City Council Meeting   7/19/2010

Dr. Brown.

Ms. Edwards.

Here.

Mr. Huja.

Yes.

Here.

Obviously, David Brown is not with us tonight.

He is unavailable to join us tonight, but I know he's here in spirit.

We're going to start with awards and recognitions.

Tonight, we're very pleased to note a recent recognition that was

Received by one of our staff members, we're pleased tonight to honor Aubrey Watts, our city's Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, COO, CFO.

In a recent ceremony at the Jefferson Hotel in Richmond, Mr. Watts was recognized by Virginia Business Magazine as one of the top seven CFOs in the entire state of Virginia for both cities and nonprofit organizations.

Mr. Watts came to work for the City of Charlottesville in 1999 as our Economic Development Director.

In 2002, he took on the added responsibilities of COO-CFO.

He has been a key figure in maintaining the city's AAA bond rating and attracting business interest to Charlottesville.

Thanks to this council and a lot of prior councils for setting really great financial policies and budget policies that have enabled this city and some of the others I've worked in to really have good bond ratings and other financial measures that were really good.

I'd like to thank the people that nominated me for this award, but I especially want to thank the city manager

and Bernard Ray and Leslie Beauregard for all their help with the city's finances.

They do a great job and thank you all so much.

We have a few announcements tonight.

Yes, actually I would like to make my own, I have two announcements.

First is my own little award is to the staff of the city manager's office and the communications office who did an amazing job welcoming the choir from Besançon who was here last week, so thank you very much.

The city of Charlottesville is announcing plans for our first town hall meeting.

In an effort to better reach out to all communities and neighborhoods, the city of Charlottesville has announced the first in a series of town hall meetings to be held throughout the city this summer and fall.

Residents in the Fifeville, Johnson Village and Ridge Street neighborhoods are invited to attend a casual community gathering to begin discussions with the city council and city staff about the issues that most affect their quality of life.

This event will take place at Tonsler Park on Cherry Avenue Thursday, August 12th from 6pm until 8pm.

As I have so often advocated, dinner will be provided along with activities for all ages and child care services for families with children.

The vision of these meetings is to listen to citizen concerns and provide residents with better avenues of communication and engagement to improve their neighborhoods and the city of Charlottesville.

These informal meetings will continue in other neighborhoods throughout the city into the fall and further dates and locations will be announced as they are designated.

All residents are welcome at any of these meetings, but concerns specific to the surrounding neighborhoods of each site will be addressed as the priority.

And if anyone has a question about this meeting, you can call 970-3129.

Thank you, Ms. Szakos.

A couple of other announcements.

We have a new website we wanted to promote.

This is our Commission and Visitors Bureau.

It has a website designed to encourage people to stay local and play local.

This is filled with ideas for fun things to do.

here in our community for families and others here in our community.

How to plan your staycation for terrific ideas for travel to or to suggest your own ideas www.mybackyardvacation.org.

Also wanted to announce tomorrow, Tuesday at 10 o'clock at the downtown branch of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library.

We have a traveling, it's a traveling literacy scroll.

This is a chance for members of our community to sign on to a national campaign in support of adult education and literacy.

Our local literacy volunteers of Charlottesville and Albemarle are organizing an event at 10 o'clock tomorrow in support of adult literacy.

So if you're free, please join us.

Also, this

This week, Friday actually, we have a delegation from our newest sister city, Winneba in Ghana, a 12-member community delegation that will be arriving in Charlottesville.

They'll be here for a good 12 days in conjunction with our African American Cultural Arts Festival and Taste of Ghana events.

You will be seeing a lot of them, I hope, and I hope you have a chance to engage with them while they're here.

We have a whole series of events planned for them, and they will be here in attendance.

The delegation will be here.

at our next city council meeting as well.

So we look forward to welcoming them to our community.

I do.

I have an announcement for parents.

Over the summer, we received the results of the SOL scores for our children.

And this will remind parents that being academically involved is not just during the school year,

for also during the summer as well.

So if your student did not pass one of the tests on the score sheet, and if you have any trouble understanding the score sheet, be sure to call the school principal.

But there's another opportunity for testing July 28th, 29th, and 30th.

