City Council Meeting   1/22/2019

you

I

Music playing

Mm.

We'll start.

Call the meeting to order.

Dr. Bellamy.

Mr. Signer.

Here.

Here.

Mayor Walker, I have one acknowledgement that I'd like to make that was

that on January 14, 2019, officers LaTroy Durette and James Mooney were promoted to captain and officer Durette has dedicated more than 25 years of service to the department, holding the ranks of officer, sergeant, lieutenant.

He started as a police explorer during high school at age 16.

When he became an officer at age 21 and a sergeant at 28, he was the youngest hired for those positions at the time.

Officer Durrett has also led several units in the department, including traffic, SWAT team.

He's also one of only 25 black officers hired in department history.

Officer Mooney was born and raised in Shostel and joined the department in 1994.

He spent more than 15 years inside the Investigations Bureau, where he was promoted to sergeant.

He was promoted to lieutenant in 2016 and spent the last few years on evening shift.

Quote,

Tito and Jim exemplify the type of leaders that should be elevated within the Charlottesville Police Department, end of quote, said Chief Rochelle Brackney.

Quote, both are highly respected and trusted within the department and in the community, end of quote.

So this is just to congratulate the officers for their achievement and that we're very fortunate to have people like that in our Charlottesville City Police Department.

So early this evening, I make a motion that City Council is appointing the following to our boards and commissions.

Those are the only two, yeah.

Okay.

You were done with that.

So I made a motion, I think we have to second.

And we have to vote.

All right, it carries four to zero.

And then do we want to make that last announcement?

Earlier in an open session, but we didn't have everyone here, we moved to approved contract as presented for our chief of staff clerk of council.

And on January 28th, we will be welcoming Kena Thomas to our staff.

And I have just one quick I would like to for us to offer the Turner family a moment of silence.

Mr. Rick Turner, Dr. Turner, the former president of the NAACP lost his wife last week and

Thank you.

All right, so is there anyone here who would like to speak of any other topics that are on the consent agenda?

I am signed up to speak during public comment.

I can wait until then.

Yes, it's the public.

No problem.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't out of order, so thank you for the clarification.

Good evening, Ms. Mayor and members of council.

I'm Valerie Long.

and our firm represents the owner of land on Rugby Avenue that I spoke to you about at your earlier meeting this month that would be negatively impacted by the zoning text amendment that's identified as item N on the consent agenda and relates to dwelling unit designations.

Our client is the applicant under the Board of Zoning Appeals decision from November 15th and we would ask that you consider pulling this item from the consent agenda tonight so that you could consider

a potential exemption for the property in question from the proposed amendment.

We have no objections to that amendment if it's the desire of council to adopt it.

We just feel strongly that it would be equitable and reasonable under the circumstances and the extraordinary expenses and amount of time that our client has spent on its project

to consider a very limited exemption so that it will benefit from the decision that the city's own Board of Zoning Appeals made in November.

As I think I stated earlier this month, the city had a 30-day period and a legal right to appeal that decision to circuit court.

And having not done so, that decision is final and non-appealable.

So by moving forward with this zoning text amendment without an exemption,

It would prohibit our client from benefiting from its legal right from that benefit of that decision, which it has relied on now for over 60 days.

So I've been in communication with Mr. Blair about some suggested language.

I'd be happy to discuss it further.

I know there were some questions at the meeting in January about whether we'd filed a site plan or not.

I think you may remember Ms. Creasy confirmed that we had submitted one.

If I could, Mr. Murphy, you had asked a very good question about how the Sigma Chi fraternity house on Preston Avenue was handled several years ago.

I actually was involved in that application as well and can relay that in that application, density was not an issue because, again, fraternity houses are regulated by special use permit and not by density.

It was not an issue whether it was a dwelling unit or not.

It was a question of, did they comply?

Were they adding more beds than were already there or not?

and with the Sigma Chi renovation project, they were not adding any additional beds.

It was a question of intensity of use because it is a legal non-conforming use because it predates the zoning ordinance requirement for a special use permit.

The property in question is in the same situation.

It has existed long before the requirement for a special use permit existed, so it is a legal non-conforming use.

This project is not proposing to increase the amount of beds on that parcel.

Density is not an issue.

Nevertheless, all we're asking for is a very limited exemption so that our client can benefit from that Board of Zoning Appeals decision.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the consent agenda?

OK. You'll check that.

Thank you.

All right.

I think it's after Brian reads it.

OK, sorry.

That's right.

Thank you.

Yes.

consent agenda item a minutes from January 7th 2019 and January 11th 2019 item B in appropriation Meadow Creek Trail Bridge grant from VDOT $375,000 second of two readings item C in appropriation

to the 250 Bypass Greenbelt Trail Grant from VDOT, $500,000, second of two readings.

Item D in appropriation, information technology funding for Office 365 licenses, $53,774, second of two readings.

Item E in appropriation, grant for bicycle and pedestrian improvements at Monticello Avenue, Ridge Street, and Monticello Second Street, $547,730, first of two readings.

Item F in appropriation.

The Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS, HIV, $213,012, first of two readings.

Item G in appropriation, employment for temporary aid to needy families, $66,623.53, first of two readings.

Item H, a resolution, bridge ministry funding allocation, $17,400, first of one reading.

Item I, a resolution, funding transfer for form-based code contract amendment, $42,553, first of one reading.

Item J, an ordinance.

Release of stormwater detention facility easement in Seminole Square, North Wing, second of two readings.

Item K, an ordinance.

Underground utility easement to Dominion Energy at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, second of two readings.

Item L, ordinance.

Zoning text amendment to revise the definition of amusement centers and allowable zoning classifications, second of two readings.

Item M, an ordinance.

zoning text amendment for street designations in mixed-use zones, second of two readings.

Item N, an ordinance, zoning text amendment modifying the definition of dwelling unit, second of two readings, and item O, an ordinance.

Mayor Walker, I would like to pull item N, the ZTA, the zoning text amendment, modifying definition of dwelling unit.

Is there a second?

That's what I thought, that there was a second motion.

So I move we adapt the consent agenda minus item N, which will be discussed later in the agenda.

Second.

Thank you, Mayor Walker.

Tonight we do not have Ms. Carey here, but we'll reach... Hi, Ms. Carey.

And I'll certainly reach out to her directly.

She asked some questions at our last meeting about the kind of pedestrian travel, particularly at the intersection of

Ridge, McIntyre, Water, South Street.

And I've talked with the traffic engineer about that, also about some lighting that's going to be going into a bus stop.

And so I think that we have some answers, most notably just for the public.

I would say that the plans for that area take away two of what they call slip lanes right now, one by the

and the other by the federal courthouse and that is going to help to shorten some of these pathways for pedestrians and I believe there's a question about lighting that's going to be helpful

for getting folks from South Street to the bus stop at the west end of the mall, kind of below the federal courthouse, but before where the ice park is today.

And again, if there's more specifics, I'll make a call to Ms. Carey to do that follow up.

I want to note that at the last meeting, Ms. Kahn had requested

a meeting with the police chief.

It did happen three days after the meeting and Mr. Bowers and some other folks from the CRB had talked about the need for raw data from the police department and actually we've just revisited that topic and had a meeting this afternoon so I'm hopeful that we have some

We'll have a little more clarity on what the city can provide and We are bringing back to you tonight, of course the dwelling unit CTA Okay, thank you So next we have the first community matter section and We start with Leah Wiong

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor Walker and members of council.

My name is Lee Wian.

Yes.

I'm the associate director of the bridge line.

You received a copy of these comments earlier today from our executive director.

Over 8,200 adults live with brain injuries in the Thomas Jefferson Health District, and from these, over 1,100 live in Charlottesville alone.

The Bridge Line is a 501c3 nonprofit organization in Charlottesville and supports over 50 adults with brain injuries, the only organization providing these specific services in the city.

Each adult falls into the low-income group and depends on SSI, SSDI, workers' compensation payments, and the support of their families.

Community-based alternatives are a priority for institutional programs in mental health, intellectual disability, substance abuse, and aging.

But people with brain injuries fall through all the cracks due to the lack of appropriate community-based services in our area.

City of Charlottesville funding has supported two of our four programs over the past years and for which we are very grateful.

The first is our residential program.

This program fosters a family-like living arrangement where adults with brain injuries can live to the greatest degree possible as independent members of our general community.

The second program is where I work is at the Bridgeline Place.

This program is a community-based vocational program that allows its members to learn valuable work and social skills to achieve their vocational and independent living goals.

The current programmatic support provided by the City of Charlottesville ensures services to a vulnerable population that does not have access to any residential or community-based services supported by federal or state assistance because their disabilities fall outside the eligibility criteria for either developmental disability or chronic mental illness.

The potential to lose four to six percent of our annual revenue for these programs provided by city funding would dramatically impact our organization and the people that rely on our high quality services would ultimately suffer those consequences.

We would not be able to staff these programs adequately and consequently have to deny or reduce services to people with brain injury in the city of Charlottesville.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Ian McNett.

Ian McNett.

Good evening, counselors.

First of all, I want to say to everyone who serves our city at these meetings every week, I'm very grateful.

I know it's a marathon experience and there but for the grace of God go I. I'm here to make a very firm stand for the work

that's gone into Home to Hope peer navigators funding.

We all know that the number one thing that supports wellness for people who have had challenges in life, and certainly for people who have had the challenge of justice system involvement, the number one intervention that matters is employment.

For the city to commit yourself, heart and soul, and $405,000

and this program to actually be hosted under your leadership, sir.

This is making a statement that yes, we are going to go all in to achieve the goals of a healthy and safe city, of an inclusive community of self-sufficient residents.

There's just something qualitatively more powerful for you all to have this hosted in the city and for you all council members to vote yes.

Fully fund all three components of this.

Anyone who wants to stand up and join me in saying yes, we want people who have been involved with justice system involvement to have all of your city resources engaged in this project.

And I just want to give honor to Kaki Dimmick and Holly Lee who helped architect this and

I know there's a second reading.

I'm just cheering you all on.

And if you've got any questions, my agency will be able to support this initiative to a limited degree because we have funding from the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services so we can support you guys.

You're hopefully soon to be employees in this project such that

They can be fully trained in IPS supported employment, the national evidence-based practice.

The state's got that funding.

Our agency will step forward 100% to help come alongside you to do that.

Thank you very much for your time this evening.

And I know that there are challenges in the nonprofit sector in Charlottesville today.

I just wish that everyone would choose to go high

and to courageously face the challenges with mutual respect.

Thank you.

I apologize.

Oh.

No, you can come on up.

Sorry about that.

You were a number.

It's fine.

Well, Mayor Walker, Vice Mayor Hill, council members, thank you for your service, for your opportunity to speak with you tonight.

I'm John Knapsiger, Executive Director of Jefferson Area CHIP, the Children's Health Improvement Program.

On behalf of our board of directors and our chair, Valerie Palomont, I'd like to thank you for the strong investment that the city

has shown for our community's children and families through funding for CHIP and other community agencies.

We're extremely grateful for the priority that the city has put on early childhood services and want to make sure that the impact of these services is not lost during the evaluation of the ABRT funding process.

CHIP's voluntary program focuses on child and family health, child development, and financial stability for families partnering with parents during the most critical period of development for babies and young children.

In January 2017, we began our neighborhood outreach project based in offices near downtown, working with community partners and providing increased outreach to families in the city.

Last year, CHIP worked with 203 Charlottesville children from 129 partner families.

an increase of 9% over the previous year.

In just the first six months of FY19, we've worked with 175 children from 120 families, a 22% increase over the same period a year ago.

So we're seeing a significant increase in demand for CHIP's support from families in the city.

As you may know, CHIP started with the city's support in 1991 as a service of the Health Department in partnership with MACA.

