably will force them from their homes.

Thank you.

My name's Clifford Hull, and I'm

My official address is 1990 Avon Street Extended and I'm here to speak on a number of issues.

First, the Lee statue, understanding of slavery and racism, homelessness, and the scuttlebug around the community.

First of all, the Lee statue and the hallowed history that it has created

One, understanding the slavery and the issue of racism is amongst an economical issue.

Two, that to remove this hallowed history is a racing history and any history that is erased shall be repeated.

What I would propose is that a renaming of the park may be a centennial park where you allow other Virginians of historical significance to be adorned.

Secondly, I'm part of the Charlottesville Coalition for the Homeless and I would rather funds be redirected toward a shelter of some sort other than the Salvation Army.

Lastly, the scuttle bug.

I am a small business owner and the way to address the community amongst the scuttle bug is to address it as a whole.

Therefore, far from lost, far from done, and continuing to move on.

Thank you.

Okay, that concludes our Matters of the Public.

I always end by thanking everybody.

We take these comments extremely seriously.

It's hard to get up here and speak to us in the dais and take some courage and we really appreciate it.

We also read every email that we get and you can communicate with us either individually with our emails that are on the webpage or through council at Charlottesville dot org.

and we will, and any matters that go to the city manager's attention, he will address them next time just as he did this time.

Any other comments you'd like to make individually?

Okay, so let's move on to our regular business.

Item two on our agenda is public hearing and, oh no, I'm sorry, consent agenda, excuse me.

I was so eager to get to the next item that I skipped the consent agenda.

Item A, minutes for March 20th, 2017.

Item B, appropriation, proper payment from the Inn at Vinegar Hill, LLC, $100,000, second of two readings.

Item C, appropriation, Market Street parking garage revenue, $146,200, second of two readings.

Item D, appropriations, strategic investment account contribution, $1 million, second of two readings.

Item E, appropriations, supplemental appropriation of FY 2017 transit grants, $97,528, first of two readings.

Item F, Resolution, Piedmont Workforce Network, Chief Local Elected Officials Agreement, first of one reading.

Item G, Resolution, Grant Application for Safe Routes to School Program, first of one reading.

I believe there might be a couple.

So yes, I have a question.

for City Manager as well as my colleagues on council about consent agenda item B, the proffer payment from the Inn at Vinegar Hill for $100,000.

I'm sorry Mr. Jones, I meant to call you about this earlier.

I spoke with a few of my colleagues about this.

Just to make sure that that's pointed out

And I think it's also important for those who are listening that because this money is coming to the CRHA, we want to not necessarily tell that board and that entity what to do with it, but we do want to encourage them to continue to do the work that we've heard so much about in the community as of late.

Thank you.

This is supposed to be used before February 28th of 2022 for specifically for redevelopment purposes.

So when we look at or when we hear so much about the need for redevelopment modernization and kind of improving the stock, as we even heard somewhat in the public comments tonight about addressing some of these issues in regards to housing, this is more funds that could be used to address those issues.

That's correct.

Yes, sir.

I actually have a question about that, too, if you don't mind answering questions without pulling it, because

One question is, it's specifically to be used for redevelopment and I know that the Housing Authority is now talking about doing some, in addition to redevelopment, some pretty major renovations.

Is this money eligible for that?

I'm not sure, I mean, it said eligible projects, and I'm not sure if it was for rehab or specifically for redevelopment.

I think Mr. Gafuna wanted to comment.

Mr. Gafuna, did you?

Let me ask my second question, then you can just do a two-fer once you get up here, Mr. Gafuna.

The other is that I know that the 200,000 of this actually needs to be spent by March 1, 2021.

Just this last part needs to be spent by 22.

I think it's for just redevelopment.

The way the profile was written was

It's supposed to be used for redevelopment of West Heaven or any other project owned by the housing authority.

I'm not sure whether we can use it for modernization or rehab.

Do you know if the first 200 has already been allocated to them?

So we could essentially use this to inform the housing authority that as they develop a plan in regards to redevelopment, whether that be

They can use these funds.

You can use it for anything that relates to redevelopment.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to make a comment on one item and that pertains to item G, the resolution, which was a grant application for Safe Routes to School program.

It was after a school board lunch, I had asked Mr. Jones to give an update on just the scope and the magnitude of the Safe Routes to School program and he very kindly did so and I was

Duly impressed.

Most of these grants are from the federal government, however, which is a cautionary note in this day and age.

But I do want to point out that Clark Elementary, Jackson Via Elementary, Buford Middle School, Burley Moran Elementary, Venable School have all received federal grant money to improve intersections and sidewalks so that children can walk safely to school.

When there is data out there that says one in five of our fifth graders are obese, I think that's something that we all need to take very seriously.

There's also been many grants of $1,000 each to support bike pet activities at Venable, Clark, Buford, Burley-Maran, Jackson-Vaya, and Walker.

And this particular grant is to get a Safe Routes to School coordinator.

I'll total the grants that we've acquired through the hard work of our staff and NDS, particularly Amanda Ponce, I believe.

It's been $1,220,239.

So that's an awful lot of money that helps us to make our routes to school healthier for our young children.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Other questions?

All in favor?

Carries unanimously.

All right, move on now to item number two on our regular agenda, public hearing and ordinance.

This is historic conservation district zoning text amendments.

This is the first of two readings.

Under our new rules, the default amount of time for an item is 30 minutes.

We allocated

but the city manager, myself, had the discretion per meeting to add more time.

So we added more time to this on the assumption it may take more time.

It may not, but we've added, we have this at 45 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Just as a refresher, there are two types of local regulatory historic districts.

The original type, the architectural design control district or ADC district,

We have eight of those across the city and the other type, the Historic Conservation District, which is the subject of these amendments tonight, was adopted as a less restrictive type of district.

We have two of those currently with one pending.

So the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review, BAR, is recommending certain revisions to the Historic Conservation District Ordinance Regulations

First, to clarify what actions specifically would require BAR review.

Secondly, to add a section allowing administrative review.

And thirdly, other adjustments based on their experience with the ordinance which has been in place since 2009 and these would be the first amendments to it.

In making these recommendations for amendments, the BAR made a conscious effort not to make the ordinance more restrictive for landowners.

The Historic Conservation District was originally intended to protect the character and scale of historic neighborhoods without imposing excessive requirements on the

people that live there who may want to remodel their homes but instead focused on review of demolitions and new construction.

So the BAR was very conscious of this and they did not want to make the ordinance more restrictive in these updates.