Any student wishing to retake the SOL must register with the school registrar.

The telephone number as it relates to CHS students is 245-2698.

But there's also another number for SOL tutoring.

2452410.

To parents, don't wait until the beginning of the school year to concern yourself with these test scores.

You can start now.

Thank you, Ms. Edwards.

Thank you.

We will now move on to matters by the public.

I notice a number of citizens have signed up to speak on the issue of the noise ordinance and we welcome your input tonight and there will be opportunity.

Looks like we have room for at least a couple more speakers if you haven't signed up yet.

And I'm sure there will be some good discussion among counselors in responses to matters by the public.

We will actually not be taking a vote on that tonight, but because Dr. Brown really wanted to be part of that discussion, unfortunately he couldn't be with us tonight, but that has not been taken off the table, it's just postponed until the next time we have a chance for all counselors.

I don't recall it coming up before, to be honest.

I would like to make a motion to keep it on the agenda.

I just wanted to discuss it because it has been such an important issue and clearly we've learned a lot of lessons along the way.

I agree that it's important to have all the voices and I think that because this is an ordinance in which we have two readings that we can make sure that we have every voice at the second reading.

I'd rather do that than delay it for another month and a half which is what we would have to do to get a first reading with everyone here because next meeting we also won't have everyone here.

Any further discussion?

Because if it is moved, you won't be voting on it anyway.

Well, I think, I mean, I can't speak for Dr. Brown, he's not here, but I think he very much would like to be part of the discussion on the first reading, so he has made a request to his colleagues to defer action.

Mr. Mayor, just as a practical matter, I believe I noticed a sign on the door that said it would be moved to the second meeting in August, so I don't know whether that has discouraged anyone from being here tonight or not.

All right, I think we should just decide either way.

So we have a motion, and it's been seconded.

Any further discussion?

We'll have to see it together anyway.

So if you vote on the motion.

All right, the motion carries.

We will take that up tonight.

Thank you.

Now we will open up to matters by the public.

As is our custom, when you come forward please state your name and give your address and keep your comments to three minutes.

Yes, Rebecca Quinn, 104 4th Street in the city.

I was pleased to be a citizen representative on the board or the committee that selected the dredging consultant.

I'm even more pleased to say we did a good job.

I've heard nothing but compliments from my colleagues, my friends and interested parties

about the work of the consultant, HDR Engineering.

They certainly, in my opinion, did a very good job based on the parameters they were given.

You will hear a report, a staff report later this evening, and I wanted to make a few comments to, in advance of that.

Now that we know some critical elements, we know the volume of sediment, we know the distribution of sediment, and the types of sediment.

And we know a lot of that in great detail if you've even lifted one of the studies.

So the next step is not more studies, which I think you all will be relieved to hear, at least in my opinion.

The next step is to develop a request for proposal.

And in my opinion, the city should take the lead on doing that.

The scope of work for a request for proposal does not need to be complex.

It does not need to have a lot of detail and I'll tell you partly why.

We don't need to determine whether it is environmentally sound and cost effective to remove sediment by dredging.

That indeed is what the HDR study gave us.

It's time to recognize private sector contributions that there's a potential out there.

The private sector has a lot of experience and resources related to dredging, so in my opinion it's time to take advantage of that.

For example, we don't need another study to talk about marketability.

HDR tells us certainly some of the materials are.

They've indicated some others might be, depending on the market.

They could not research all of those resources.

But the private sector that could have a significant stake in selling the materials, they can provide suggestions and solutions.

HDR was also constrained to looking only at a few disposal sites and specifically only those for which the owner was willing to make it public.

The request for proposal should allow bidders to handle the disposal and or to solve the disposal and handling problem.

We know there are at least two sites, that's what HDR told us.

I believe the private sector may find that there are many other suitable sites that may be more effective in many ways.

In order to deliver cost estimates, of course, HDR had to make certain assumptions about timing.

But as soon as dredging starts, we begin to have more water available, not 10 years from now, but as soon as dredging starts.

So I think it would be okay to allow bidders to suggest either a compressed time frame or overtime in order to accomplish the objective.