We have been an independent agency and received support through ADBRT since 2008.

We partner closely with the Department of Social Services as well as the schools and the city pre-K program to make sure all CHIP families can apply for preschool on time and get enrolled.

City funding supports half of our Charlottesville families.

The loss of it would affect the well-being of over 100 pregnant moms and families with babies and young children at the time they need support the most.

After many years, the benefits of funding CHIP and other programs may become less visible, but they're very real.

While I don't know all the details of the proposed new process, I ask you to please consider the potential unintended consequences of these changes.

CHIP is a prevention program and the city has seen great benefits from long-term prevention efforts in terms of school readiness and outcomes for youth.

As nonprofits in a community, it's critically important that we listen to the families we partner with, that we get their input on services.

Thank you.

Mayor Walker, Councillors.

I am Melinda Bauman.

I live at 947 Locust Lane in Charlottesville.

I serve as the Vice President on the Board of Directors of SARA, the Sexual Assault Resource Agency.

SARA currently receives funding from the city to provide direct services and education in Charlottesville as well as the surrounding counties.

For the past 40 years, the SARA mission has been to eliminate sexual violence and its impact by providing education, advocacy and support to adults and children in every demographic.

Sarah provides direct service to those who have experienced sexual violence in any context and at any time.

We work with community partners such as Foothills Child Advocacy Center, Ready Kids, Victim Witness Assistance Programs, the Women's Initiative, and the Shelter for Help in Emergency.

If the City decides to focus its funding on only specific funding areas, it will be to the detriment of many local nonprofit agencies and the people they serve.

Any funding loss experienced by any area nonprofit will mean fewer services for the most vulnerable members of society.

Further, there will be a ripple effect throughout the community.

If Sara's community partners lose funding, Sara will suffer.

Likewise, a funding loss for Sara will negatively impact the community partners.

We are interdependent.

If the agency budget review team process needs revising, please have more transparency in setting the new decision-making framework.

I also ask that you actively engage nonprofits and community members who may be impacted by any ABRT's changes.

Please carefully consider the implications of any new funding model that reduces funding for local nonprofits and therefore hurts the people they exist to serve.

And so I just want to comment quickly, since we have a lot of people here from the nonprofit world.

This isn't the first time that this priority setting initiative has been suggested.

I have here a 2011 attempt by council and city staff

to do this.

And the same comments that we've heard in the emails and that we are hearing tonight about the impact on the nonprofit itself and then the ripple effect that it will have on the individuals that it serves.

What I'm not hearing is how

Do you feel you could serve the community better?

When I worked in nonprofit, I'm the only sitting council member who has worked in nonprofit.

I always worked from a place of working myself out of a position.

We have the current climate that we have in Charlottesville where we are reevaluating every aspect, especially in situations where the city spends almost matched dollars to the county, even though it's much smaller than the county.

There are fewer people to serve.

I would like for at least one nonprofit to have sent us an email to say, hey, these are some things that I could do differently.

These are some ways that I could partner with community.

the other community organizations differently.

These are some ways that duplication of service could happen differently.

This isn't the first time that it happens and I think when you come from a standpoint of not just have you set a mission and do you think you're reaching it but are your clients live showing that you're reaching your mission statement is the whole idea behind this.

So this is not a pointing fingers or a blame.

It's just how do we do this work best?

And how do we do it better than we are currently doing?

If we're talking about reform at every level and every system in our government, this is also one where we have to look at.

There are millions of dollars that are spent each year.

There are some localities where the city and taxpayer funds are not the primary source.

or not annually contributed to an organization.

Charlottesville has set the scene where that has been the storyline for many years and that's not necessarily the way it must be.

So maybe it continues.

You didn't get more information ahead of time because we weren't finished.

There were calls from outside of the community for the group that was put together, the ad hoc group, which is the most diverse group

of any city committee that I have walked into ever.

And there are people on it who are not there attempting to figure out how to serve themselves.

They are really trying to figure out how do we best do this work, understanding the value that the nonprofit world plays in this work,

How do we do it better?

So just for everyone else who comes up to speak, because there's a long list, I just want to say, since I'm the council member who initiated this change, we want to invest millions in programs and for nonprofits that are committed to

Council could have received all the information and decided to keep it, as they did in 2011, the same.

But we haven't received one email, and I did want to point that out, that talked about how things could look differently and how we could make this process a little better.

And for me, that sends some red flags.

I'm sure I'm the only member up here that it sends some red flags for, but I did want to share that.

Thank you, Mayor Walker and Councillors.

My name is Christine Nardi.

I'm the Executive Director of the Center for Nonprofit Excellence.

We're a regional resource center based in Charlottesville.

I am very happy to be up here speaking with you tonight, Mayor, in response to the comments that you just made.

I think I can speak for the 15 nonprofit representatives that are here tonight, that the nonprofit sector as a whole would be very, very happy to engage in a dialogue around how to better serve the community.

I think, first and foremost, the opportunity to engage in dialogue, a full kind of community dialogue hasn't happened yet, and look forward to the opportunity to have that happen, to engage a broad group of stakeholders, not just nonprofit representatives, but also the clients that they serve.

Secondly, I think one of the questions that has been raised by this process, and I think this is an important process, an important part of the process, to be able to flesh out some of the key questions and concerns to be able to resolve as the Council moves forward.

But one of the key questions that's been raised in our mind is what specifically is the goal of the Reformation of the ABRT process.

One of the challenges and the things that you've heard tonight with nonprofits coming in and speaking directly to the services that they provide, one of the challenges is that it's not entirely clear from the process so far what the specific goal is of council in making these changes.

One goal, and I think that's been articulated, is to be more strategic in the grant making process, which is a very laudable goal.

If you're moving towards that goal, what you're looking to do is marshal specific resources and work with nonprofits and other community stakeholders over a long period of time to achieve certain community objectives.

Very important, a lot of grant makers across the country, as you referenced, have been doing that and transitioning towards that.

the challenge and the unanswered question I think and the reason that you're getting specific comments tonight is the question of what's to happen to the kind of ongoing critical community services that nonprofits partner with the community to provide and if you're focusing on those ongoing critical nonprofits

who provided community services, who are the stakeholders to engage and what are the goals in continuing to provide that funding.

And so if there are two different goals for council, it would be helpful to better understand which of those goals is being focused on in terms of this process and what kind of stakeholder feedback you need in order to really best understand the impact of the changes that you're hoping to make.

The final thing that I'll say is that really nonprofits have stood alongside of local government for a number of years in order to partner to provide critical community services and seek to continue to do that, to continue to be positive stakeholders in the discussion, to continue to give their feedback about the expertise that they have from the work that they've done, and to continue to

provide critical community services in a way that works for everyone.

Thank you.

Valerie Long.

Hi, Elliott Harding of Charlottesville.

I'm coming to speak on behalf and support of the Home for Hope grant that's being discussed later and to the mayor's comments a little earlier about looking to get the best out of any program, whether it be a nonprofit or a purely governmental program.

I'm somebody, I've had immediate family members that have been incarcerated and re-entered in the past few years in Virginia.

I've been an employer of

a majority of the employees being reentry from federal and state systems.

And a few comments that I would just ask that the city manager consider when looking to start this program is to consider that this is not a department where you'll have executive authority on these people's lives, right?

You're not a probation officer.

You're not an OAR.

So something you're going to have to do is build a relationship with these people before they re-enter into the community.

And so I would ask that you work with ACRJ to get in early.

Maybe have somebody dedicated to a federal system, have somebody dedicated to the penitentiary system, have somebody dedicated to working with families of the incarcerated so that when people re-enter they have a bond already created so that they feel compelled to work with you.

Otherwise they're going to be making phone calls every day and the people want to get from out from under the government's thumb.

They want to get out from under it.

The most liberating thing is getting a letter in the mail saying you no longer have to deal with the government.

And so if you want to have a positive relationship with them and actually get it to work, get in there early, see what their job skills may be, see what things they might need early before they're out.

And so you can get that ball rolling as fast as possible.

Another thing is the community really is going to have to start promoting the employers of

people who are reentering because there's a huge stigma around people that are reentering into society.

We need to elevate the folks who are willing to take that risk and recognize the good in people and what they've been through and how they want to positively contribute.

And then finally, I want to reiterate that when a family member is removed from an immediate family, when a family member is removed, everybody gets incarcerated.

and so when they go and they visit those jails or those prisons throughout the Commonwealth or where have whatever and I know that the federal system is changing thankfully so that hopefully these people are incarcerated closer

work with the spouses, work with the children and provide some support there as well because now you go to a single income family or a no income family or a grandma income family or something of that nature and I would just ask that this program be fully funded but also have specific goals of hopefully getting employment because as the

Thank you.

Mr. Harding, I had a question, I'm sorry.

I'm just curious because I hear you talk about the role that the city will play in assuming that the funding amounts are all held constant.

Do you feel that we should be relying more on our community partners who have greater experience in doing this and have those relationships?

I think it would definitely be worth seeing what they do now, seeing how successful those things are, and to the mayor's point earlier, how successful are those things?

So you might have community partners that are already there and a part of that process, but are they achieving what they hope to be achieving?

And if not, what can they do better, and where can you step in to facilitate?

I don't think they can get into the jails the same way the city can, okay?

And that's a big thing.

Get in their early work with Superintendent Coomer.

I know that he's a good guy and he would want to do this type of a thing.

and letting the city get in early and say what type of jobs are you looking for, what type of jobs are out there.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ellen Osborn.

I live in the county, but I work in the city for literacy volunteers.

I want to thank you for working on the ABRT project.

We all know it can be improved.

I have a question as to whether or not what you see as problems and what us as administrators see as problems and what our clients see as problems are all the same thing, because I think we all see different aspects of it.

And if we work together, maybe we can get it straightened out.

Over the years we have begun to see ourselves as partners with the city in achieving your strategic goals.

Some of the language I've heard lately doesn't, makes me believe that you don't see us as partners.

Um, but I want to tell you that we have bought into your strategic plan for the last couple of years and we have been working on making our goals match your goals, making sure that, that we, we meet your criteria.

And if you don't see us as partners, you're going to break our hearts.

I also want to invite you to come visit our agencies.

Stop in.

Unannounced is fine.

Literacy volunteers, any of us that are here today, we invite you to come in and see for yourself, get your own opinion.

But thank you for working on this.

We agree that there are problems, and we would like to make sure we're all working on the same problem.

Good evening.

I'm Laura Allen.

I believe I've met some of you before.

Excuse me, I have a bit of a cold.

I'm from Generation 180 and Seville 100, but I'm here today as an individual resident who's very concerned about energy efficiency and the greenhouse gas implementation plan.

I want to make sure that you all are aware of the overlap in these issues between

issues of housing and job security and availability, as well as the affordability of housing.

With energy efficiency, if a home is not efficient, the burden on that family is significantly higher.

The cost of utilities is included in HUD's assessment of whether or not a home is affordable.

So if the cost of utilities is extremely high, like I know all of you, it is January.

My utility bills are very high.

And I know that there are services out there to help the community to get help with increasing the efficiency of their homes, but not everybody is aware of that.

It has been brought to my attention that there is a movement to get an outreach coordinator for LEAP.

They do programs that help make it more affordable to have energy efficiency measures brought to your home.

There are large segments of this community

are themselves not represented in that organization.

I'd like to see somebody who lives in that community work for that organization and have a path forward and get trained to be an assessor themselves.

I see this as an excellent opportunity for jobs.

The gentleman that was here a little bit earlier, there's a lot of great opportunities in construction

for home installation improvements and solar installations, job training programs where it's on the job, not, you know, take off or work, get child care and go to school.

I'm talking about on the job, get paid for your time training would be very meaningful to large segments of this community.