So City Council is being asked to approve these zoning text amendments which were recommended unanimously by the BAR in January this year and were recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission

with two minor edits and that was at the public hearing in March.

And as the mayor pointed out, this is the first of two readings and council decided to make this first reading another, a second public hearing.

So as I mentioned, we have two historic conservation districts in place in the Martha Jefferson neighborhood and also along Rugby Road in the Venable neighborhood.

A potential third district, Woolen Mills Village, was considered at a public hearing by the Planning Commission in November and was recommended.

But then it was deferred at the request of the Neighborhood Association President,

John Frazee and he asked that City Council defer consideration of the designation for six months or until these proposed changes have been considered and adopted by Council and also the guidelines changes have been updated.

So I did want to clarify that these changes are completely separate.

It's a separate issue designating Woollen Mills as a conservation district.

I think the fact that Woollen Mills district consideration was deferred for six months made the BAR want to act more quickly on these amendments, but they had already thought about making amendments before that Woollen Mills district was put up for consideration.

and of course if these are adopted they will apply to the two existing historic conservation districts as well as any future conservation district including possibly one mills.

At the first public hearing I did discuss the proposed changes by section number.

I won't do that right now just in the interest of time.

I think you've all heard them.

but I would point out that those proposed changes are listed in attachment two by section number and they include notations which changes were recommended by the city attorney's office and also which changes were recommended by the planning commission.

So I won't read those now but I'd be happy to answer any questions or talk about them if you want me to.

Following your approval of these text amendments, then the BAR recommended changes to the design guidelines will come back to you for approval.

And the reason they're not contained in this packet tonight is because they're not contained in the zoning ordinance.

So they are, when you change them, it's not considered a zoning text amendment.

So it's a different kind of approval.

They go to BAR for recommendation and then to you all for approval.

That's the process for guidelines.

and also it's important that the guidelines match whatever the ordinance says, so we wanted to wait and see what came out of the ordinance changes before we finalized the guidelines.

And I just finally wanted to say something about community engagement.

At the first public hearing, several members of the public spoke, including the president of Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association and several residents of that neighborhood.

and some comments were made then specifically regarding the proposed woolen mill district designation rather than these ordinance text amendments being considered.

So just so you can keep them separate.

There were several comments regarding the decision to cease review of paint colors that was a bit controversial and comments about what I call larger issues such as

Lack of coordination possibly between historic districts which are overlays and zoning ordinance districts which are the underlying zones.

So that's a much larger topic.

It should probably be an ongoing conversation that is discussed when the code audit comes up later.

But that's not the topic tonight.

I just want to say thank you for answering all my questions earlier.

You're welcome.

And I will be offering a couple of amendments that deal with process, not the content really, but we'll have a discussion after that.

So if everybody's amenable, do we need a

We have a public hearing before we get to the motion.

Okay, so we have a public hearing that we have three folks who have signed up.

I'm going to open that now.

Please, you may sign up yourself.

Comments are limited to three minutes.

Please state your name and address.

As before, please pay attention to the timer for your time.

Eric Hurt is first.

Jason Ivey, and Rebecca Quinn.

I understand that the yellow comes on at one minute and you said 15 seconds, so I got rattled last time around.

I thought I was talking slow, not me.

Rebecca Quinn, 1044th Street, here in the city.

I spoke at the Planning Commission on this and my concern was about exempting from review the paint colors.

And I understand the proposal

does apply only to the two conservation districts and not throughout the architectural design districts or whatever they're called.

But still, I think we should be concerned a little bit about, as was described, the pink house or the pink polka dot house, both of which have occurred in historic districts.

There is a pink house on Pinkney Street

perhaps there's a relationship in Annapolis, one of those very old, you know, tiny narrow streets and it was Pepto Bismol Pink and glowed the whole street when afternoon sun hit it.

So my question really is, I mean I understand the expediency, I understand these are not the same as the ADC districts, but should that happen?

Do neighbors have any recourse?

Do citizens have any recourse?

Oh, and it might not just be bright pink.

Could it be a mural?

What would prevent a property owner in one of these districts from doing that?

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Mr. Emery.

Mr. Emery.

Since its first application in 2010, the Conservation District Ordinance has been administered in a manner consistent with its purpose and intent.

The ordinance helps protect the character and scale of historic neighborhoods through a review of proposed demolitions and new construction without imposing onerous financial or design requirements on residents who model their existing houses or build new homes.

The Historic Conservation District overlay is currently the only zoning tool available to humble historic neighborhoods to moderate the pace of teardowns and to encourage considerate appropriately sized new construction.

In 1997, Charlottesville's Historic Preservation Plan identified the need for a zoning tool to help conserve the city's humble historic neighborhoods.

In 2002, the National Trust for Historic Preservation identified the teardown trend as a growing national problem.

This past January I visited humble neighborhoods that known back in the 70s in Winter Park, Florida, North Little Rock, Arkansas, and East Waco, Texas.

The neighborhoods and the residents were gone as if they never existed.

The built fabric of history in our neighborhoods instruct us on how people lived about what it means to be a Virginian.

The historic conservation district is often confused with the full-blown ADC.

The two types, the CV and ADC, couldn't be more different.

The CV allows for low wealth residents to respond to economic exigencies.

My house, built by a weaver in 1890, got an insulated aluminum siding during the 1970s energy crisis.

This is allowed by the CV as there are many things disallowed in a full blown ADC.

Vinyl windows, pink paint, shingles, and plates of standing seam metal are all allowed.

The CV ordinance is designed to keep the flow of what Jane Jacobs called catastrophic money.

from putting diesel in the tanks of bulldozers.

It stabilizes the neighborhoods, which in many cities throughout the U.S. have no champion.

I deeply appreciate the work by staff in the BAR refining the language and the historic conservation district ordinance in response to community input.

The Willmills first wrote the city council in 2005 inquiring about such a zoning code overlay.

Multiple Charlottesville neighborhoods worked with NDS in 2006 providing community engagement and feedback as the ordinance was being crafted.

The zoning text amendment tonight is a clarification of legal language to make clear that a fee isn't required to put up a basketball hoop or a doghouse or a toolhouse as has been alleged.

The amendment streamlines the CV implementation.

It brings the ordinance into greater harmony with a purpose and intent.

Mr. Huja wrote years ago, all cities contain areas, sites, or structures of architectural and historical interests or significance.

Such areas contribute to the particular uniqueness of a city and form an important part of that city's physical and cultural heritage, which, if lost, cannot be replaced.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?

Okay, closing the public hearing.

Yes, Mr. Mayor.

I do have a motion.