I appreciate the continuing concern about costs, costs of dredging, cost of the dam and pipeline project, cost of the I-64, whatever that might end up being proposed, and of course the cost related to sewer problems that we've all become aware of.

But I do want to make one point about comparing costs.

In my opinion, the simple reduction to cost per cubic yard that Rivanna made was oversimplified and is not the best basis for making that comparison.

Thank you, Ms. Quinn.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Martha Levering.

I live at 712 Grove Avenue in Charlottesville.

I'm here to support the approved community water supply plan.

Since the approval of the plan, City Council has initiated five additional studies at a cost of about $660,000.

These studies do not include the earth and dam design,

which was initiated by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and has proven extremely valuable.

This $660,000 went towards the alternative Norris plan and has done nothing other than prove the professionals at RWSA correct.

I have included a list of these studies and their costs in my letter to council.

Next month you will decide whether or not to move forward with phase two of the study to examine the feasibility of raising the old R

RMD by 13 feet.

This will cost an additional $150,000.

I hope that you will not approve this expenditure.

Schnabel engineers have already explained that repairing the old dam will cost as much as building a new one.

In addition, because of the recession, construction prices are relatively low.

If we delay further, we may miss taking advantage of these lower prices.

We need to put money into our infrastructure.

What we don't need is wasteful spending for political purposes.

Now is the time to act.

Please authorize the engineers to begin design of the new earthen dam at Raggan Mountain Dam.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Meghan Keith-Hines.

I live at 604 Belmont Avenue.

And do I get my comments?

I represent the Charlottesville Goat Justice League and we would like to ask council to amend city code to allow residents to keep up to three miniature goats at their residence.

The code would stipulate that these goats must be miniature, under 100 pounds, any males neutered, all dehorned, and nursing offspring allowed until the age of 12 weeks.

We feel that city residents should be able to provide milk for their own use from their own land.

Goats eat invasive plant species, require very little land, and provide highly nutritious milk.

A number of progressive cities in the U.S. have recently enacted such code, including St. Paul, Austin, Berkeley, Oakland, Portland, and Seattle.

We propose basing our code on that of Seattle.

The current Charlottesville ordinance pertaining to goats is section 4-9, no goat shall be kept within the city.

In July 1975 a person wrote to city council about a goat in the neighborhood and asked for a committee to ban animals from the city and there are no specifics in the record about the alleged crimes of this purported goat.

The article was recodified in 1976 at which time the section prohibiting goats was included.

There have been no changes or additions pertaining to goats in city code since 1976.

City code pertaining to goats is antique and needs to be updated to reflect modern sensibilities about sustainability.

In support of council's vision of Charlottesville as a green city, we feel this ordinance change is a simple step we could take in our march towards sustainability.

And I have a letter from Richard Conlon, the Seattle City Council President.

Dear Ms. Keith Hines, I understand that a number of residents in Charlottesville, Virginia would like to be able to keep minigotes and are interested in Seattle's experience with minigote legislation.

Seattle legalized minigotes in the fall of 2007 and today 28 minigotes live within our city limits.

Since goat legalization, there have been very few problems.

No complaints of goat abuse, no complaints of goat smell, and no incidents of goats destroying or harming anything.

Seattle's goat legalization legislation has helped promote Seattle as a green city and brought positive publicity.

Upbeat stories on our goat tolerance and goat-loving residents have appeared in Time magazine and on NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me.

We have even heard of three cases of individuals specifically moving to Seattle because they like the idea of living in a city tolerant of goats.

Seattle's goat ordinance reclassified many goats, goats weighing 100 pounds or less, as small animals in the same category as dogs and cats.

The ordinance requires goats to be disbudded and, if male, neutered.

We hope this letter will help you in determining whether or not to allow your residents to keep many goats.

Sincerely, Richard Conlon, Council President of Seattle.

Council, in the matter of the noise ordinance, I'd like to remind you of your duty to promote healthy, holistic, sustainable, and neighborhood-friendly enterprises in Charlottesville, as well as following an agenda of improving the quality of life of each and every resident.

For all the talk by Council of Diversity and recognizing the uniqueness of all our residents, a pocket of residence has been abandoned and placed in jeopardy and denigrated by the selfish, uninformed, and uncaring policy

This must change.