And also energy efficiency speaks to, I believe there was a gentleman here earlier,

Child healthcare, incidents of asthma and performance in school can also be affected by poor HVAC systems.

So these things really do reach into every corner of our community and it's very easy to say, oh well we don't want to set high standards for new buildings because we can't get them to build anyway.

You have to set those standards in the beginning because it triples down into every element.

So I wanted to just tie that all together and thank you for being here.

Take your job.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Cliff Hall.

Good evening.

I'm Cliff Hall.

I'm a Charlottesville resident.

And I just want to throw another name in the hat for renaming of Preston Avenue.

and I wanted to address the business side of it first.

All of the businesses on Preston Avenue should first have a limited liability corporation tag.

Secondly, they should file a 1099 EZ sole proprietorship to address the issue of overhead for the name change.

The name that I suggest is Garwin D. Berry.

Garwin D. Berry was a coach for 25 years at Charlottesville High School.

Garwin D. Berry was also a graduate of Burleigh High School.

He was a student at Lane High School, and they would not allow him to play football.

So he transferred to Burleigh.

Now in Deberry's 25-year history of coaching, he had an effect on no less than 2,500 student athletes.

So for renaming Preston Avenue, I'm going to put the name Garwin Deberry in that hat.

Hello, my name is Darrell Jones.

I'm an ex-offender but I represent a group called Believers and Achievers and I just found out about the thing about the money about the Superior Port Group and stuff like that and I think that would be a good idea because I've been dealing with this since 2011 working with reentry and stuff like that and there's a need

for, there's a lot of stuff that I can say that's going on, but I've been getting a lot of questions, people coming and asking me about reentry, and I remember we had a proclamation or something signed in city council about reentry, and the only thing I wanna know, when that proclamation was signed, it seemed like it was signed and we had a big glory moment then, and it seemed like it was put to the side.

So my question is, when the city council and the city council before they put something in place and we,

get it voted on, then when they gone, is it forgot about?

That's what I'm saying.

There was a whole lot of promises made on re-entry when certain people was running, they not on council no more, they was here with us and they made promises of speaking up and sticking up with us and they haven't, I haven't seen nothing until now, what's going on now.

So, I've been under a lot of pressure, parents coming to me asking me about what can we do about helping people in re-entry.

It's just not about, like that person said earlier, when you get locked up, it's just not about me.

It's about my parents, it's about the effect, it's a lot going on, so I think it's a time, I've been going to the re-entry council meeting at the jail.

So, I think that is something

That's a group.

I think that's a clique.

I'll be the only ex-offenders in that group.

So by you putting something like this in place, it would probably be a better answer to get more people like me to actually been through it.

What they got going on now with that re-entry council is not one ex-offender on there.

It's a bunch of agencies on there.

So it make me feel like, why am I here?

Because you already sitting there

I'm making a plan for what you want to do, but not any of them have experienced it.

So I would gladly, from the information I got on this new thing about the peer support and stuff like that, I think it would be a better, it would be something good.

It would be actually having people that actually been there, instead of people just sitting behind the office and got these half-paid bigger jobs and making decisions for people like us.

So that's the point that I want to get across.

OK. Go ahead.

Will you still have this?

OK.

Thank you.

My name is Rebecca Quinn, 1044 Street here in the city.

And I'm here to support your affirmative action to advance the lease for the Albemarle Charlottesville Historic Society.

I think it's important to keep the historic society in this historic building.

It's a public building and should continue to be accessible to the public, which would not happen if it was leased to a private entity.

As you've heard, or I think will hear, or see in the staff report, the Historic Society met the goals set by council, which is a pretty impressive accomplishment when you look at the list and where they were a year and a half or so ago.

I'm also urging everyone in the city and the county

to learn what the historic society has to offer.

It's a changed organization.

So much is happening.

So many programs are free and accessible.

I'm not going to spell out the web page.

Everyone can find that, Facebook.

Figure out what it has and join me.

I've attended a number of them, and I hope more of you will do the same.

And I'd like to add two things.

I always come up with more listening to other speakers.

About the speaker who talked about utilities,

Really big part of energy efficiency is water conservation.

You know, the city's done a lot with the toilet rebate, with the free faucets.

We need to do more.

We need to encourage all of our landlords, especially those who do have units in the more affordable range, to do their retrofits, low-flow faucets, low-flow toilets, and leak detection to keep those utility bills down.

And on reentry, I would say those of you who can

Learn about the Fountain Fund and contribute where you can.

It's a really important support helping those who are in re-entering.

Thank you.

I again just want to speak about affordable housing.

I just want to highlight for everyone in the community, I think something really exciting happened last week, the joint meeting between the Housing Advisory Committee and City Council.

For the first time, we are working towards a comprehensive funding strategy for affordable housing and

I think we're nearing a point where the city needs to firmly make a commitment so we know whether the city is actually committed to committing the level of money that's needed to solve our affordable housing crisis, which according to the Housing Advisory Committee is about 1,200 new affordable units and then about 3,000 additional units that will become affordable not through new construction but through other housing programs.

and the estimated cost for that over 15 years is about $150 million or $10 million a year.

which might sound like a scary amount, but $10 million a year is something the city is perfectly capable of doing if it's willing to make that commitment.

And I think there's a lot of anxiety in the community right now because we're just not sure whether the city is fully going to be committed to that level of funding for affordable housing, even if it might require higher taxes for wealthier residents.

or reorienting our priorities in the capital improvement project's budget and making investments in city staff and making investments across the board so our housing authority and city staff has the capacity to actually implement zoning reform.

And again, I think we're reaching the point where we are gonna find out whether the city's rhetorical commitments matches its fiscal commitments.

And I hope the city is willing to make that commitment and think specifically about that number of $10 million a year

and think specifically about investing in city staff so we can actually do zoning reform and whether our city council's gonna have the political will to follow through on all of that.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

No?

My name is Martez Talbert.

Recently, I just became a mentor under the tutelage of Mr. Lorenzo Collins.

Also, I'm a loan partner with the Fountain Fund.

Also, I'm under Ready Kids with the Real Dads program helping out.

So I do a lot of different things.

But mainly, I'm an ex-offender.

It's not many of us that can come up here and say what I just said.

It takes a lot.

Due diligence, hard work.

I mean, a lot.

I can talk forever about this.

But I'm here to encourage, support, and do whatever I can for Hope peer navigators.

That money, hmm.

It's just a fraction of what you can do to the lives of the individuals coming in and out of this system that we have in this country, but primarily here in Charlottesville.

I work with individuals coming straight out of jails, prisons, federal, what have you, halfway houses, everything.

And it seems like it's crazy that it's a pure navigator, because I feel like that's what I do on my own time, on my own dime.

Because I don't go to any organizations for money, help.

I do everything on my own.

Everything I want.

I got a friend of mine who's getting released this Thursday.

Been down four years.

No skills.

Have nothing.

He had a home plan, but they denied it.

So now he's just been thrown into the streets of Charlottesville.

He has nowhere to go.

No education.

But he called me.

And I'm going to be there for him.

And I'm going to be there as much as I can for him so he won't return back or do anything foolish.

Just to say that, just to say this, with the phone phone, I was the first partner.

the very first partner over two and a half years ago and been with them ever since.

Doing fundraisers, getting people from the neighborhoods all over just to come in and meet with Mr. Brown or Mr. Yates or even Mr. Heafey.

And it's been working out fine.

It's been going.

I think as of today, I have literally get 11 guys their license back.

What the hell was the phone for?

Just on my own.

Just on my own.

And it's not something I'm up here to gloat.

I'm not trying to get people to clap.

I wasn't even going to say nothing because I didn't really think.

These type of settings do anything besides just what I'm doing right here is just running my mouth.

Because I'm about action.

Because when I leave here, I'm going to a bowling alley to help other people out.

And I'm bringing kids through, people through to have a good time.

Because that's what I'm about.

Helping everybody.

Not just ex-offenders, not just you, everybody.

I've been through the system three times.

Still on probation to this day.

And it's kind of funny because my brochure with my face on it is at the probation officer right now, like in their front office for the fountain fund.

So when people get out, they see me.

They see that instant relationship to somebody they know from the neighborhood.

Because I'm from here, right here.

So with this $405,000, I know to a lot of people I might seem like a lot, but it's about building that with a young man said earlier, relationship.

before they get out.

So when they get out, they got things set up in place.

And like you was asking the gentleman about partnering up with everybody else and other people in the community as far as nonprofits and other agencies.

They're willing to go.

I've been talking to them.

I've been dealing with them.

They're willing to go.

And I wasn't even going to come here until they're behind this Hope for Home initiative and peer navigator funding.

So I'm here to just listen, take in what I can take in, and report back.

But I'm asking and encouraging, please, please fund this to the last cent.

is very well needed in this community.

I've been here for a while, and that second chance title doesn't even register in the community.

It might have been something good for y'all.

And like I said, I'm not here to get the claps or any type of applause, but that statement is, I'm just going to say it's false.

Because once individuals get out, it's probation, parole, District 9, and OAR.

And after that, that's it.

And when I got out in 05, and then again in 09, I see my probation officer twice.

And I'm not knocking the probation system, because I'm pretty sure they got an array of issues they got to deal with.

But I only see my probation officer twice in a year.

How can you build a relationship with somebody who just did three years, show them opportunities, show them all of this, when you only meet them twice?

That's not a relationship.

That's a way to go right back or make bad decisions.

And I'm not here to preach to you.

I'm not here to preach to anybody.

I'm just here to state facts, because I'm out here in it.

And like I said, I've got a friend that's getting released Thursday.

I've got another one that's getting released in March, another one that's getting released in May, another one that's getting released in June, another one in September.

And they've all been calling me weekly.

Not just them, their family, their loved ones, just to help them out and get on some type of support.

So I'm here to support this and I hope you get behind this and support this fully.

And if you need any type of help from me, contact me.

I can leave my email, my number, and everything else, because like I said, I'm just one person, but I'm like an octopus.

I stretch out to a lot of different agencies and different people.

So I'm just one man, but like I said, if this gets passed and this gets funded, I don't have to be one to navigate it, but I will definitely be involved with somebody.

So I'm just here to say that.

Thank you.

I'm going to take a couple of minutes and just thank the people who are working on the streets, grassroots up, coming for the home to hope.

It's something that I think the city has needed for a long time.

Second chance has been a joke.

You know, I can't tell you how many times I've heard a young man say, if I can't get a job or I can't find a place to stay, I'm going to go back to doing what I know how to do.

And that just breaks my heart because these are people that

want in their mind to not go down that same road.

They see that there's a different way to live their life and we have put so many barriers on folks as a society that if Charlottesville is fully committed to Home to Hope and peer navigation, that's where it is, it's network, it's relationship, it's not from a bureaucrat down, it's from these gentlemen that have talked up and that's how you reach back and you bring

people forward and that you are seriously, I mean, 400,000?

Hell, put half a million in it.

Put a million in it.

You know, why stop?

Make it really something to be proud of here in this city and something that the next generation, because if you don't start it at the front end, you know, we're going to be dealing with it at the back end and that's not where you want to be.

You want to be forward thinking.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

We have one more slot.

Good evening, I'm Kaki Dimick, Acting Assistant City Manager.

On November 14th, City Council held a work session on Second Class City, I mean Second Chance City, so sorry, and the re-entry efforts that have been taking place to date.

We had a wide variety of presentations, but a strong emphasis on peer support and peer navigation that evening.

from a number of different agencies with a number of different initiatives.

At the end of that work session, Council requested that I come back to this group in January with a proposal about how to expand the community's capacity

to provide peer navigation services.