I sent this earlier.

It's not a very big one, but

I'll just read the motion and then we'll have discussion.

So to address the public's concerns about both physical character and affordability of our city, I propose the following motion to amend this ordinance.

Section 34-345B reads application shall be submitted to the director by a property owner, contract purchaser or lessee of the property or by the authorized agent of any such person, comma.

and my proposed change is at no charge to the applicant.

What this does is it deletes this statement.

Each application shall be accompanied by the required application fee as set in the most recent zoning fee schedule approved by City Council.

The second and last amendment to the ordinance would be Section 34-347B.

It reads failure of the BAR to act on an application determined to be subject to BAR review within

The revised or the recommended revision is 30 days after receipt thereof shall be deemed approval and that is a deletion of the word 60.

I have a question that might determine whether I do a second.

That's Mike.

So, I'll

The rationale behind this is that it's very clear to many of us, and myself included, that many of our neighborhoods feel compelled to apply for this HCV district because they fear future development.

They fear that it will harm the physical character of the neighborhoods, many of which do have historic residential character.

And they are along walkable streets that just epitomize the pedestrian-scale environments that we all want to pursue.

And so, in many ways, it feels like this tool that is the only tool that our neighborhoods have right now to safeguard the character, absent a thorough and sensitive

Citywide rewrite of our zoning ordinance is almost like a second best solution.

But it is one with which I sympathize at this point in time.

It is my hope that over the next year or two, we will see a wholesale revision of our zoning ordinance such that districts like this may in fact not be necessary anymore.

But that isn't the case at this point in time.

However, we have heard several residents express concerns about added costs that will be brought about by this district.

That's why though I'm especially glad that the HCV district doesn't regulate items like windows or paint, that it does allow for administrative approvals and it seems to be a lesser stringent requirement than those imposed by the Department of Interior's requirements on the rehabilitation of historic properties.

Nonetheless, my fear is that without some additional modifications to the process, this added discretionary review may still pose a burden financially to individual homeowners of limited means, and it may dissuade them from improving their properties or building accessory units.

Those two outcomes would frustrate the city's longstanding initiatives to, one, have a seven-year tax assessment deferment on home improvements designed to enhance

the city's aging housing stock to meet the needs of contemporary families.

And two, the accessory unit ordinance is designed to promote affordable mixed income communities seamlessly throughout the city.

So in the case of the Woollen Mills, such outcomes are plausible given the relative difference in wealth of that neighborhood compared to the other historic conservation districts.

When you look at the orange dot study from 2011, the Woollen Mills is

around a census tract that has a median income of about $44,000.

In contrast, the other neighborhoods that used the HCV had upwards of median incomes of $102,000 and one which straddled a low and a high income district averaged out to be about $65,000.

So it is important to note that the consideration of economic factors like that

is the purview of council.

It is not the purview of the BAR or the Planning Commission.

If we don't think about these things, no one else can or will.

So I therefore propose that we waive the application fee and cut the BAR's turnaround time in half for the HCV district, keeping the rest of the ordinance intact.

This proposal is in no way intended to downplay the work of staff or the BAR when processing these applications

or suggest that safeguarding the physical character of our neighborhood is without merit.

That goal is in fact in our comprehensive plan.

I have two questions.

And then I'd also just be interested to hear Ms. Scala's response to this motion to see if there's any big red flags that she knows of.

But my first question is the second addition, the changing to 60 days, I would just like to offer a friendly amendment perhaps.

that failure of the BAR to act on application determined to be subject to BAR review, that doesn't narrow it down a whole lot.

We have a lot of things in the city that are applications determined to be subject to BAR reviews that get 60 days.

And so I would just add the language failure of the BAR to act on an application under this ordinance that staff has determined to be subject to BAR review.

I have no problem with that.

Okay.

And the other is, I'd like to know what the cost is, what the budgetary impact would be of the no charge, what you estimate that that would cost throughout the city in all existing

Okay, there are five different fees, first of all, and they're identical in ADC districts and historic conservation districts.

And the fees are established in a fee schedule, I believe annually, that you all review.

We don't put them in the ordinance for a reason, and that is because you might want to change them more frequently than you'd want to consider a zoning text amendment.

So I'd recommend that they stay in the fee schedule even if you want to change them.

The five different fees are for first administrative review and the second one is BAR review of additions and construction other than brand new construction.

New construction is considered like a brand new building on an empty lot.

and then the third type, and that costs 125, and then BAR appeals, those would be appeals of BAR decisions that the applicant would like to go to city council.

Those are 125.

So those three, I can agree that they may impact a homeowner, a resident that wants to make home improvements, for example.

Excuse me, one minute, Ms. Scala.

So the very first administrative review, how much was that?

All three are 125.

The first one's 100, administrative.

And then the smaller BAR reviews are 125, and appeals are 125.

and then the other two types, demolitions of contributing historic properties and new construction, they're both 375 and one reason is we don't want to encourage requests for demolitions in either district and I think that if you remove that fee it would be almost like saying you're offering a subsidy for someone to apply to take down a historic home

So I don't think that really makes sense.

It goes against what the ordinance is all about.

So I would keep the fee for demolition, and I'd also probably keep it for new construction, but I think that's, you know, I don't feel strongly about that.

And they're both 375?

They're both 375.

But I would not subsidize a fee for someone to apply for demolition.

I don't think that that really goes along with the reasoning of

you know, home improvement, you know, subsidy or whatever you want to call it.

So as far as the impact...

So how many have there been?

I haven't really, you know, we don't get very many in historic districts.

Alright, thank you.

Well, in that case, one thing that I would like to ask, in light of the staff's response, is to specifically call out those first three fees, that administrative fees, initial administrative fees, fees for additions and construction,

One of the items that I was somewhat concerned with, and I just would love to hear your input,

Ms. Galvin in regards to the motion is one of the things I fear is that this may potentially allow developers to kind of push through the process at a faster rate and kind of based on some of the items even from what we heard from Mr. Randolph about

developers building and kind of the fear that we hear from the community from many different individuals about buildings going up in low income neighborhoods or neighborhoods in which don't necessarily want the development.

Will this make the process easier for them or how do we find the balance?

Well, I think I think that is the crux is what is the balance that we're looking for?

Because I know that myself as a homeowner,

and an architect, I did put my own addition onto my house several years ago.

An additional review in and of itself adds time

to the process that adds length of time to the loan commitments that you have to make.

And then they are added fees.

So as an individual private property owner or homeowner, I have empathy for the possibility that for those of moderate income that this could be challenging.

And that's why I am entertaining compromises.