The NCC designation intended to enrich, connect and integrate business and residential interests in central Belmont has instead created fractious policies.

A battle zone of broken bottles ravaged property and violently aggressive party goers.

A soundscape once notable for the sound of crickets has more recently been turned into a cacophony of discordant bass and drum, loud screams and the sound of street fighting, sirens and fireworks.

Instead of looking back on a record of accomplishing these admirable goals of prosperity, harmony, diversity and innovation, what Central Belmont residents have had to endure for over two years have been monumental failures by the landlords to control their tenants, operators who continuously flaunted the laws,

regulations and decency for a quick buck and counsel whose desire to please has brought short-term gain to a few at the expense of many long-term residents, businesses and their families.

The failure to implement, regulate, moderate and ensure the quality and safety of residents is unthinkable.

Failure to correct these mistakes is unforgivable.

To ask residents and businesses to endure more of the same is unconscionable.

were it not for the tireless efforts of long term residents who refused to be bullied, badgered, intimidated and threatened into accepting their diminished quality of life, who knows how bad it would be.

I urge you, I demand you, and I implore for you to step back from this abyss that we're teetering on now, reduce the noise ordinance down to 55 decibels after 11pm as read from the property line of the establishment producing the noise.

Failure to do so would only encourage more reckless behavior and continue to divert a vibrant village culture into the darkness of more speculative bubbles, property devaluation, unsafe social conditions, and a return to the failed policies of the past.

Thank you.

My name is Janet Hatcher.

I live at 431 Monticello Road, adjacent to Bellario.

I'm sure you're probably familiar with my emails being bonging back and forth to you.

I have a summary here of ideas that I put down and I thought that you really need to listen to and understand from the standpoint of people that are right in the middle of this.

First and foremost, when making your decision regarding noise levels, keep in mind that we're dealing with residential homes that border commercial businesses on all sides.

These businesses are not in a solely commercial corridor.

There's a false assumption from many who assume that only the elderly are disturbed by this type of venue, when in fact that's untrue.

We've been the focus because we visibly chose to fight for our neighborhood, which consists of friendly, colorful and multicultural people whose ages range from young children to the elderly with one commonality.

We're entitled to a peaceful and a safe place to live.

The second false assumption that our objections are anti-business.

This could not be further from the truth as every other restaurant in Belmont has shown that they can live with the lower decibel level as a family restaurant, be respectful, and we frequently patronize these businesses.

Based on the previous past histories of Saks and Bel Rio being in the same physical location and with the same owners

For a total of four years, we residents have no reason to think that a similar establishment or restaurant will not morph again into a nightclub dance hall with the same problems until 2 a.m. nightly.

that I listed in my last email to all of you, which are excessive noise and daze, jammed up streets with heavy traffic, danger to pedestrians, drinking off-premise, fights, violence and arguments in our streets spilling over now to other restaurants, trash thrown in our yards, property damage, ongoing high levels of stress and sleep deprivation,

causing very real physical problems for many and deterioration of our neighborhood resulting in a loss of our property value.

All the items I've mentioned have been well documented.

Allowing a nightclub, dance hall, venue and any NCC area was a monumental mistake in judgment to begin with.

It's truly amazing that in four years since the inception of SACS and then Bell Rio, with the documented facts listed above, that there has been as few as two or three citations from city departments, including police, regarding non-compliance.

If you hold numerous meetings, first and second readings, have the general public come in and participate, then vote and pass your city ordinances, our combined efforts are for nothing and are worthless unless city departments uniformly enforce them.

Therefore, it's a necessity that in a neighborhood commercial corridor the decibel level be lowered from 65 to 55.

It should go a bit further and the measurement need to be taken at the establishment property line with a time limitation for playing music but not until 2 a.m.

We desire definitive restrictions with accountability by businesses to avert any future problems.

With this ordinance, you may not have to revisit the noise issues with us in the future.

We don't want a repetition of this to your nightmare, and it has been, in which we have lived.

And I would appreciate your support for that change.

Thank you very much, Ms. Hashem.

My name is Shirley Shotwell.

I live at 228 Douglas Avenue.