And what is before you is such a proposal with three components, the first of which would be a GO peer support program, which would be designed to train 10 to 15 participants in providing effective peer support services, which would provide workplace readiness skills, computer literacy skills, some skills of helping like boundary setting, those kinds of things.

and then also a RAP facilitator credential which stands for Wellness Recovery Action Planning which is an evidence-based program for folks primarily with mild to moderate mental health issues but also has been used effectively around housing issues and re-entry issues in other locations.

and then also a first step towards getting certified in the peer support specialist credential.

So there's a formal training that starts that process and then there is a, I think I might get the numbers wrong, 500 hours of supervised services and then after that you can sit for a state exam and become credentialed as a nationally certified peer support specialist.

And so we imagine that to be about a six week program.

And it would be really amazing if we could pull it off this year because there's a grant that the Office of Economic Development has that would reimburse up to 85% of the cost per participant in that program.

So the cost here is for the fully loaded cost without the reimbursement, so it could be substantially less than the proposed $30,000.

The second component that we're proposing is to establish a home to hope peer navigation unit which would be five full-time staff who would be focused on providing peer support and peer navigation to folks returning home from jail or prison with an emphasis on those folks who are returning home who have returned home in the last 24 months with a

Strong preference for those who are returning home in the last 90 days, which is what presents the highest risk for those folks returning to community.

Peer Navigators would be focused on doing some practical things, like obtaining ID, helping folks get connected to work, to social services, to pro-social environments, sources of informal support in their community, maybe working with families, as I heard a comment earlier.

and we're proposing that this is a two-year pilot to really assess how to deliver these kinds of services, but also what the full scope of the need of this particular subpopulation is.

$275,000 would pay for five full-time staff.

The third component would be flexible funding, about $100,000 that would be used, actually not dedicated just to the peer support,

For one year.

I have a question.

So the two primary indicators would be a reduction in probation violations for the folks who are getting services and then a reduction in the number of days in jail.

So it's possible that we should also look at recidivism about rearrests.

That gets a little bit more complicated, but certainly would be something we would be keeping track of.

I'm not certain I would call that a

My hope that we would let the peer navigators along with the individuals that they are serving define what success is for individuals who are coming home or have been home.

And also, even though the 24 months

If there are individuals outside of that, especially for the flexible funding outside of that time period and even clients of other organizations who need funding for something, I would hope that part of the discussion that they would be able to access

you know, access that funding stream also.

It's hard to limit, and we had this, you know, discussion, but it's hard to limit, you know, this to individuals who have only been out, you know, 24 months when there are people who this program wasn't available to who may need, you know, some service but definitely know what the, you know, priority is, which is just based off of the data, Neil Goodlow's data.

about, you know, when you can affect change, you know, within what time period, but also wanting us to be flexible in understanding that individuals outside of those time frames may, you know, need service that the peer navigators can decide.

And when looking at this and defining it, I think, you know, the traditional ways of defining, you know, success, we need to, you know, make sure that we don't try to fall into

And that's certainly a valid point.

And I just also have got a follow-up question.

And it might be related to Holly.

And given that there is a training component through the GO program,

is there a possibility that the reentry community that we serve could then actually kind of be even, I don't know if the word is favored status, but then primed and prepared to go into our other growing opportunity training programs?

Because I know that in the past, there was always that challenge of not having the wraparound services you needed for some of our more challenged

recipients and that was something that came out of the growing opportunity report that re-entry is a huge barrier to not necessarily getting a job but sustaining one.

I definitely see this as an opportunity to expand upon individuals' opportunity to be in GO training programs.

You know, initially we'll start with training, having the training program for the individuals who have become peers, right?

And then those people will be working with individuals who have been, you know, are back in our community now and we want to place them into employment and obviously they'll need the skills and training.

So we would love to have them in GO programs.

I mean, I see lots of opportunities.

About 75% of individuals who are in our GO programs have criminal history, some form of criminal history.

And that is about the same percentage of the number of individuals we serve at the downtown job center.

So about 75% of the people who come through the downtown job center have had some interactions with the criminal justice system themselves.

Great, thank you.

First, I just also want to thank you both.

Obviously, we had this work session.

It wasn't that long ago.

And sometimes we come out, we say stuff, and then it's just like, oh, and hear it magically.

So thank you for the work you put in in a relatively short period of time to kind of respond.

Yes.

But I do want to ask, I see the community engagement that you've met with other service providers and community members and folks among the reentry council in pulling this together and kind of going back to the question that I asked.

I don't know if anyone, if you're watching, but someone that came up and spoke.

you know this is kind of committing the city to being that employer and what was their feedback on on where this should fall because obviously with the GO program I see that's certainly something that we do often and they've done for a number of areas and the flexible funds you know is covering a much broader scope but recognizing that some service providers are largely doing this work and are we really do we really have the capacity I don't mean that sure we can hire but are we are we gonna be the best to serve this population if we're the ones overseeing and I'm just kind of curious a your perspective as well as what

So there were two methods that we sort of talked about with providers.

One is those folks who have taken the risks associated with expanding their peer support programs on their own, with their own, sort of on their own initiatives, either focusing on folks with mental health issues or folks who are homeless or people who are coming home from jail or prison.

And so there was a sense that this Home to Hope program could

Actually increase the capacity of all the people who are already doing the work.

Like increase a little bit here and a little bit there, a little bit at the jail, a little bit at OAR, or a little bit at On Our Own, or a little bit at Partners for Mental Health.

And then the alternative would be to place in a community setting, in a place where they're already doing peer support, like On Our Own or some place like that, or a partner for mental health.

where peer support is a key tenant of what they're already providing.

And so I can certainly see benefits and merits to both.

I do think that historically I've been thinking about the city's role as being one that improves community capacity to deliver as opposed to delivers ourselves and so there's some tension there.

I've acknowledged that I'm a little bit of a control freak, so I like the idea of having some control over how this gets implemented within the city.

But I also worry about what happens five years from now in terms of whether the unit gets truly institutionalized in the city or not.

Can I ask two questions?

First of all, it was obviously the work session.

I think there's a tremendous amount of work and thought that's gone into this and staff and then the elected officials here.

And I think the stories that we heard are extremely powerful and this is equity lens type programming and I really appreciate that a lot.

And especially looking at best practices and just a lot of the dynamics of the city.

So one question just on this that I have is, is there, I just don't know the answer to this question, do you, is a dollar better put to use in a non-profit than in the city because you have to pay benefits, you have to pay that whole package on top?

I don't, is it less or more in a non-profit?

Is it not one size fits all?

Like because a city, when they, that's one of the reasons sometimes we go with contractors or with contracts is because you don't have to, you just pay pure service and you don't have to

And so to answer both of those questions, I think that's part of the value in it.

What we're seeing and what we'll be able to say to other companies when we're having this conversation about hiring individuals who have past criminal histories is that the city is making the commitment to the city has an entire unit of individuals.

who it's supervised by and the other employees are individuals who have you know criminal records and you know in their past but that doesn't prevent them from moving forward and so if you're talking to other companies about the need to hire and the benefit of that us being able to say that we have made that commitment I think will speak volumes and also

People deserve to have full, you know, benefit packages.

So we had that conversation, too.

So not just, you know, hired for a position, but hired, full benefits, able to, you know, start, you know, working on retirement.

For some individuals, it'll probably be the first time that they will be, you know, having that conversation.

And it's a conversation that we need to take to other

you know companies and other large employers in the area and I think us making that commitment is you know is going to speak volumes so we got the email from on our own and I actually you know called and had a conversation with

Erin today because I got the email early enough and just tried to explain.

It's not that we don't think that you could do a great job having the peer navigators house with you.

I just think it tells a story that we need to tell in this.

Thank you.

I have one other question.

This goes to Mr. Murphy also.

So this is going to sound like awfully nitpicky.

I just want to think about this, how it fits into the, as a precedent and with the budget cycle.

So we established the equity fund out of the surplus last two years ago, or a year and a half ago.

and that's where a large part of this would come from.

I just want to think about and I'm going to support this and I just want to address it because there could be a lot of mid-course program ideas that come up.

So what we're doing here is we're funding a really good equity related program off the budget cycle and we're making a decision

Ad-hoc during the course of the year to spend $400,000 on a really worthwhile program.

If we were to do that all the time, then we would, if we were to have that be the logic with say a couple dozen really good ideas that were equity-driven that came up

during, you know, in May, June, July, August, we would, we'd move away from the whole way that the government is set up.

So I think we need a limiting principle here.

My limiting principle is to say we establish an equity fund.

This is a heavily equity driven program.

It's very important to

you know presumably a majority of the council but we I want to raise that because we can't set a precedent where we where we just start you know dozens of times a year being like let's fund this let's look at this let's look at this because that's why we have a budget this once a year that's why we weigh things against one another we don't establish equity funds ad hoc and put a million dollars here a million dollars there we do it all at once so that we can

put everything together into the same budget.

And we don't want to not do that unless we wanted to establish a different form of government.

So I think there's a couple questions in there.

I'll try and unpack it.

You know, the council has been concerned in the past about mid-year asks and had previously set standards at $10,000, reconsidered that in this past year.

in order to be able to fund some projects that were a little bit bigger and I think that preceded maybe an allocation to the housing authority for their rehab program where there are training residents.

With regard to this particular ask,

I think there's a number of different ways to go on it.

Focusing on the solutions would say I would argue that you do one of two things.

You either make the entire allocation out of the equity fund as requested.

in this agenda item and then realize during the March budget process that maybe you want to reload in some way the dollars that are in the equity fund so that you have the flexibility for future projects.

or the alternative is to say look you know it's January and if we get to work on writing position descriptions tomorrow we're not going to have anybody on board till you know March 1st or April 1st and so all we need to do is appropriate a quarter of this money

and City Manager put this into the 20 budget so that it is actually an operating cost.

Either way, we need to think about in the 20 budget that there is some amount of operating cost.

Either a quarter in the 20 budget that needs to get added in or all of it.

That sounds like

a good idea that we would get it started from the equity fund, but then put it into the budget just for parity with lots of other really important programs.

Because if we're reloading, then the equity fund becomes a council strategic priorities fund just a lot bigger, and then you are setting the expectation that

Council on a frequent basis is going to deal with requests and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the equity fund and that's future councils are going to be working on that.

It just distributes that really important budget work over the whole year rather than having all these things in the same conversation.

It just seems

It just seems like that's, again, the reason why we have pilots.

The pilot is to test out the program and the theory.

And you monitor the practice.

And then when you see how well it works, or not, but I have a feeling this will work well,

We've been trying to get something like this off the ground for the last six years.

Then it becomes institutionalized.

And then you decide that this is going to be a standing office of equity out of the city manager's office.

And other cities have done an office of equity.

Richmond is one of them.

and there could be other elements rolled into that office of equity.

But that's also a challenge and discussion for the future city manager.

Yeah.

And I think that, you know, if it's the second option where we, you know, make a reinvestment into the equity fund and a larger investment.

But this is something that we should have been making the investment.

into so I think you know just funding a portion of this versus looking at the equity fund during the budget cycle I think sets the wrong you know it sends the wrong message I think we need to make sure that people understand that we are you know committed

In terms of our timing, we imagine that we would try to seek to hire from within the pool of folks who attended the GOES peer support program.

So we would not start immediately with job descriptions or postings.

We would start with the training.

And so it is entirely conceivable that we would accomplish the training between now and June 30th to take advantage of the reimbursement money, but that we wouldn't be hiring until July 1 into the new fiscal year in any case.

With all due respect, I just want to respond to that point because I think it's an important one, which is that the idea that if we were to just

It would basically be an accounting mechanism, but it would be a decision where we'd say we're doing this.

Maybe there could be a contribution from the equity fund back into the budget, but then this would go into the regular budget.