At the same time, I don't want to accelerate

the demolition and the out of scale development, but I understand that all the guidelines and the review is what is designed to keep that in check.

I don't have, I'll be honest with you, I don't have a great deal of kind of suggestions, quote unquote.

I'm just asking these questions because they're just ones that come to my mind.

The second one that I often hear from people within different communities are that when new homeowners come into the neighborhood and they put additions to their property, it raises the value of their property, which essentially raises the value and then the taxes.

of properties around them.

And people say, well, I can't afford those taxes and these people buy up all the houses.

Well, when you look at the average age of our housing stock, it's very old.

Many, much of it predates World War II.

And you're looking at contemporary needs, space needs, square footage and growing families.

It's hard to accommodate more than one child in some of the existing housing stock that we have.

So again, I'm just speaking as a homeowner who put an addition on my own house.

We benefited from the seven year tax deferment when we were able to kind of not have the assessment kick in until after seven years.

and we actually changed the ordinance because at first it was prohibited from people with accessory units from using this tax deferment.

And I said that's ironic because people that have accessory units need assistance.

If you don't need an accessory unit, you probably don't need assistance at all.

So they realized that that was actually a bias against people of moderate means.

So I am looking at trying to be sympathetic to

and facilitating the two other goals that we have, which is to modernize our housing in a sensitive way so that contemporary families can live in them.

But at the same time, I also want to facilitate the creation of accessory units so that we can seamlessly add more affordability throughout our neighborhoods.

So it is a balancing act, and as I preface my comments,

I just wonder, well first I agree with you, and I just wonder how are we going to be able to find the balance?

Because oftentimes those individuals who are on the kind of the butt end quote unquote, their voices aren't heard.

and they're not the ones who come to meetings.

They don't often participate in different dialogues.

So how will we find the balance to make sure they're still represented?

Hey, well, Wes, it always seems that when you say something, what I'm going to say is going to come off of that, so.

Well, since I got this right now, I assume there has been no citizen engagement.

So there has been no citizen engagement.

And I heard language about being concerned for homeowners of limited means.

And yet this would apply to everybody.

So I wouldn't have any problem with making it for people of limited means.

We do that on other programs around town.

But I

It seems to me that, and the motion is to waive fees and shorten review time, that it will accelerate people other than homeowners of limited means.

That's my concern.

I have also gone through the city process on the BAR with my house, and I did not find it unduly burdensome, either the time or the expense.

It was an aggravation, but

It was just part of the deal.

So I'd like to officially make my friendly amendment and see if Mr. Bellamy is amenable to that as the seconder to only waive the fees for the first three

and then to have staff come back to us or Councilor Galvin come back to us.

And the ordinance itself, this is the second public hearing.

Just as far as the public engagement, there was a public hearing on this at the Planning Commission meeting.

Historically, just procedurally, even though Roberts doesn't talk about friendly amendments, how this council has operated is as Ms. Szakos has alluded, if the person making the motion and the person making the second are agreeable, then the so-called friendly amendment becomes part of the motion.

The underlying carries.

And probably for clarity's sake, I will say that I accept Counselor Szakos' changes to my amendment, which were twofold, to add under 34-347B the phrase, under this ordinance, after the word application, and that the other amendment to my proposal, which was section 34-345B, which was instead of at no charge to the applicant,

It would read that each application shall be accompanied by the required application fee minus fees for the first administrative review, new construction and appeals.

Of those.

Mr. Bellamy, is that acceptable to you as a seconder?

Thank you.

So we only did it first and second.

Just clarifying, we have a first and a second that was right here, and we are moving forward to the second meeting.

Meeting coming up.

All right, thank you.

Okay, next item on the agenda, number three, public hearing.

This is the City Council's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget.

Mr. Mayor, Leslie Beauregard, our City Manager, will walk us through the amendments that have been made to my proposed budget.

Public hearing this evening will be on the City Council's proposed budget, and the second reading of this will occur next Tuesday.

And I'll remind my colleagues we have 30 minutes allocated for this item if we need that much.

We may not, but there is a game.

The public's business is much more important.

This will be a really quick presentation, so if you don't want to move, it's actually okay.

So we do have a public hearing tonight, the final one on the budget, and you'll be doing two, first reading of the tax levy, which remains unchanged at 95 cents per $100 says value, and the first reading of the city council's proposed budget.

And I'm going to quickly walk through the amendments that have been made as a result of the work sessions that we've had so far.

So on the revenue side, we did have a few adjustments to revenues.

These are the decreases in revenues.

And these are the sources you see here, the Virginia communication sales and use tax, rent revenue.

And then there are two designated revenues.

There'll be a corresponding expenditure item.

These are the contracted services that the city schools pay the city for, in-pupil transportation, school building maintenance.

So those are the reductions.

Increasing revenues include some state revenues that we receive including recordation tax receipts.

We also increased tax on wheels and deeds revenue estimate.

BPOL, we increased that estimate as well by about $90,000.

Under intergovernmental revenue, we have another state revenue estimate that is going up about $29,000 for our reimbursement for constitutional officers.

And then we have two charges that we received from UVA.

One has to do with the fire services agreement.

and then the other is a service charge which is kind of comparable to a payment in lieu of taxes.

And total revenue amendments for fiscal year 18 total $37,753.

On the expenditure side, we kind of lumped all this together.

We have city department savings.

This is a combination of healthcare savings and we actually looked at our fuel cost again.

and we were able to reduce those two further.

That came out to almost $418,000 in savings.

Two items outside of non-private agencies, these are actually contractual agencies.

One was the regional jail.

We have a revised estimate from them that reduced our contribution by about $48,000.

And the Jefferson Madison Regional Library, they are in our healthcare system so they saw a savings as well of about $15,000.

We also reduced the transfer to CIP contingency.

If you recall, this was originally $500,000 when the budget was presented.

It's now about $285,000.

That is basically accounting for the amendments that you're seeing tonight to help pay for some of those.

And here are the designated expenditures that I spoke about before for people transportation and school building maintenance.

So schools were happy to see this move.

Increases in expenditures includes an increase in the public safety salary equity adjustments.

This accounts for the benefits.

That actually wasn't accounted for in the proposed budget.

This healthcare savings item, the $250,000, that's now spread out among departments.

So you saw that on the previous page.

And that just accounts for that on this end.

A new position has been added under neighborhood development services for placemaking.

It's a placemaking slash design position.

