City Council Meeting   9/17/2007

There you go

It's a terrible bird, right?

Okay.

But we only live in a piece of the same place, two boxes.

And after that, everybody worried about me.

They didn't really want me to go to school.

Yep, that's one of them.

That's right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mm.

Kelly, Jean, is there someone here for the plastic bottle?

Oh.

getting lots of

What is the date?

That's good.

I'm not sure if you can understand it, but it's a work.

I'd like to call tonight's city council meeting to order and the first item is the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Kevin.

Hopefully, a lot of you folks will be there, too.

It's a big deal and to tell us exactly what a big deal it is, is former Fire Chief, I'd like to ask the former Chief Taliaferro to maybe say a few comments and I'd like for Charles Warner to please come forward.

Chief Forner?

So thank you for the opportunity.

The next thing, we have a resolution which we passed in other business last week at City Council sort of recognizing our National Guard troops have been deployed to Iraq and Dave Norris, you would like to offer some comments on that?

Okay, thank you.

And Colette Hall is our first speaker.

Thank you.

Next is Jackie Bryan and Eddie Harris.

I have here with me Eddie Harris, who is our fatherhood specialist, who's going to talk just briefly about what he's doing with the dads that he's working with.

and we need that in our families and I appreciate the opportunity.

Next is Anita Anderson.

Anita Anderson, I'm a member of the Preservation Piedmont Association.

Give us your address too, please.

Thank you.

Betty Mooney.

Thank you.

Margarita Douglas?

I hope that you will listen to this.

Thank you.

And I offer my reworded resolution to counsel here, which I ask you to consider and pass.

If I could, I would.

Okay, thank you.

Next is Tammy Laundry.

John Faltz

I think you must be determined to make our city truly unaffordable.

Thank you.

Does the city have a contract with Comcast?

At the end of this we'll have a chance to comment if you want to go ahead.

And my question is, is the city reneging on that promise that it made at that meeting, the last meeting, that many of us felt that would be implemented

I want to thank you for your time.

Tatiana Patton.

What we are endorsing tonight is that we start the dialogue with the public and RCS is willing to help you facilitate this.

Ernie Reed.

and I thank you.

Downing Smith.

I'd like to thank you all because I'm going to go home and watch the rest of this on television, a nice easy chair with a cup of coffee, and you're all going to have to stay here for a couple more hours.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, please come up, Ms. McClung.

Thank you.

Dan Bluestone.

Alright, thank you very much.

Any responses from the public?

and it's very much related to how we replace the environmental asset that gets lost when we build that data.

We don't agree on this war, but the one thing that we do agree on, the one paragraph in common that we have in our resolution is the one calling upon our citizens to support our troops and their families, and we can agree on that and certainly emphasize that point, so thank you.

Other comments?

Thank you.

and I guess that's all I have to say.

And are there items to be removed from the agenda to be considered at the end of our regular agenda, or are there any amendments to the minutes?

I'd like to have some more discussion on item H, the bond issue.

I had already asked the Jefferson Scholars people to come in anticipation of that.

and I would like to pull item M just because this is the changes to hours of certain parks just for us to have a discussion so that the public can be fully informed.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda with these two items removed?

So moved, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. O'Connell, would you like to offer some introductory comments to that?

So with that, Crystal, you need to get the screen down.

I appreciate your time and we're welcome questions.

Mr. Brittlebald?

Can you give us an estimate of what that is percentage-wise of the average water bill in the city?

That's the best comparison I can give.

But in general, I thank you and look forward to a healthy debate.

I'm curious about that.

Would you like me to address them as they come up?

Sure, if you can.

and I wish it was a simple answer but I think in large part how we proceed is going to be dictated by how much funding we can agree upon goes towards that component rather than trying to identify a set number of projects because there's such a large range in size and it's difficult to compare the list and say these are the five biggest ones that we're going to hit first because there may be critical reasons to hit smaller projects down that list earlier and that needs to be addressed.

what the fees would be then you could give us some idea of the time frame that would address problems throughout the city.

And the more we put towards it, the faster we can get it done.

So I certainly support trying to really take a more aggressive stance on it and try to do something about it because we're not making much headway with where we are today.

Some of the programs... Can I ask a question?

Are we having a comment now or are we asking questions?

My inclination would be to do something that is more incremental going from where we are right now and to look at the results that we get from that before we jump to I think ultimately we'll be looking at an option one solution down the road but I want to see what kind of bang we got for the extra dollars we spent last year and put extra dollars into this incrementally and measure what we get for it before making a commitment to spend another million and a half dollars a year on stormwater.

This is what I'm struggling with.

Your fee is going to be based on that average of the structure, not the lost size.

Is what you're proposing based on the square footage of your house?

For single family residential properties, the approach would be an average.

So every single family residential home in Charles will all have the same base fee.

Right, and I use that number 2,000 for simplicity's sake on the slide, but the calculations that we have to date are already tending to a number that's smaller than that, and that by no means eliminates an opportunity to break it into two tiers, large and small, large, medium, and small.

I think those are the issues that we need to delve into the next level if that's where we're delving.

And in the vast majority of localities that go down this approach, the larger component of the revenue comes from that other sector, which is not the case if you go with the tax route.

I'd like to offer...

Could we get the names of those?

If you just send it to us, that's all.

I think it's going to be painful, but I think we need to do it, and we need to be clear that if we're going to do this, we need to really look carefully at the rest of our budget next time.

Are there going to be incentives and breaks for reductions for people who do that, either as homeowners or as business owners?