To say that things that are in the regular budget have less status than something that we would vote for here, I think.

makes, and it's something I've grappled with the last three years, is we do a tremendous amount of incredibly progressive programming within the regular budget.

The GO programs are one of them.

But because they're all together and you have many dozens, the Affordable Housing Program, they're all within the regular budget, it's hard for the public sometimes to know how much progressive stuff we're doing because it's hard in the media, it's hard to get it reported on and get it, and so if we say the only way for a program to get

The status is to have a separate vote on it in a separate council meeting, which is one way of interpreting what I just heard.

I'm worried about that.

I think that we ought to have stuff.

There ought to be dignity and value if it's in the regular budget.

And we ought to have all this incredible programming we do be celebrated.

in that budget process.

So I just want to note that.

Actually though, if I may, this is

This is demonstrating to me, you know, it's taken us about five years, four years to build a robust growing opportunity program.

And finally, it has reached maturity and has got a breadth and depth of understanding expertise with its staff that we've been investing in to branch out into this new area that will then also expand our ability to connect the people with highest need

to the job training programs that we have been trying so hard to populate and use to service the needs of the most challenged of our community.

So to me, this is like a missing link, really.

And I'm glad we haven't been waiting too long to find the missing link.

And again, I remember the,

The reentry summit that was sponsored by former counselor Holly Edwards.

Yeah.

So these were some of the ideas from that.

And we've been inching along.

the growing opportunity report itself was related to that effort.

But this is really something tangible.

And we had the re-bricking of the mall, which was kind of a piecemeal approach to hiring individuals coming out of prison and trying to get their feet on the ground.

It wasn't something that we sustained.

So I think this has got a lot more potential to become a real solid piece of our government programming.

But it needs to start somehow.

At the last council meeting, the ABRT review work group submitted a recommendation to establish a priority setting commission which would then

which would then establish review of prescribed but not limited to a prescribed set of data points in the community and then identify specific priorities that would then

inform how the agency budget review team money gets spent.

During that conversation, council asked to revise the memo with additional information about where the work group was headed in terms of revision of the ABRT process itself, which would then be informed by the priority setting commission.

and then also to clarify some items in the resolution and most particularly the composition, the proposed composition of the priority setting commission.

So the memo contains the four primary focuses that the ABRT work group had identified that

split the funding pool into four specific pools.

One would be a capacity building grant which would be used to improve organizational capacity and sustainability for nonprofits with annual operating budgets of less than $350,000 that address the city's strategic goals.

In addition, the funds would be used for strategic planning, data collection, evaluation tools and associated activities, financial development and sustainability.

or Leadership Development Training.

Those grants would be up to $10,000.

The capacity building grants were a recognition of the work group that there were a number of times in which council was asked at the end of the ABRT process to fund a nonprofit that was struggling and unable to pay for something that would otherwise make them eligible for the ABRT money in a more traditional way.

Startup funds to start a program critical to the city's priority areas.

So these startup funds would only be used for those priority areas that were identified by a priority setting commission.

Eligibility would be for those non-profits who are less than three years old and they could have their own 501c3 status or they could be using fiscal agency from another non-profit.

That they would be used to develop programming that was specific to the city's priority funding areas only.

and that those grants would be up to $10,000.

A pool of matching funds would be available, recognizing that a number of nonprofits seek support from the city as a demonstration of the city's approval or support of their overall activities in order to make themselves eligible for a larger state, federal or private foundation grant.

Those grants would be generally expected to be below $5,000 though the pool is intended to be flexible to match particularly if a grant proposal or requirement seeks that you have to have 10% of your grant overall number or something like that that's matched by your local government.

We wouldn't want to exclude those non-profits from applying.

to the matching pool.

And finally, the largest pool would be the programmatic support pool, which would be available for services that meaningfully address the identified funding priority areas to be eligible for non-profits, and that it would be available specifically for programmatic support.

And we anticipate that the work group used the phrase enough money to actually make a difference.

And so as opposed to being smaller grants of 10 to 30 or $40,000, these would be several hundred thousand dollars.

and they would be focused solely on those funding priority areas identified by a priority setting commission.

The priority setting commissions composition is proposed as two community members, two members with professional data analysis experience including a background in economics or social science, public policy or something similar.

There was a lot of conversation in the work group about being able to understand and truly use data and data points to make decisions and how important that was to both

to support the work group with training, but also have some expertise on that.

Two members with experience in large quasi-governmental non-profits like Region 10 or Java or something similar, two members with experience in mid-sized non-profits, which is probably the vast majority,

and two members with experience in grassroots nonprofits.

There was a fair amount of conversation in the work group that grassroots nonprofits found the ABRT process to be one with too many barriers and largely inaccessible and so we want to make sure that the work group

that the priority setting commission includes folks with that kind of experience.

Um, questions?

So I think at this point, we have this resolution in front of us.

And I can honestly say that this is probably one of the top three topics that I've gotten outreach from the community.

It's not just the nonprofit community, but the clients they serve, as well as even talking to other members of the work group.

And first and foremost, I just want to acknowledge and appreciate all the time and energy that's come from this work group and the effort that they've come to kind of set what I would consider kind of a foundational start

to us getting there but I think that we are at kind of a critical juncture in terms of the work group has gotten us to this point and I'm again really appreciative of that time but what is it going to take then to get us through to the end where we have a process that is sustainable and I think we're at a point where we certainly need to be engaging other stakeholders in the process and I know that's been talked about with the work group and so I think that is for both the process and how we finish the process and making sure that we have council's broad support for that

as well as how are we going to address the priority setting and in what order are those things going to happen.

I think there's still, even in my own mind as a person who's even sat in on this, I'm still not clear on what is the perfect step function that we should take to get there because I think all of our goals is to get to a place where we can get behind a process that's going to really deliver an impactful way on our community and I think we all have that in mind.

I just wanted to, as a person who sat on this workgroup and just kind of seeing where we're at

and many of the voices that I've heard from a number of perspectives.

I do feel like we have to kind of rethink where we go from here to get to that end line.

And I hope that there certainly are members of that work group that want to be partners in that and continue that work.

But it's clear that even some of the feedback on just some things that we just need more input on to kind of get there.

I'm interested in us having a conversation around

I guess, so this is just open-ended comment.

I don't really have a question.

Just discussion.

Again, thank you for

presenting us with almost like a working paper that begins to give the rest of us an idea of where the working group has been going and what they've been discussing.

And so I'm very grateful to you, Ms. Dimmick, and I'm very grateful to the mayor and the work group and vice mayor.

I do feel, though, in the last four or five days listening to the comments from the community,

really digging into some of the history, the reviews and the revisions of the ABRT process has been going on for the last 30 years.

So this is not anything new revisiting the purpose and the function of the ABRT, but I'm not clear reading this particular resolution what the rationale and the charge of the commission will be.

And because of that, I don't feel at this juncture

that I could vote for this resolution as it's written.

Again, I want to reiterate that I applaud the work groups' efforts to support and build capacity for new nonprofit groups so that we might have a better alignment with our strategic goals.

I think that work is actually foundational.

But that work that was in the staff memo is not embedded in the resolution.

So if they're out of sync a little bit, you've got to make sure that that's a kernel of the job of the commission.

I would think that they would be building on the work of the work group.

The resolution, as it's written, doesn't clarify whether or not the nonprofit groups that have been providing the vital services to residents in partnership with the city and the county.

for decades, that there will be continued funding.

So can I just, because there is a lot of anxiety surrounding that and even back to this 2011 report, which I think its foundation started in 2009.

And it talks about that the, you know, the background, it says that the Charles Albemarle Commission on Children and Families and its predecessor, the Charles Albemarle Commission on Youth has managed the agency budget review since the 80s.

along with the county.

Over the years the process has evolved most significantly with the move to an outcome measurement based application in 2001 and an introduction of the objective point based evaluation rubric in 2004.

And then if you go through here, the same comments that we're hearing now tonight are some of the same comments that these student groups along with steering committee members who

were from, we have, you know, Child Youth and Family Services Executive Director, someone, Jackie Bright, there's someone from the Shalls for Albemarle Visitors Bureau, OAR is here, Virginia Foundation of Humanities, the city, the ABERT,

City staff, two members, Ryan, both Ryan and Gretchen, someone from the Virginia Film Festival, a citizen member, Jabba,

Festival of the Photograph, United Way, we heard from John earlier, Abundant Life, Boys and Girls Club, PHA, the University of Virginia professor whose students did the research, Region 10.

There's an Albemarle County member and staff member from the Free Clinic.

and so even when this process that was the initial numbers were

agencies nonprofit agencies on board there were still concerns about changing the funding process and so what I would ask for us to look at is what are our ultimate goals so we can continue funding the way we have funded we can set up a board and we can have the

some of the same individuals because the names that are on this list are some of the same individuals who are here eight years, eight years later but I think it's a you know for me looking at this and being someone who's worked for several nonprofits in the area

If we are thinking about reform in all areas and it's not just about taking anything away, it's what does true partnership look like with the community.

And part of the discussions that have been happening in the work group are about how to make the individuals that are served

not seeing that nonprofits because I've been reading the same emails that you've been reading

don't think that that is the focus, but how to truly make sure that there's a chance for the dollars that you allocate every year are having the most impact.

And that's what this hopefully is about.

And even if you change the way funding is allocated, being able to foster organizations to be able to foster

partnerships and show and be able to show the impact that they are having on the community.

And if I can just kind of continue my thought, if I may.

Thank you very much.

Because, yeah, we all know that change is something that your first reaction is to push back against.

I think right now we're trying to come up with a process that is more open and transparent.

And I do want to suggest that this might be a good point in time where we do shift gears.

And in order to make the whole council part of this process,

We create the commission, but that commission then uses the work of the work group as its foundation, but it expands its mission and it begins to be kind of the both

And that's what needs to be articulated.

Is it only setting priorities, but is it then moving into creating the new review structure?

Is it then getting into how do you evaluate impacts?

Is it getting into other elements that ultimately needs to be part of what the work of a commission would be?

And so I have some fundamental questions.

It's clear that the council will appoint this commission.

but is the work group going to be in parallel or continuing with it?

I would hope that we have one commission and maybe members of the work group could become part of that commission but at this point, the whole council then would be involved with appointing that commission and I think at that point, it's important to be aware of and I just, Ryan Davidson gave us the information recently that this is about 1.2% of the operating budget.

It's about two to three million dollars worth of public money

It's important that the whole council weigh in on who's on the commission.

So I think that, and that's not clear in the resolution as written,

whether the commission is in parallel, is it ad hoc, is it standing, is the commission got one deliverable and that's a report to us on how to actually change the whole process using the new criteria as a fundamental core but then having a much more fuller engagement process with the entire community and the stakeholders.

So all of that is not

it's not clear to me in the way this current resolution is written.

And I was hoping that tonight what we could do is ask this to come back in a month and we give direction to Ms. Dimmick through our questions.

What do we want that resolution to answer?

And I think all of us in agreement we want to pursue an evaluation and revision to the process.

But we want it to be open, transparent, and inclusive of both stakeholders as well as people that are benefiting from the program.

And I would like to be able to.

And I just feel as a work group, we're kind of at a point where I'm just trying to understand how far this specific group wants to go beyond where we are today.

So because this is so important, we just need to get this done.

Again, as I said, you're in the work group.

CATEC's in the work group.

Ryan, another staff member.

The issues that are coming up with how this work group was selected is because that I am at the foundation of that.

I don't agree with that.

That's fine.

But that's the issue.

That's not important.

I mean, again, I will say for the last time that it's the most diverse committee that any of us enter.

Would you disagree?

No.

Madam Mayor, may I make a comment?

So I want to, I guess, add a couple of questions to this.

And just a couple of responses.

So the prior statements about anonymous on council having non-profit experience or having work for non-profits.