That's $111,000 almost.

and then several other outside and non-profit agencies were increased including our dues to Virginia Municipal League, Region 10 will be supporting their supportive housing program which is actually a continuation of a program we're supporting this current fiscal year, New City Arts, Public Defender's Office, the Bridge Ministries and African American Teaching Fellows and that equals the revenue amendments of $37,753.

We have tentatively scheduled a work session this Thursday, which I guess we can talk about if we need to have that work session.

And then we will definitely have final budget approval next Tuesday at 5.30 p.m. in the second floor conference room.

That's before the planning commission meeting.

And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

As people come up, I'll ask one question.

And this is a little picky, I understand.

because we're not actually putting a person in it and the job description hasn't been done.

But I know that you were asked by one counselor to make sure that design was in the name of the place making design.

But originally, I had brought forward the idea of having it be a neighborhood advocacy position, and so that was still in the mix as well, and that's now been completely lost.

I think we just don't, I honestly don't know what to call the position.

Community engagement, all those things, so we kind of lost those and got design instead rather than an addition to.

So maybe just

NDS position or put it all in there.

I was going to bring that up as well because that was not my intention to delete the community engagement piece because that is a critically important piece.

And even though we're not making the decision, it's symbolic.

So I just wanted to reiterate that.

And I don't think it was our intent to remove the spirit of that either.

It's just that there were a lot of words being thrown around.

Well, yeah, it occurs to me it would be nice to have a little symbolism in there.

There's a lot of conversations which clearly need to happen, but we'll put community engagement back in for sure, since that seems to be pretty critical.

Council, I would also bring to your attention a request that we've received from Jaunt for an additional $17,714 for fiscal year 18.

This is in response to news that they received last week about a reduction in state funding.

that reduces their overall funding revenue from the state and that would, that $17,714 would be the city's share of that reduction of about $58,000 from what they had originally budgeted for this year.

line item that would go into CIP contingency, that 283 would get squeezed a little bit more.

And we can make those adjustments for the next reading.

We've got other adjustments to bring forward.

So you can amend next Tuesday to amend this budget.

So just do the first reading on tonight.

So for me, I would vote to add John.

I have one question and this is really at the last hour.

I'm just looking at an email that we received from a couple of community members about how next year, which essentially is what we're discussing for this year's budget,

or for the budget that we're discussing right now will be the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

And the request says, as you are organizing the city's calendar and city budget for next year, could you slash would you consider commemorating and recognizing this sad day in our nation's history in some small way?

So hearing that request and again, I know this is at the last moment, I didn't quite know how to talk about discuss it rather.

and being that we're talking about it now, would that be that we allocate something or earmark something to say that we want to celebrate it as a city or is that something we're open to or is that not appropriate?

I'm just asking and it's not a... May I offer a suggestion?

We have council priority funds, I mean I won't be on council next year, but we have I think probably enough in the council priority funds to be able to consider something like that as a one-time

I agree with Councillor Szakos.

All right.

OK, so we have public hearing now.

On this, we have one person sign up with other folks who'd like to sign up.

She is right here.

You can come up.

Mr. Burris, Melvin Burris is the first person.

If anybody else would like to speak, just please come up and sign up there.

Melvin Barres, 912 Evergreen Road.

I'd just like to support the Black Youth Achievement Coordinator position.

As Ms. Galvin said about something being critical, this position is very critical if we are trying to uplift our young people in the city.

So I just want to throw my support behind that effort.

The second one is that there is $2 million in the budget, additional $2 million that you will be giving to the school district.

My concern, as I said before, was that the Excel summer camp fees have been raised and they will impact the single

Family, single mothers, mothers who have two or three kids and working two or three jobs.

I think it's critical that we help because of a $12,000 deficit that they've incurred last year.

But I think with the $2 million that could help them out and also help mothers out who are trying to raise their kids to be productive young people in our community.

Chairman.

Mr. Mayor, Councillors, I don't have a script or prepared comments for tonight, so this is a dangerous place for me.

And it's been sort of crazy, and I haven't read your packet tonight, so I might be speaking a little bit out of turn in an uninformed way.

But I heard about this.

the full-time equivalent employee that Liz Galvin suggested and you know of course I heard you guys talking about community engagement at your last meeting and I gotta say that you know there's been a lot of community engagement and vision over the years I mean as long as I've lived in Charlottesville the problem has seemed to have been implementation

and if this employee, and I read a job description somewhere and it seemed awfully complex, but if this employee was somebody who could read the comprehensive plan and point out, this is my favorite subject, the Rivanna River, could point out to the city that we have an environmental chapter in the comprehensive plan, that the first goal of the environmental chapter is to turn back towards this

the river and make it a recreational, you know, resource for the citizens of Charlottesville who can't flat avail California or, you know, Fiji or wherever.

That last year there was a hundred, thirteen hundred dollar budget item that would have been to support the Rivanna River Basin Commission but, Charlottesville wouldn't spend that money because Albemarle County didn't pay theirs.

despite the fact that both communities after a million-dollar HUD-funded planning process came up with the River Corridor as one of the top three primary goals.

It's not that hard to write zoning code, and it's not that expensive, but you need to know what to do.

And LA's got a great River Corridor guidelines that makes sense for Charlottesville to adopt something like that.

Just not a big deal.

So if this employee would do things like that, read the comprehensive plan and say to you guys, hey, this is important, then I would fully support their hiring.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I respond?

Oh, go ahead.

Let me just, it's okay if I go through it.

Oh yeah, I didn't know Mr. Long.

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on the public hearing?

Mr. Long.

Mayor Signer and members of the council and my name is Paul Law and I live at 1410 Grady Avenue and I don't really know whether this is an appropriate time to mention it but I'll be very brief.

Seaville Weekly in its largest issue had a big article about the rise in assessments for a lot of property owners in the city and the only person who addressed that was yourself, Mr. Mayor.

that maybe the assessments should come down.

And I'm mentioning this is because both Councilor Bellamy and Mr. Fenwick have projects that they proposed and they said, well, you know, the funding for that can come from the, I'm imagining, from the rise in assessments.

I think that's unfair to get income coming in that way.

Try to keep the assessments lower and if there's worthwhile projects, then have the political courage to vote for a tax raise.

to support those additional projects.

And we had the gentleman who owned the barber shop.

A lot of small business people are suffering terribly with these rise in assessments, and I think something should be done about it.

And it's very rare for me to commend you, Mayor Signer, but you're the only one at city council who addressed that issue.

Thank you.

That was a nice compliment.

Any further

Signer's up for our public hearing.

Okay, closing the public hearing.

Now second.

Second.

Since I made the motion, I'll just use that time.