Waters would like to make a statement on behalf of the Environmental Sustainability Committee to this topic, if that could be entertained, given the timing.

It's short, I promise.

I'm a member of the citizens

Thanks.

Thank you.

be very prudent of us not to assume that's all found money and spend it on other things and instead find some way of returning those funds back to the taxpayers.

And I don't know where counsel is in terms of wanting to make a decision, what additional information we need, do we need time, you know, but I think we need to talk a little bit about what we're going to do next and when and what we need to help us make that decision.

So would the appropriate action be a motion or a work session to talk about this further?

I think it's a pretty significant issue.

Is there some agreement on that?

Just as long as I don't have to watch the PowerPoint again.

Is there a consensus about the need to do this?

Yes.

And incentives.

I think that's kind of what you're asking.

And maybe that's where you get to the options, Mr. Mayor.

I don't think that this is the why, this is the how.

We're not on why anymore.

I mean, wait till it rains.

Well, I know that it appears to me that the next couple of months our work session time is open, and so hopefully we can schedule this.

And I think we probably don't have to have a full two hours, but we do need a little more, a little extra time hashing out things like, you know, the incentives and how we want, you know, how the thing will be structured, that sort of thing.

Okay.

I like your idea about if we're going to have it all based, fee based, then look at, you know, we would be freeing a million dollars.

Option three, the modified one, which is the first level above the status quo, is fee to supplement the existing program.

It supplements it at a fairly low level.

But it seems that the existing level of funding continues.

And so we can certainly put together a scenario.

We can go back to being at ground zero, but that's not the way this is structured.

So I think we need to do a little bit more on that financial piece.

Mr. Connell or Ms. Rillaball, do you need any more direction or are you ready

But I thank you for coming.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda is the cameras.

I was looking for that.

But we're asking for your guidance tonight so we know just how to move forward.

Please.

In fact, I'm quite impressed that you were able to read the article.

Well he did, Mr. Whitehead was kind enough to fax us the letter on Friday but it was the supporting material that we didn't receive until this morning and I think that's very important to have an opportunity to review that because I think it supports his position.

Are there any circumstances under which you can see that such material might be shared with the press or the public?

But as Mr. Brown pointed out, I think, in the policy, we would take a position that because it would identify law enforcement strategies and surveillance strategies that it would fall within one of the

I was wondering if it was long enough.

If there were a way around that, I think we'd be willing to consider it, but I'm not sure that there is.

Could you talk a little bit about that?

And I think that particular part of the policy just seeks to reinforce that.

Yes ma'am, that's correct.

And so we want to make sure there's sufficient coverage there, because we've had some activity in the past along that corridor, particularly late at night.

In the parks also, will they extend to the parks that are around downtown?

It may take into consideration one or both of the parks along Market Street, but I can't say that for sure at this point.

Other questions?

addressing the 30-day issue, because I think the 30-day issue is a substantial one.

The 30 days is specified for recordings which do not have evidentiary value.

Okay.

So he seems to think it's doable within the context of the pricing that we would be looking at, but again, I'm not savvy enough to have that discussion, but it's certainly something he's aware of with your concerns, and if we move forward, I think we need to make sure those concerns are passed on to any vendors that respond back to our request for proposal.

Having said that disclaimer, let me ask you a couple of questions, however.

Can you respond to that?

Would the public be able to have a sense of how often the system is being used and for what purposes?

Show an officer's name when they entered the facility and when they left, but nothing else.

Are there particular cameras they're looking at the tapes on most more frequently than others and not necessarily with the purpose of a specific incident that's being investigated?

It does not interfere with investigations.

And I think it also, the part I would like about something like that is so it becomes clear that the only people who are viewing these tapes are the people who have been authorized to, so that it's not, you know, that it's not, that you somehow didn't succumb to the pressure of the mayor when the mayor came in and said, there's a tape I'd like to look at tomorrow.

That's all I want to know, thank you.

I think the Rutherford Institute came forward with some good suggestions, and once you get a chance to look at those, I hope those will be incorporated.

to keep that data for 30 days.

I mean, I did start this talking about getting the big picture of the purchasing cameras, but if we could kind of focus on policy and not get too far down the road of exactly what kind of cameras we'd want to get, I think it would be... Well, I think it's going to limit us because I believe that it could be done with

I see a lot of cost, not a lot of benefit and certainly see a real cost and actually a detriment to this 30-day policy because I don't think we could affordably have a 30-day policy without making some trade-offs of the quality data that gets gathered.

And I'm not that good at reading body language, but I think it means he probably has some important things to say.

these can be extremely valuable systems if implemented and used correctly they've been using them over at the university for 20 years thank you

from the existing camera system that we have now, the piecemeal camera system.

Of course now we're talking about systems that are outside in common areas such as our mall and our side streets.

Is that a viable alternative in your opinion?

I think it's an alternative as to how viable it is would require me to know what's on the minds and in the hearts of these private business owners that would have to expend those resources.

So it seems that you have then a very flexible and inexpensive type of solution which may be, from a forensic perspective, just as useful as a large centralizer.

I guess my question about that would be, can we dictate policy for an expanded private system?

Not unless they were on loan or in some ways.

And hasn't that been, you've had some discussions and not gotten a very positive reaction.

And frankly, I tend to agree with them.

What are the next steps or choices we can make?

If it hasn't addressed it, we can schedule it on a later agenda.

I think it was a really sound decision and

What do we want to do here next?

We're not going to be able to do that.

And it sounds like that, I mean, I think the policy, you know, and hearing discussion of it, I think the policy