It's not true, I've worked for non-profits and I chaired the Emergency Food Bank which became the Emergency Food Network here in Charlottesville for three years which is a $300,000 annual budget which doesn't get city funds but it's part of, it's in the CNE universe and

My major question here is I don't know what the impetus is.

There's a lot of general statements about an impetus or reason and what I heard before in the mayor's discussion I really disagreed with.

This idea that non-profits should come to us ad hoc and prove their worth now.

and should be communicating with us.

That's what the ABRT process already does because you have to file an application every year and show and be interviewed and meet metrics and be examined pretty rigorously.

And I remember in neon lights when we made the decision to take out the municipal bands funding because they rank very low.

The African American Teaching Fellows didn't receive funding.

We've been through this, and we have an existing process, so I still don't know what the actual problem is.

I've heard abstractions, but I don't know.

And I know that the county, when they were approached about this, said, no, we're not interested.

And that's a whole other problem here.

So to me, if there's a discussion about reform, which is a perfectly fine thing to have, we have the honest, real discussion about what are we

and I would want a majority of council to subscribe with what the reasons for reform are and I didn't agree with that one that I just heard there.

I think that we have a process now where we force, I understand the need for strategy, for a more selective strategy.

We want three things rather than 15 but I don't know if that's right either because when we do 15 we have a very dozens of partners who work with us on a whole range of things including the arts and including all kinds of other priorities.

If we need to change it, I think we need to have a real discussion with the stakeholders.

That would be a work session.

What I would propose is we sit down and we work with, we chew it over for a couple of hours.

And we have all of the real problems brought to us and we really have an honest discussion about them.

And we see is there a majority of council who really is like, yes, set this boat on sale.

I haven't heard that problem yet.

So I'm not, I can't subscribe to general reform without knowing exactly what it is that we're, so that's where I am on this.

So just in general to the question of should the system be studied again, right?

I feel like it's clear that council has had questions over the many years that I've served the ABRT about some of the outcomes.

And in fact, the realignment that happened several years ago maybe didn't always enjoy the full support of council because it prescribed some reductions

that folks didn't always want to then uphold in the system.

That said, I think that there is staff- Even in that, those words, realignment, I don't know what that means.

What are the specific issues that prior councils had?

I literally- Sure.

I would say the previous council would say, you know, when somebody comes to us and they have a score, we don't know how defensible that is, right?

Nonprofits would say, you know, I'm not sure why we got a three or instead of a four on this matrix.

Staff would say, me principally among them, if we're gonna be about outcome measurement,

then we should prescribe what are the needles we're trying to move as a city and those are the things that people should respond to.

And I think in some ways this group is looking at some of those same issues.

We have often said in the sheet that qualifies people before you can even apply, have you been in existence for two years?

That's been a common complaint, like how do you get good ideas started?

How do you seed ideas?

So I think there's an effort by this group to address many of those things.

Whether they're all the right things, I don't know that we know that yet.

The next step to me is for us as a city and you all to endorse that we need to decide what are your funding priorities from this sector.

And that really is independent of, in my way of thinking, what you think of the work product of the group that the mayor and vice mayor have been a part of.

Because the next step is you to say, what should we measure?

And if we do that, then there's a step beyond that where somebody addresses some of the things that Ms. Galvin talked about, which is, OK, let's do a crosswalk now.

We said these are things we want to measure.

There was a recommendation from a group about a new process idea.

What would the impact of that be on our current funding?

Does that make sense to us?

Because at the end of the day, even the work that this group has done won't tell us yet what the tool is and the application process.

And if council and the community don't have confidence in that,

All you will have is the same issues that we've always had, which is people lobbying that we didn't get it right.

So the most important thing at the end of the day is to have a process and an instrument for assessing whatever those impacts are that everybody has confidence in.

And that reform, I think, has been clear to council and ABRT members, staff members, and the nonprofits for a long time.

So I think what you're being asked to do tonight

may need some more clarification or to satisfy Ms. Galvin because I think when you start a group it's really important to have the right charge.

I think you've had enough commissions and work groups that you know that.

And so if more detail is needed, we can do that in February.

But there's no doubt in my mind that

You need to keep looking at ABRT and that you should look at what the priorities are next.

I think that you're at a stage where you're going to need to seriously contemplate that you're not going to get this done by a May-June time frame and impact

And I think there's broad support for the foundation that has been set here to be what's built upon.

But I know I'm very interested in hearing from the broader community on the work that's been done because I think there's just certain limits to what a smaller group in the room can handle.

Some tactical questions kind of came our way of how did you come up with one of these parameters.

and there was some real examples as to why that wasn't going to work.

That's just where I think we've kind of hit our limit as a group together.

Do we feel

Do my colleagues on council feel that the report from 2011, if we are to continue studying this, that however we decide to continue studying, because it seems like that's what I'm hearing you all want, are we going to continue looking at this in some capacity?

I don't think anyone agrees this is a final process that's been developed.

We're kind of at a midpoint and we're trying to determine how do we get to the finish line most effectively.

It's not that we're saying more studying.

I think at this point, if I can make a recommendation, maybe it'll come out as a recommendation.

So what I thought would happen moving forward would be that the work group, the commission would do its work to look at potential priorities.

We would have those two groups and a work session type format

with Council would come together and discuss both pieces of this.

At the same time, even in here, the data sources that we're looking at, they've always been questions, so I don't think that the

Part of the question, you know, a question that I would have tonight is a comprehensive need assessment that keeps coming up.

The cost of that keeps coming up.

Do we know what the cost of that is and why we haven't been able to do one and like having it on a scheduled

It looks like at least every four years is what has been recommended in the past to know not only where priorities might best align in the community, but whether impacts are being made with the work that organizations are doing.

So those type of

conversations, I think if we had a work session, that's when they would come up.

The feedback that we received from the nonprofits, and I'm not in any way asking for nonprofits to have to prove their worth.

What I am saying is that you, the same thing that hopefully we're doing to Home to Hope, that the individuals who are most impacted are the individuals telling us whether what

organizations are saying is actually being done versus organizations being able to drive that.

And that's a different way of looking at any service that's happening.

And there will be people who won't always be happy with the service.

I've had that as a direct service.

you know being in direct service but hopefully when we do this work we know that it's not about us and so if we can switch from you know this kind of fear base if something changed to are we doing what's in the best interest of the community members that we serve and that they are the driving force behind whether we are doing

the work that should be done and if things need to be tweaked at all that their voices are listened, you know, are heard and that we make the changes.

So it's not, I'm in no way asking non-profits to come before us and prove anything to us.

So I think if those, the work of those groups merged and it,

would be possible for us to have a work session then and I mean this is you know hearing counselor Hill say she's in the group and she doesn't feel heard then maybe this is a time where we do appoint we counsel as a whole we appoint this commission and charge this commission

maybe we look at the membership again, charge the commission with the dual task of doing the priority setting and the

the process for that the work group was originally done.

I'm not opposed to that.

I'm not opposed to anyone joining.

No, I understand that we are in a, but I do, and I do want to have a conversation about, because again, it's, we didn't hear from the nonprofit community when we decided to freeze the funding, because funding continues as usual, right?

That's one of my bigger concerns with this, though, is because I think a lot of people feel like they've been left out of even knowing what's being discussed in this process because it took the form.

And I'm not saying, I think we got a lot of good work done because we were able to be nimble and just to have real conversations about this and that led to this output.

At the same time, it's

it's hard for me as a person who's been in many of the conversations to put myself through the perspective of someone who's been in none of them and even when I looked at our own colleagues last council meeting and I was like I can see why they're kind of like wait what are you talking about because a lot of people haven't even had any insight there's been no like posting of any minutes around the Kings that we're talking about so it's been all brand new for the community and so I think it's just an important for us to to open this up

and then informed the public.

But what I'm saying is that people did realize this was going on because they knew that they didn't have to apply for an application process this year like they normally had.

But in that case, it was a very comfortable process for them because they did not

potentially lose anything their funding stayed the same so I would ask that we look at that going into it you know freezing funding for another year and just anything that I'm doing is just to hopefully do within the best interest over all of the people that we are charged with the task of serving.

whatever that needs to look like for all five of you to be on board or three votes to be on board you tell me and as long as we get to the point of where we are outcome based that we are aligned strategically with what

we say our goals are and that we're looking at this in a holistic way with some of the other major investments that we're making in housing with schools and aligning to make sure that we can make the biggest impact possible.

So, Mayor Walker, if I might, and I really appreciate your willingness to create

Kind of this synthesis, to synthesize everything that you heard.

And again, I think it's really important though that we do record and document and vote on something that we all can see.

And so if we can have a little bit more time to get something before us that we all, three of us can at least agree on,

I would appreciate, you know, I don't know if that's the next meeting of February or the second meeting of February, but I do like the idea of combining the commission with the work group, have it be one, and in this new resolution,

that it would clearly identify what the specific problems are that we're looking into and what the solution is that's being proposed.

And that sounds like the commission.

What's the nature of that commission?

Is it ad hoc?

Is it standing?

We've finally got agreement that it's gonna take the work group, it's gonna absorb the work group.

But is it ad hoc or standing?

That's something maybe we can debate later on.

What's the charge of the commission?

Is it to establish funding priorities, evaluation criteria, a new administrative review structure, incorporate the findings and recommendations of the work group?

Those are four key findings.

And then evaluate impacts.

I feel we need to have, and that's where you bring in expertise.

What are the deliverables to council and when?

What's a realistic timeline for this group?

How will the commission meet its charge and with what external and internal support?

How and when will the commission engage the community, stakeholders and the city at large?

What skills and perspectives do we want on the commission?

We've got a list that we started, but what do those embody?

And then what needs to happen to encourage the county to participate?

I really feel that this would be a major break to go backwards, away from regionalism, if we don't try to always engage the county in this process that they've been involved with since 1981.

And then how and when will this commission end?

or will it ever?

Madam Mayor, I have a brainstorm on the heels of that which might be simplified.

It's just off the cuff which is

That made my head hurt thinking about how commissions, the complexities in them.

It could be, I'm talking to Mr. Murphy about this, but some councils would just direct their city manager to produce advice to them given all that's been heard.

He can appoint an advisory board.

He could rely on the ones that exist, but Mr. Murphy knows a lot about this area, as we just saw.

Because the problem with this is that it takes

They're foible.

That's not a problem, but it's just an issue in setting it up carefully.

You've seen this with the different commissions we've set up.

You're creating a formal government entity, and it does create time.

It does create staffing.

It does create lead time in all these complexities.

It could just be that we direct Mr. Murphy to come back to us after work session with advice to us if he has the bandwidth, and he could produce a

and then we could nibble away and nip and tuck that.

But that sounded like five months of work to me.

They have the bones of it and the resolution that's been put before us.

This was just clarifying what its charge would be and whether it's

parallel to the work group or includes the work group.

And that wasn't clarified in the end.

But your option's also well taken, too.

And I don't think that based on the community feedback that we received, I don't think that just placing this, especially in interim city managers,

Lapp is the best direction for this to take.

I would just suggest if we did do a work session in the next month or so, whatever, that was well done and just as good as the, so we've had some that have not been that good, but like the one that led to Second Chance was excellent, highly impactful, and here we are.

So it could be, because I think that where we're headed is that this definitely gets kicked another year, and your interest is in at least, if reform is merited, is in doing it, you know,

more quickly rather than have to wait another budget cycle.

And the only way to probably do that after we have the discussion would be to have the city manager just efficiently do it.

But I hear your concerns, definitely.

It could be that if we have a good work session, we could say, okay, all this has been discussed, here's where we came out, we heard from all these people, here's the different issues, here's what we really think we can tackle, this part, this part.