I would like to see you all put the noise level to 55 and restrict alcohol and the hours of the business places that we know Bel Rio is going.

But we do not know what's going back in there because Jeff Easter and Melissa Easter has done this twice.

And who knows what they'll put in there again.

First it was Saks.

We all went to her and she finally put a stop to it after two years.

Then she promised me on my front porch that it would not happen again, and it did.

She rented it to Bell Rio, and that's what we've had.

And for the last six weeks, we have lived in fear for the DJs and the crowds and the fussing and the throwing stuff in people's yards and threatening people.

And it's time for it to stop.

So I hope that you will put it down to 55 and let's hope that works.

If not, we'll be back.

That's all I can promise you.

But I hope you all will do something about this because it's time for this to stop.

And we didn't only listen to music coming from in Del Rio.

We listened to his crowds coming down their streets with their music blaring in their cars.

And when they left at two in the morning, when the police come, they escort them away because they wouldn't leave six and eight police officers who have better things to do.

That's what we had to put up with.

And when they left, the music in the cars were blaring again.

That's what we've listened to.

And I have a letter here from my doctor.

I have diabetes, and this has been working on me.

My medicine is increasing and increasing because of the stress, the lack of sleep, and other problems.

Jesse Fisk, 800 Elliot Avenue, Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association

I cannot be more eloquent than the residents who experience these things on a day-to-day basis.

And I came to discuss the test that we had, but given the light of what's happened since the test, I don't really feel that it's worth, I feel like our efforts were lost, just going down there to see what was going on.

I feel like we were placated by the scene and being quiet, but then after we left, the noise and all the problems continued.

So I'd like to change my course here a little bit and just ask that the city reconsider any means that

neighborhood associations can get a little leg up in organizing, especially with dealing with situations like this over the course of time.

There's no lack, I don't have any budget for flyers or website maintenance and all this stuff.

There's a neighborhood advocacy program or position available.

Maybe we don't need that all together, but perhaps there's some ways in there that we can make it easier for neighborhoods to organize themselves.

and folks are putting a lot of effort in on their own to come and be heard, but I think we can be even more organized with a little help from y'all just with the basics.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Yesterday I read the newspaper that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority uses a computer program to determine if the area is in a drought.

I do not need a computer program.

I just walk into my yard and note the cracked earth, the drooping, curled foliage, and the yellow leaves that are falling in July.

It is now time to announce to our city residents that outdoor watering needs, at the very least, to be curtailed to drip hoses and early AM or sunset watering.

Better yet, install rain barrels.

Some residents are using spray hoses at 2 p.m. At least the sidewalks are clean.

Therefore, the time for dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is now.

and my second point.

Months ago, Miss Mueller told this body that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority contract would expire June 30th.

Now we are discussing a six month extension to keep this antiquated authority alive.

Beside the landfill remediation, let the county support the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority if their citizens are so inclined.

Charlottesville needs to put an end to its part in RSWA.

Thank you, Miss Hall.

My name is Edette Wilcox.

I live on 1400 Monticello Road at apartment 102 in Charlottesville, Virginia.

I think a peaceful neighborhood is very important and we don't like to listen to any more beeping sounds of sirens and

Thank you very much, Ms. Wilcox.

Hi, good evening.

I would like to urge you all not to reduce the height of the new Ragon Mountain Dam and thereby the water storage planned in the new community water supply plan.

There's strong scientific consensus that it is important for river health to mimic natural streamflow fluctuations.

The Nature Conservancy worked with the RWSA to make sure that releases mimicked natural fluctuations in the river as much as possible.

But the total storage volume was developed before the Nature Conservancy even got involved in the project.

The percentage of water withdrawn from a river is also extremely important in river health.

According to Brian Richter at the Nature Conservancy, the scientific evidence suggests that consistently removing more than 20% of the river flow can damage the river's ecology.

So you want to mimic the natural flow and you also want to limit your withdrawals to 20% or less.

Under our new Virginia Water Protections permit, we are allowed to remove more than that 20%.

It's better than before the permit, but not perfect.

With less storage in the system, we will withdraw a larger percentage of the river flow and will do it more often.

The demand will most likely decrease somewhat due to higher prices and technological changes.

But future permits are likely to be more strict.