I don't really have a whole big statement about it, but I would like to just get information by our next discussion about the summer camp.

I actually had heard that it was being raised and checked with Parks and Rec, which collaborates with the city schools on the summer camp, and was told that it wasn't going up.

But I think we may be talking about two different things, and so I'd love to have that clarified.

because I think there is a sliding scale.

And if it's not going to have an impact on people at the bottom, I don't have any problem with adjusting the rates for people who can pay.

But I don't want it to keep people from being able to attend summer camp.

It's a wonderful program.

And yeah, that's all I have.

I think it's important to note, my only comment was up.

My only comment was, well two comments rather, in regards to the youth achievement, it may not have been presented by Ms. Bogart up here tonight because it's already, we've already discussed it in the prior budget sessions and this is just the amendments that we discussed at our last budget meeting, was that last Thursday?

In regards to Mr. Long's point,

I think his points are valid and even when we heard in regards to the, Mr. Bishop is it?

Mr. Bishop who discussed about how important it is or the effect that the business taxes have, may have on other citizens.

I think both points are points that need to be taken into account but I'm reminded of a comment made by Ms. Galvin earlier on during

this budget process in which she stated that these are the kind of initiatives that we've been looking to push for throughout the community now ones that have been waiting for a long time and furthermore the assessments some would say that they haven't been where they need to be for years now and now they're kind of catching up now granted if you're a business owner that's not something that you want to hear but I do think that point holds a great deal of merit and maybe she can explain it

better than I can, but that is indeed, I share her position.

I think Ms. Szakos said something similar as well as Mr. Fenwick and I share that sentiment.

We will not always make this, everyone is not going to be pleased in regards to how we do, but personally I do think that the trade off quote on quote is moving us where we need to be.

Mr. Mayor and Mr. Bellamy, I'd just like to add that about three years ago there was another Blue Ribbon Commission and it was on sustainable school funding.

That was our very first Blue Ribbon Commission as far as I can recall.

And in that report it was stated very clearly that

and we had some very capable people on that commission with expertise in financial planning and understanding assessments very well that we were under-assessing our properties and that it was going to come back to bite us but it was particularly a problem for city school funding because property taxes are pretty much how we fund our city schools, our public education.

So it's taken us a while to

to face that fact and look at the way we, the methodology and the software we have is, as I understand it, is now better as well.

So, and that is also my understanding is that we cannot, once we do the assessment, we cannot break it up and gradually introduce it by law.

We could not, we could not phase it, phase it in.

You cannot phase it in.

We looked into that.

And coincidentally, we had had a school board city council luncheon, in which case we were presented some stark data that our poverty in our schools is not going down.

In fact, two of our schools, the poverty is now going from 80 to 90 percent free and reduced lunch and 70 to 80 percent free and reduced lunch.

So we are not we are not ending poverty in our city.

and until such time as we get a major handle on that, I think we need to have every kind of tool at our disposal to try to reverse that trend, make it go down.

So I'm, and I've also been on council not as long as Councilor Szakos, but when I first came on council, we were running deficits.

The property values were so low and I came on board right after the recession.

That is not a time anybody wants to see again.

And so to kind of be reckless in the sense of, oh, we're flush now, let's change the rates and then only to have to change them again does not provide stability and doesn't provide stability for our bond rating either.

So these are things that we all have to consider.

And I think that's why I work hard just now

to try to alleviate some in some small way any extra cost that we impose upon our residents when they're putting on additions, when they're doing remodelings.

We have to think about this thing in a more comprehensive way.

Thank you.

Ms. Galvin, if you don't mind, just a small clarification.

We don't run deficits with the city of Charlottesville.

We have to balance our budget every year.

Well, I'm sorry.

But we did, I mean, there was a period of time in which we were reducing our budget because of the budget situation.

I do remember very clearly when we had to work very hard to close the budget gap.

That's how I should have explained it.

But the property assessments were low.

We have eight and a half minutes left in our discussion on this on this item.

So we are usual clerk.

So we have three minutes.

We're supposed to and I think we're doing a good job.

So we have enough time for each of us to

I would characterize it as a budget that's more in balance across the city.

In recent past we have cut funding for ABRT, Agency Budget Review Teams, which are 501c3s.

I didn't like to see that.

This year it's level funding, which is a major step forward.

And we've done other things as well to bring everybody across the city

instead of all the money going to West Main Street or consultants.

Well, I'll say a couple things.

But it's been said that budgets are moral documents for governing bodies, and I think this one is no exception.

There are a tremendous number of very positive, progressive choices that are being made in this budget.

substantial increase in public safety, compensation, nonprofits.

Again, I would urge anybody who is interested in what we're doing with your tax dollars to look at the list of contributions we make to nonprofits.

It is extremely empathetic and very comprehensive with limited dollars.

So $202,000 the United Way, $114,000 the Free Clinic, $544,000 Thomas Jefferson Health Clinic,

Big Brothers Big Sisters, 20,000.

There are dozens, as Mr. Fenwick said.

We increased our contribution to schools by $2 million.

I want to give Mr. Bellamy a lot of credit for introducing some new ideas for how we spend our money in a year of returns with his so-called equity package.

And we've heard some comments about this new position that will help

helped deserving youth, minority youth, African-American youth, and there are other commitments in this package as well that do show that this is a moral document.

Because it was alluded to before, I'll say I did

several weeks ago introduced for debate an idea that we would in this year of increased returns decrease our tax rate by a couple of points which would have given some of the money back.

It would have meant that we wouldn't have spent dollar for dollar all the money that we had coming in because the assessment didn't go up.

You know, we've talked a little bit about symbolic victories.

It would have been in part symbolic because it wouldn't have been that much money going from 95 to 93 cents.

But you know, it would have been some money back and it would have been a belt tightening measure.

It has been a very respectful debate.

I think part of having that discussion has been to show the public, well, here is how we are spending those funds, because if we don't have that debate, if we don't provoke the discussion by entertaining an alternative, then it's just taken for granted.

And I think it has been a very meritorious debate for the public.

I think you do see that we have a highly progressive and lean budget.

We had an efficiency review come in,

they said we have a lien system and we did have years of underinvestment as Ms. Galvin has said these are choices among alternatives and I'm you know I'm not I think it's been a good debate and you know there wasn't support for that idea but that's okay because I think the public sees that it is a very lien and progressive moral document and that is how we're spending these funds in this year with the new and I think the assessment itself was

completely valid.

So I'm glad to have had the debate and I hear the pain in Mr. Bishop's voice and some others like that, but I think that we also provided the public with the proof that it is a very progressive, empathetic, value-laden budget.