I mean, what Mr. Murphy raised was different from what I heard, is that there's a lot of,

So it's clear we don't have three votes for this, so let's move that out of the way.

I hope is that we all will help collaborate with staff to get there because we all obviously have our opinions about this and so I think the more we can kind of help partner with staff and the existing work group to kind of get that to a place where that can be the most effective use of time.

It's been a fair amount of conversation about the need for community feedback as well and so a work session generally has some opportunity for community feedback but would you imagine a work session that would have

Or three hours to get that for people to be able to... We still have to figure out a way to get the individuals who receive services from the organization.

And I know I brought up really early in the work group that I had met with CNE just by happenstance at the beginning of that for another reason and at that time just approached that we were looking at this and I think they've offered themselves and they have again in writing it as a resource just to help us reach out to not just

are nonprofit stakeholders, but the clients through their networks.

And so I just think that that's a resource that we should continue taking advantage of.

Certainly the work group would be at the work session.

Right.

And I would also say that there's going to need to be some assistance

for Council to reach decision on what to do next.

Because we're gonna be given a lot of information, a lot of input.

And as someone who's trained in the content,

understands this and is very complex.

Would you also anticipate having language to discuss at that work session that combines the two efforts?

There's been a fair amount of conversation about combining

Would the work group's remaining work to define structure plus the priority commission in a new resolution?

Or would that be tabled in favor of doing the work session for information gathering only?

Yes, I think just, you know, like with the second chance to, you know, home to hope, if this is where staff could, you all have been doing this for a long time, so maybe

you know staff having the conversation about what would be the best you know you know practice I think without you know if what the working group has done so far is just to present that this is based on you know having

individuals who work at nonprofits, run nonprofits, economists at UVA, like people just participate in some of the services that we've been definitely talking about, having the biggest impact.

If that is what we have come up with this far, if that is the contribution to

you know that we make at this point then that I'm sure that you know you have a very invested group of people who've been meeting for you know plus hours every meeting so I'm sure that they will continue to stay if we open up a you know board and commission if some of them choose to apply you know it's the same but since the

Since there's a lot of discussion around who this group is, how they were selected and, you know, appointed and that group is not the most important factor here either.

The most important factor is that we set up the best process possible.

So we need to remove that group to make sure that that happens in the way that it has been appointed.

We can just take the information that we have come up with so far from that group and just have that as a part of the presentation that council and the community receives during the work session.

So just so I understand, so it sounds like we have the work session.

Staff will be listening, watching, writing.

We'll have the input from the work group.

We'll have the suggestions from the work group of the types of folks that should be weighing in.

They have the stakeholders themselves in the nonprofit communities.

Some of the speakers tonight would be extremely valuable.

From there we would get what staff sense of a best practice kind of process moving forward would be to carry on.

And the only thing that I would like to definitely make sure that we discuss is what does a comprehensive needs assessment, like what is needed for us to make sure that we have that data coming at intervals, whatever that looks like, because the research that I tried to do since the last meeting

about really what that keeps coming up.

And so it hasn't been done.

Two questions for clarification.

My wife said no more work sessions, but.

So do mine.

Let's do it during the day.

I do want to just see when you're thinking about for this work session and whether it is soon, like February soon.

And part of the reason is, I hear this, let's extend the time and have that session be the place where the feedback is happening.

and I would just offer as alternative that maybe we spend our time in February and March gathering feedback from nonprofits and people who receive services from them and you get past budget, you have the work session in April and then we can really give you the feedback from people in a different form as opposed to if you hear it in the moment,

Are you going to digest that and then do your best work determining about whether to turn left or right?

I don't know.

Mr. Murphy, may I?

The resources that I did, because I think that that's a valuable step.

I'd pause at the extra months that would take to do that.

I think, and I would just add, I think it's really important.

We are not getting feedback on defend your case that you would make in the ABRT process for the value of the dollars that you apply for or that you get.

We're having a discussion about reform.

If there should be changes to the way that the city gives, what should they be?

We could go until the cows come home about

The very moving, important cases that all these partner agencies make for receiving their funds, because they have to do that anyway.

This is a conversation about reform ideas.

Because they can come and do that.

In other ways.

And here's my thought, right, about why.

Because, you know, earlier in the evening you had 20 nonprofit EDs or senior staff in here.

and if I'm one of them then I can fill your council room whatever work session you have with my particular constituency.

And so why not have us do the work outside of a meeting setting and then synthesize what we hear as opposed to it being an exercise for you know any individual nonprofit who I won't pick on any of them because we fund over 40

to find 20 of their recipients to come and give you that message.

I just can't conceive of doing that anymore quickly and getting drilled down to people who are recipients.

And there is the very real matter of you all will perhaps be engaging in an interview process in the month of February.

because again, these questions have been asked.

I think it's probably gonna be the same questions that we've asked in the past and then especially the comprehensive needs assessment.

I'm really interested in the update on what that would look like with the funding, who could do it and how do we make sure that we schedule those regularly so that we have this data that we are,

I think we can certainly provide that.

I would just say in the past,

That has been anywhere from 30 to 40 thousand dollars.

It's involved, you know, kind of the meta-analysis of all the reports that are out there in the world with the data in them.

And I would think you need some direction on whether or not the work group is going to continue meeting.

Well, we have a meeting scheduled, I think, tomorrow.

Thursday.

I'm not sure.

Even outside of a council approval, I could still have an advisory group submit something on their own, but the point is just to get this right.

I don't think that we would continue meeting.

Okay.

I'm still no.

That sounds like to me that you're entering a new phase of your work and you really want to do some way in which you formally thank them for their service and let them know when there is a process by which they can apply to the next group.

I hear you correctly, Madam Mayor.

No, I intend to meet with them because I think it's of value.

I don't know if, you know, I want to talk to the group about what they think about, you know, this process.

I mean, this is a group that I put together.

Counselor Hill has been a participant, but, you know, she didn't select the individuals, you know, either.

I don't think that they would continue, there's no reason for them to continue to meet at this level, you know, where we are now.

And there are staff members who spend a significant amount of their time, two staff members, three actually, because Matthew as a part has been meeting with us too, so we'll just, I'm going to think about that tonight and I will

You know, Sally Hudson is on there.

She's currently running a campaign, so I'm sure she doesn't have four hours just to, you know, give away.

The group's kind of articulation of the need to build capacity and provide seed money and resources to get new nonprofits up and running, that's always been kind of this idea floating around.

And you and your work group finally gave it some legs.

So this is really important to underscore.

I don't want to lose that.

I want it in addition to.

and I think the community's been getting a sense that it was an either or thing.

So I just wanna at least let you know that I think that was extremely valuable to have that finally articulated in a more concrete way because it was something that I know Ms. Dimmick and I were in some public meeting at one point where that was supposedly the duty of any philanthropy was to build capacity among its nonprofit agents

and that we weren't doing that.

People were just learning how to play a game and color by number.

So this is really important what's been done, but I think we all agree we're ready for the next step to get it done right.

Thank you.

All right.

Deferred.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Paul Oberdorf, Public Works Director and tonight I was going to provide a little bit of background on the lease, the McIntyre building.

The building originally was constructed for use as a city library by Paul.

Goodlow McIntyre and in 1993 the Historical Society along with this city used a combination of donated funds and a loan from the city to do some pretty extensive restoration to the building and from 1993 the Historical Society had been leasing the property.

On September 18th of last year, Council agreed to extend the lease for a year, provided the Historical Society met 10 Council goals.

As time went on, that did not happen.

The Historical Society came back again in March of, I'm sorry, in April 2nd of 2018.

And I'm back here tonight to provide an update.

As of today, the Historical Society has completed nine of the ten council goals as they outlined in their December 2018 Historical Society report.

The one that they have not met was the audit of 2017 financials and I believe that was because they did not have financial controls in place at the time and so they had requested an audit of the 2018 financials instead.

and so we're putting together the terms and conditions of the lease along with the city attorney.

The lease will expire on April 30th of this year so we're just getting out ahead of it.

Thank you Mr. Oberdorfer.

I would just add that we've had some good productive discussions with the Historical Society and some of their board members and you know I think that the the key questions for tonight are

for council to inform staff if you'll entertain another lease.

That's why we're here, a full quarter before the lease expires.

If so, for what length of time.

And I think that you had some amount of email traffic from folks about one particular item that is in the lease.

And that is whether your intent

Last year was to continue to have three members that the council appoints on this board and information for staff about whether to include that or not in the lease tonight is important I believe going forward.

Why it's in there from staff now is

It wasn't clear to me what the intent from council was at the time or whether you think that a reform board for a nine month period is sufficient evidence that you're satisfied that it doesn't need to continue going forward.

As to the 10th and last item that is yet to be satisfied, I would say that it does come with a staff recommendation that it is much more appropriate to get an audit on a year where they had financial practices in place than to hold them to the 2017 audit.

That doesn't make any sense.

And there is some precedent.

I just have a question of Mr. Murphy.

Yeah, absolutely.

And you will recall that I gave you all some materials that Mr. Barefoot provided.

It was in your mailbox, rather thick document, where the cover letter requested a 10-year term.

The initial staff recommendation was a three-year lease with the possibility of two one-year renewals.

And so the feedback that I gave for these three points was, I mean, the feedback that we got from the board appointee

I'm definitely open to that conversation.

I think one year, only looking at it after one year, but it's not something that I feel strongly about whether we appoint a third or not.

2018 audit definitely.

The 10-year or three-year lease, I do have some concerns about locking into that, especially with, again, hiring a new city manager and for them to be able to review any and all contracts and the fewer that we can lock them into.

I am definitely pushing for that.

I don't personally have any objections to that.

I think Mayor Walker's point in regards to not locking in the new city manager is well taken.

I can also say though I've been rather pleased, very pleased with the work that Mr. Barefoot and the board has been doing.

So I'm open.

But I do think Mayor Walker's suggestion is a very sensible one.

And to be honest, I don't envision Mr. Barefoot or the current board that we have changing or swaying in any way.

So essentially,

It's just, and for those who can't see, I'm basically talking to Mr. Barefoot.

For those who were watching, I mean, essentially, Mr. Barefoot, it would just be another year in which you guys continue going and then we move forward and after the new city manager comes in.

I'd be curious of what implications that that would have on the organization.

Can we ask questions of the Director?

What are the implications of that?

three years with the options to renew two one-year renewals.

The most immediate ramification would be we have nearly close to $23,000 on the table from the Perry Foundation that we desperately need yesterday.

They're offering that money.

but they will only give it to us if we can get a five-year lease from the city and so I think that was well three plus two one-year renewals would be fine that's still that's a partnership with the city that recognizes our good faith effort to turn this around as quick as possible plus the long partnership we've had with the city of Charlottesville beginning in the late 80s

to take care of this building and move in as good stewards.

And also recognizing that we've been here as an organization since 1940, working with the city, the county, and the university very closely.

So we would lose that money.

If you said tonight, we're only going to give you a year, and then we'll look at it again, we would lose that money.

It would really help us.

I can tell you I've been doing my very, very best to get some money into our budget and open this up to do some new and exciting things.

And we applied for this grant back in the fall with the Perry Foundation.

And they were willing to help us with a lot of key things that will improve the building as well.

I mean, this is not money for programming.

This is money for lighting.

This is money for shelving.

This is money for new exhibits.

Madam Mayor, could I ask Mr. Barefoot, given the points made by the mayor,

and other councilors tonight, what if it was a one-year lease with four possible one-year renewals and that way it would give the city manager, the new city manager some, the ability to look at the contract but if he or she thought to continue this they, there would be the option for four one-year renewals.

Would that, you know, looking at the grant funding it says

At least the letter talks about five years.

Seem like you're okay with three, one and one.

No.