So I want to thank everybody for the work that's gone into it, especially staff.

Okay, so that's a motion for the tax levy, and a second.

Any further discussion or questions on this?

Okay, so that moves ahead as well.

And let's take our

Oh, five minute break now.

Three minute break.

Mr. Mayor, just a quick clarification for the staff.

Unless there's something that happens between now and Thursday that is unexpected.

Seems like we don't.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Five minutes back.

That means six.

And I'm out!

you

The End

Thanks for watching

All right, we have had a change on the agenda for tonight.

Number six, the place design task force annual report is gonna be moved sometime in the future because of an issue with making the presentation.

We're now moving on to item number seven, a resolution.

This is critical slope waiver for 162 Baylor Lane.

This is the first of one reading.

We've allocated only 10 minutes for this.

Good evening, Carrie Rainey, City Planner with Neighborhood Development Services.

Charlottesville's Parks and Recreation Department has requested an allowance for the critical slope disturbance on a city-owned vacant parcel at 162 Baylor Lane in the Carter's View subdivision.

The Carter's View subdivision received preliminary approval prior to the establishment of the critical slopes.

Provisions established in January 2006.

However, the city recently divided the 1.3 acre parcel to create two parcels as seen in your attachments.

The covenants of the Carter's View subdivision require a minimum of 1,750 square feet of floor space for any home within the subdivision.

Critical slopes make up over half of the parcel and combined with an existing storm water easement on the parcel preclude the construction of a home that meets the minimum requirements set forth in the covenants of the subdivision.

The waiver request specifies 0.01 acres will be disturbed, which is approximately 7% of the site area.

The Planning Commission considered this application at their regular meeting on March 14th, 2017.

Staff recommended approval of the critical slope waiver based on finding one and two found in city code section 34-1120B6D.

The justifications for finding one include the sale of the property will reduce the obligation of the city to maintain the vacant lot and provide funding to purchase other undeveloped and forested areas as well as wetland areas in the vicinity.

In addition, the city owns the large tract of land at the rear of the property, which is wetland open space, specifically purchased to preserve natural beauty in viewsheds and to prevent the loss of tree canopy and wildlife habitat.

Regarding finding two, the justification states that the covenants require the minimum of 1,750 square feet in floor space and that this requirement would preclude the construction of a single family residence on the property without the critical slope waiver.

The Planning Commission took the following action.

Mrs. Green moved to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver with conditions for tax map 26 parcel 45.001 based on a finding that the public benefit of allowing the disturbance outweighs the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope.

The Planning Commission recommended the following conditions.

The builder obtained an agreement in lieu of an erosion and sediment control plan even if the site does not exceed 6,000 square feet in disturbance.

Number two, roof drains are piped into the existing storm water system unless otherwise directed by the engineering department.

Number three, land disturbing activities shall be limited to the front two-thirds of the site and only disturb the minimal critical slopes necessary to build the single family residence.

Number four, a pedestrian easement shall be preserved in the same location as the platted public drainage easement on the 10 foot portion of the easement on the property.

Mr. Claiborne seconded the motion.

The commission voted six to zero to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver.

Park staff has requested that council consider modifying the resolution to remove

Condition 4 regarding the pedestrian easement.

They've noted that the steep slopes make it very difficult to build such easement and have also provided these maps if I can share those that we just received showing where there is an existing trail access easement close to the subdivision.

Thank you.

Yeah, quick question.

In January of 2006.

I could not say at this time.

Okay, I mean I just heard comments in the public that we're routinely approving waivers for critical slope.

Why have it?

It's not urgent, but it would be good to know.

I just have, it's not really, well it is a question, although I do support this.

One of the things that I know that the Housing Advisory Committee is coming to us with is recommendations that city-owned property in their use, that affordable housing be considered as a

primary priority.

So I hope that when the time does come, you know, if this makes it sellable and buildable as a single family home, that we make sure to consider this for an affordable unit in some fashion.

That's all we need to do.

Are there any further comments?

One reading.

I was just saying, is there anything anybody else would like to make now that that's happening?

No?

OK. All right.

That was the first.

Oh, wait.

No, we do need a vote.

It's the first one reading.

I'm sorry.

OK.

I was confused, too.

Excuse me.

So first one reading.

So we do need a full vote.

So OK. Any questions or comments about the motion and second?

OK. All in favor?

That carries five to zero.

Six minutes, yes.

It didn't show up.

OK. Did it all show up?

Kristin Szakos, could you press it one more time?

Thank you.

OK.

It actually did happen if it didn't show up on a screen, but the screen helps.

Okay.

All right, moving on to the final item on our agenda.

This is Ragged Mountain Trails update, a report.

30 minutes allocated for this.

The first 10 minutes will be presentation.

This is Brian Daly.

Yes, thank you.

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

At the December 19, 2016 meeting of City Council, Council voted to support shared use trails at Ragged Mountain and directed staff to prepare a trail use plan that uses good trail planning principles and that quote

Separate trails shall be designated and constructed where needed to ensure that both pedestrian-only and multi-use, paren, bicycling, jogging, and walking, and paren, trails may circumnavigate the reservoir separately, except in rare circumstances, paren, such as on the floating bridge and dam, and where challenging topography or sensitive environmental areas require colocation, and paren.

Multi-use trails will become available as they are constructed where they do not already exist.

Existing trails marked as pedestrian only on the map dated November 1st, 2016 shall continue to be so until separate trails for the separate uses can be constructed.

Construction of these trails shall be conducted using best practices to our environmental protection and safety.

A new planning map of use shall be developed within six months of this resolution and presented to council along with timeframes and benchmarks for implementation and quote steps from the resolution that council passed in December.

In the last several months, staff has worked diligently with a lot of time on site and on the water at Ragged Mountain to develop a trail use plan according to these directives.

Trail plan development involved multiple visits as well as flagging alignments for both hiking-only trails and shared use.

If you're out there and you see flags that are not in the ground, they're tied to tree branches.

and the white flags indicate shared views trails.

The orange represent hiking only proposals.

We put the flags along the trails and invited public comment which we received via email and phone and in person as well as we held a walk to open to the public on March 4th.

We took three and a half, four hours to hike around the entire reservoir.

About 20 folks were there for that.

At this time, the plan proposed takes all of those directions into consideration.

We did not want to wait the entire allotted six months to bring this back before you, and that's to allow trail construction to hopefully begin in the cooler months.

We've also drafted an implementation sequence for construction of the new trails based upon activating those unbuilt trails that will complete the circumferential loop around the reservoir.