Just in terms of a measure of equity with the other organizations that rent buildings from the city, and in conversation with Mr. Murphy, three years is pretty standard, and it's also standard to offer the possibility of renewals.

That's why we landed on that number, is hey, the city rents buildings for three years.

That's a typical lease period.

That's why we started there.

And that, again, based on the fact that we as an organization, with the input from the city over the last year and a half, we feel very confident and proud that we've turned this organization around and we deserve this lease.

We've worked really hard for this as an organization, everybody involved, not just me.

very committed to keeping in mind that we would be here very soon in early 2019 to stand before you and say look at the report, look what we've been doing, we're really proud of the work we've been doing and we believe that we deserve this.

Yeah, I would just, this is not a question of you, Mr. Barefoot, but I, you know, we just had a discussion when all the indicators are pointing in the right direction after a lot of demonstrated work, including a lot of, I mean, they were under a really heavy, having 10 conditions was

Pretty intense, I mean, and so I don't, to respond to that or reward it with like a half measure that was highly contingent, it doesn't just seem to me to send the right signal.

I mean, a one year, it just would put you all in a continuing state of contingency, and that just doesn't seem like a good outcome.

I mean, it would just be like you wanna have some kind of

predictability and anyway that's where I, and I'm for lifting the council appointment.

I think that was part of the whole package of contingencies and it was a pretty heavy, I mean and it required a lot of upheaval there.

I mean you guys really had to overhaul the whole thing and I think you did a great job with the board appointments and with

So it's been a lot of change over there.

That doesn't mean that I think that there should be a continuing dialogue with council, which you all will have to do.

And if you don't serve the community, then you guys are going to face balance sheet problems because you won't be getting grants, you won't be getting donations, and visitors won't be coming there.

So there's still stuff that you will have to do to stay viable as an outward-facing

And I should add that the Perry offer is a bit of a symptom of a larger manifestation, of a larger issue here.

Because I've had many conversations with people who say, I'd like to give you money.

I'd like to help you.

I'd like to support you.

I'm going to wait to see if you have the full support of the city of Charlottesville.

And they feel good about keeping you in a building that you've been good stewards of.

since beginning really in the late 80s.

And so I've had a lot of folks tell me, you know, I could give you some money but I'm going to wait.

And for me it's not about the, you know, I understand the turning the organization around, but for me it's just looking at the use of the space, whether that's the best space, you know, the dollar amount that, you know,

you all pay versus what is lost $9,000 a year versus over $105,000 the proximity to the city, City Hall and whether you know we have capacity issues here now whether that it

I can tell you since I've been a volunteer there in grad school beginning in the early 90s you should be very proud of

your decision as a city to use this public resource in this way.

This is a terrific organization.

We do a lot of amazing work for this community.

We're going to continue to do more.

We're very proud to be there.

So if you're questioning and saying pause, is this a good use of our public resources and this building?

And I just would like for a fresh perspective on that.

That's all I'm asking for, but if, you know, we, whatever, the other counselors, I mean, that's why my vote will go based on whatever they decide.

It sounds like you are, it's going in the direction that you want it to go, but that's my pause.

And Mayor Walker and colleagues, it doesn't appear that the clause of

with two one-year renewals is in the current lease.

We have it for three-year lease term, but the idea of having with two one-year options for renewal needs to be added.

And so I'm not sure if we're ready for a motion yet, but that needs to be added.

So then just for your information, Mr. Blair, I would like to add that clause to item one so that it's a three-year lease with two one-year renewals and that I do want to delete

Section 5G, which is the idea of the City Council appointing a third of the board.

That is deleted.

And thank you very much.

You've done an amazing turnaround job.

Thank you.

And your board for coming tonight.

Thank you very much.

Did your board chair want to say something?

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

Good to see you.

Mayor Walker, Councillors, for those that don't know me, my name is Dr. Shelley Murphy.

I don't know if we're related.

Absolutely.

I'll find out.

But I've been proud to serve as the chair of this board of directors for the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society.

And again, we're a 5013C that was founded in 1940.

We're guided by the understanding that history is not the past.

History is the collection of the stories, you know, and things that we tell about the past.

And whoever gets to tell that story is who gets up, puts up the statutes and who doesn't.

This will shape the history that we leave for those who come after us.

We believe

that everyone has a unique and powerful story to share.

And we should all have the opportunity to help make that history.

Our responsibility is not to give voice, but to listen.

The past is full of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

And we should learn from it.

And we should learn together as a community.

Our work is grounded on the belief and the worth and dignity of every human being.

We respect people, communities, and culture.

We believe in the potential for the history to enrich our lives, to create stronger relationships and more vibrant, diverse, and inclusive communities.

So we're committed to using history as a tool to help create these experiences that can inform, enlighten, inspire, and bring people together, offering opportunities for new relationships and new understandings.

So our goal is to be and to continue being a strong civic organization that works to enrich the lives of our neighbors and the visitors here in Central Virginia.

We've been tenants at the historical McIntyre Library on Second Street since 1994.

We've raised significant funds from throughout the community to pay for the much needed, you know, rehab that needed to be done.

And we've got the new board in place.

Nearly half of them are African American and a new executive director, who you know very well, who's done an impressive work to quickly turn our organization around and put us on the right track for the future.

I believe in support that we're going that way.

We now offer an all new suite of programs, projects, exhibits, tours, classes, and much more to come.

Our public events are entirely free.

and open to everyone.

So our staff enjoys the full support and confidence of our board.

We're looking forward to continuing our partnership with the city and we're excited about this new chapter in our history and I want to personally thank city council, city staff and everyone in the community for the support because there's more to come.

So if you have any other questions just let me know.

and visit our website.

I don't mind if any board members want to.

I'm one of the city appointed members.

I don't have prepared remarks, but I just want to say that I have really been amazed by the work that's been done this last year.

It's been totally, totally impressive to me in terms of the way that, well, first of all, I should say that I served on the board

of the Historical Society in the 90s.

So I'm very familiar with the work of the society.

And I also know that there was a really, really rough period.

And the fact that Coy Barefoot and the board has been able to, in an incredibly short period of time,

develop the documents that we need to go forward, work with the Center for Nonprofit Excellence, create a whole new set of bylaws, develop a code of ethics.

I mean, it's all in the packet that was given you, but that's in addition

to all of the programs that have been developed over this past year.

The programs are incredibly diverse and really very well attended.

So I just want to say that I couldn't imagine more productive work being done in this period of time.

So I've been really pleased to be witness to that.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Modifying definition of dwelling units, second of two readings was pulled and... Madam Mayor, I think it was pulled and I'll let Ms. Galvin sort of go over her presentation and rationale, but I think it was pulled because Ms. Long, as she stated during the consent agenda comments, has asked that

While the council may enact this proposed change to the zoning ordinance, she is asking that a specific property located at 513 and Zero Ruggie Road be exempt.

Well, thank you, Mr. Blair, and thank you, Mayor Walker.

I would just like to ask or move that we adopt the ordinance

as presented to us with regards to the dwelling unit clarification with the one addition under item two in that ordinance that would be one statement that says the provisions of the zoning text amendment shall not apply to site plan P18-0203-513 and zero rugby.

So I guess I need a second on that.

My rationale for that addition is that I did find that

the applicant's argument compelling, especially when I looked over the fact that they'd been working through, the project team had been working on the project for 18 months, they had gotten the final BAR approval of the fraternity house, and they had submitted a site plan.

So that to me suggests that they have, I'm not sure if you could have formally called it a vested right, I'm not sure what the exact detail is, but they've

And I had a question that I'd asked of staff, just the impact that this building will have on the surrounding neighborhood.

Well, with any new building or any sort of new structure, there'll be some sort of impact.

It'll definitely be a different situation than there currently is there, but in this case, they would have the ability to have an additional unit on the site, which would allow for the number of units that they're requesting as part of their site plan.

We're not sure how that's going to work right now.

The site plan is currently in review and we've only received some of the review comments back.

But all that, I mean, it'll still be under the same review process and have the same requirements that it needs to meet.

So when staff give feedback, it's like any other time that they go through this process.

And Ms. Creasy, conceptually though, they have proposed, as Ms. Long stated in the previous meeting, that they're supposed to supply parking underneath the structure.

I just want Mr. Blair to clarify for the council that this proposed amendment

Thank you.

All right so please vote.

That carries five to zero.

All right.

Is are there any other other business?

All right.

I gave you all a chance as Nancy Carpenter.

Looking at the discussions, two discussions that came through tonight, one on the Home to Hope initiative with the peer-to-peer network and the conversation around the needed reform

to the ABRT process.

A couple of observations.

Yeah, the ABRT process needs to be reworked.

If you're not in direct services, you really don't have an idea of what needs to be done.

People on boards are great.

They lend a lot of

opportunity to nonprofits, but if you're not in direct service, it really is important about how are we delivering services to the person, to the client, and whatever.

And I think that that is a process that I do remember in 2011, a conversation about, you know, revamping that process, and it's time now to do it.

I'm not saying that nonprofits don't do a good job.

600 of them, I'm sure, a high percentage of them do do.

You know a good job, but I think it's time is as a taxpayer that I make sure that the nonprofits because well there are a lot of nonprofits that do duplicate effort throughout the city and To be perfectly honest.

You know you're talking about Councillor Hill some of these nonprofits getting all squeaky about I

I'm a nobody.

I mean, I'm just a citizen of the city and I remember, you know, last spring there being a talk about keeping the funding levels the same because there was talk about reforming the ABRT process a year ago.

So, if someone's running a non-profit and they don't pay attention to where their money comes from and how it might be impacted, they come to a meeting and they want to say, oh, it's only been two weeks.

It's like, no, it's been a year.

Pay attention.

That's what they need to do.

And with the peer-to-peer network navigation, I heard more questioning of that in the ABRT review than I heard being questioned about the Newhill development.

I'm not saying Newhill is not needed, I'm just saying that there wasn't much concern about the equity fund

You know, there wasn't much questioning of that program as the peer-to-peer network.

And I just don't know why.

I mean, that program will definitely make, hopefully make the lives of people who sometimes are at the bottom rung of our income levels because they're trying to reestablish themselves and make them better.

I mean, I'm sitting back here, and I'm sorry.

You all sound, that was white supremacy conversation.

I have to call it out.

It made me very uncomfortable to hear you all talking.

And it did come across as, well, this is maybe why Charlottesville was targeted.

You know, it was very, very disconcerting.

You know, I know you've got to be stewards of the budgets and things like that, but it just came across as pushing back in a way that was not the way that was not justifiable.

I'm Elliot Brown.

I'm a city of Charlottesville.

I'm all for changes with the funding priority systems.

I think that the same old things aren't working.

We see no progress in the areas of low income, racial equity, any of the marginalized communities being served in a real way that's moving them.

It's a Band-Aid right now.

It needs to start changing in a bigger way.

and I'm an executive director of a nonprofit.

I think that, and I see that my organization as well as most of my colleagues that were speaking tonight or that aren't speaking that would be, that will probably be at the work session are the same white people, upper to middle white class people that have been running and creating nonprofits since the beginning and going into marginalized communities and telling them what they need and telling them what the solution is and there's no way that I know that.

and it has been, it's so awesome to hear you say let's get people that are being served to tell us the impact, what we need, the solutions, that's refreshing and it doesn't happen anywhere and this is again one of the, I've said it many times, we're at a place in Charlottesville right now where we can be a leader in this whole progress and Mike, something you said earlier really made me sad, it was saying that you hire out, the city focused on hiring out

No, I just, well, I don't mean to interrupt, but I just think that you have different scales of benefit packages at different organizations and cities.

It's just different what they are obligated, what they can do.

OK. Well, it sounded like you said you do it so you could avoid paying the benefits package.

OK.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

All right.

Meeting adjourned.