The trail plan use maps are on the wall behind you.

They are identical.

There's just one on either side of the screen.

And staff are here to answer any questions you may have regarding the location of the trails.

Thank you.

I do have a question.

One is just an observation that I know a lot of people have looked at this map that you gave us, which I really appreciate, I think does take into consideration everything we asked for.

So I really want to just kind of say that first, but that because it is a small map and because the lines are thick, it looks like there are trails everywhere.

And really, in real life, these trails would be like less than hair width going around this size of a property.

So these really are not gigantic trails right up next to each other.

It's just the way that it's printed.

That is a fair assessment.

In fact, I believe if they were shown to act to their actual scale, they would be invisible.

We couldn't see them.

If you look at the top right of the map, you can see the width of that is the Edmond Forest neighborhood in Albemarle County.

And you can see the actual width of the streets in the neighborhood in comparison to what

Those of us who need to see them appreciate that, but I just want to, I think it really is helpful to people to be reminded of that because otherwise it looks like everything is going to be trail and it's really not.

and I know that we want to make sure that we have the trails available for people to use before too long.

So I think as we discuss the timing for implementation for this, I do see that time is of the essence for that reason.

I guess I do have a question about process and procedure at this point because I know staff is asking for action tonight.

Well, I guess the action Mr. Daley is requesting is to approve the layout of these trails but nothing else.

The memo says, but what do you need from us in this meeting in terms of a motion?

Okay, we're responding to Council's very specific direction on this and bringing this back to you within the time frame.

We want to ensure that you are in a

We agree that we've met the conditions of the original resolution in December and that the plan looks reasonable and feasible.

We acknowledge that once we get out and actually start building, the trail may move a little bit to avoid one thing or another.

It may move from the distance from ETU along a longer corridor.

So that's what we're looking for is acceptance of the plan I suppose.

Okay.

Is there any further discussion or questions and we have a motion right on the table?

I'd like to say, you know, I think that there was a little bit of illusion and a public comment at the beginning to complexity.

In many cases, complexity is, I mean, elegance and simplicity are fabulous, but sometimes complexity is a sign of nuance and paying attention to many different stakeholders.

And in this case, the document that goes through, this is March 10th, 2017, it goes from A to V in terms of the various elements that staff has worked on, including a

a significant accommodation of Edom Forest and their concerns, lots of other elements and it seems to me that a tremendous amount of good work has gone.

Our park system is the envy of Virginia.

I mean we have wonderful parks and a lot of good work has gone into this plan as well and I think it'll continue to evolve.

We do have a non, as Galvin alluded, we have a, we are working to be

Sensitive and continue discussions at the staff level with our friends in Albemarle County about

about accommodating some of their concerns.

That's an ongoing discussion as well with them.

They have concerns about this whole project.

There's a legal dispute.

We're having a back and forth with them about how can we favor finding a legal resolution of the question of sort of dueling ordinances, which has come up.

And so we are

I believe engaged in a very constructive dialogue with our friends there which some of it has by needs happened in closed session because it touches on legal matters but I think I can say as a general matter that we favor a constructive legal resolution of the question of dueling ordinances but that is a parallel matter to us deciding to move forward on this plan as framed by staff if we decide to do that with the motion on the floor.

Yeah, I think that circumnavigates the issue quite well.

Yeah, it's three and a half minutes.

So I would like to just commend staff as well because I know five months ago we did give you this incredibly challenging charge.

which was to circumnavigate the whole body of water in a manner that allows for hikers to have their experience of being alone as hikers as well as multi-use trails.

And I just looked at the percentages and 58% of the trails are exclusively for hikers, 42% are shared use.

And again, I appreciate Councillor Szakos' observation that

The diagram is just that.

It's a representation of an approach, but it is not going to be the reality of the experience.

Those trails, you won't see them from each other most of the time.

But I do really appreciate.

This was quite a challenge.

I'd also like, a final note, we are passionately committed to water quality in the city of Charlottesville and on the city council and we would never, I think, take any action that would put any of our water supply, any risk for diminishment of water quality and we don't believe that this could or would and we care hugely about the quality of our water supply.

So, okay, any further

Questions?

Okay, so I think we're ready for a vote.

All right, all in favor for the motion?

Seconded.

Okay, carries three to two.

Okay, and that is the conclusion of our regular business.

Is there any other business from colleagues?

Okay, no other business.

Let's move to second matters by the public.

You can come up, state your name and your address.

You have three minutes.

Are you up?

Yeah, you got to come though.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Back in order, back in order.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I've come to you tonight to speak about... Name and address.

My part, pardon me.

Mason Pickett, Albemarle County.

I've come to you tonight to speak about lying.

I love that freedom wall.

I utilize it.

I'm extremely careful with the words I use.

People that know me know that about me.

I only write things that are factual.

I've had an incident lately where somebody disagreed with me.

Totally don't agree with that.

Let me reword that.

Their total right to disagree with me, understand that, agree with that.

I'm not afraid to take heat.

I've taken heat from a lot bigger than the young man and young lady that are giving it to me.

I'm going to give you an example.

I grew up in Leesburg, 25 years.

Then I grew up in McLean as an adult.

for 35.

Dick Cheney went to church with me.

Colin Powell went to church with me.

It was my hood.

I didn't go the way to go to their church.

We lived together.

When the war started, I didn't like it.

So I made several protest signs against Dick Cheney.

Half the CIA loved me.

Half the CIA hated me.

Just about equal with what Dick Cheney had because it was the same folks

So the gentleman and the young lady, small scale, until they do something that he, as low as he is, in my personal opinion, didn't do.

They lied.

That's a whole different ball game.

Something was written on the wall.

No.

Something was written on email that said I was a super white supremacist and a, help me with the word, misogynist?

Nailed it.

Not one I've ever really used.

People, some people on this panel know me a little.

Mayor, you know me a little less than those two.

The first meeting we ever had.

Do you remember where it was?

The Martin Luther King Day.

Remember what we talked about?

We talked about education.

I said I had two daughters.

It's a seven out

24 hour day, 7 day a week, 365 days per year, lifetime commitment to be a parent.

I didn't hear anything at that meeting about parenting.

I would have liked to have.

But that's not the point.

I am not a misogynist and I am not a super white supremacist.

I've had discussions with a couple other people here.

I think they know that about me.

They don't know me real well.

There's a lot of stuff you guys don't know about me.

I would like to see you.

I'm going to put you to the test.

I'm going to put you folks to the test.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

We can keep talking.

Thank you.

OK.

Anyone else?