If the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Piedmont Environmental Council are successful in concentrating growth into the urban area, we're liable to have more than the planned 60% of the population in the urban

on the urban water system.

And climate change scientists predict that this area will be subject to longer periods of drought and more concentrated rain events.

The point is we're not clairvoyant, but we do know that when people and rivers compete, people win.

The storage is an insurance policy, not only for the people, but also for the rivers.

And the river health translates into better long-term water quality and quantity.

And I wrote just some quick points.

I think I've got a moment here.

I want to say one thing.

Reducing the height of the Ragon Mountain Dam by five feet saves you 14 acres of land.

from Becoming a Lake, which will average 13 feet around the perimeter of the reservoir.

Thank you, Ms. Palmer.

Good evening, Mayor Norris and other City Council members.

I am Helen Flamini.

My address is 3431 Cars Ridge in Crozet.

As president and founder of the McIntire Botanical Garden, I am here tonight to ask city council members to move forward on the master plan process for the east side of McIntire Park.

The city of Charlottesville has put forth its 2025 vision to the community, and the McIntire Botanical Garden can be part of making that vision a reality.

We are aligned with the city to create a green, healthy and connected community.

Our mission is to create a botanical garden at McIntire Park.

a spacious garden that would be open to all, a garden where children can learn about the environment and the natural world, connecting with the educational components that will provide a horticultural setting for programs about botany and biology and internships in horticulture and design.

The vision for a botanical garden is really not a fantastic new idea.

The city has entertained it already in other master plans, 1972,

2004 and supported by the 2005 Citizen Assessment Survey.

McIntyre Botanical Garden, what is different now is of the utmost importance and that's us, the McIntyre Botanical Garden.

We are a 501C3 non-profit and we can accomplish things as a non-profit that a city cannot, particularly with providing long-term financial sustainability.

The public-private partnership creates a model successfully used by other cities who have undertaken similar projects.

We have over 900 people currently in our database.

and as we partner with other non-profits and community organizations that number will grow.

We have individual supporters, foundations, grant opportunities and a member base waiting to partner with the McIntire Botanical Garden once a decision is made about the use of the east side of McIntire Park.

Our private fundraising capabilities include individuals with deep financial resources who truly support the garden vision and wait for the city to move forward with planning before giving.

Again, I ask city council to initiate the master plan process for the east side of McIntire Park.

It's time to get started.

The McIntyre Botanical Garden has generated wonderful support and much positive energy surrounds the idea to make this garden a reality.

Now is the time to move forward and begin the master plan and capture the positive spirit of the community and grow the gardens.

Thank you, Miss Flamingo.

Ma'am, gentlemen, I'm Bob Fenwick, 901 East Jefferson Street.

Several weeks ago, the community water authority director stood in front of you speaking on a community water plan.

To a question about how the water consumption figures stacked up against the water supply projection figures, he was unable to supply an answer.

The go-to guy in our community for information on water needs and consumption couldn't or wouldn't

provide an answer.

He had the answer then and he has it now.

I know because we gave it to him several months ago using figures from his own agency.

He also mentioned that the drop in demand could be an anomaly, a one-time occurrence that skewed the figures.

Water conservation is not an anomaly.

It is not a one-time occurrence.

It is in building codes.

In my business I followed the one and two family building code which has been revised several times.

On page 273 it says when water closets, it says water closets shall be of the low consumption type.

When water conservation gets into the code books it does not come out, it stays there.

It's in architectural standards.

It is taken into account by this council and by previous councils and the Planning Commission when deciding on development projects.

It is taken into consideration on the other side when developers come to you for project approval.

Conservation is in city initiatives, such as, as you're well aware, these leak repair kits the city hands out at no charge to its citizens.

It is an integral part of citizen organizations such as the Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan and LEAP, L-E-A-P, the local energy alliance program which deals with both energy and water conservation.

The city fire department is building a new firehouse in the Fontaine area.

Water conservation measures will be incorporated into the design for all to see.

and they will be there for as long as that building stands with even more improvements as time goes on.

Water conservation is real, it is here to stay, and it is making a marked influence on our community water needs.

It is certainly not an anomaly.

And by the way, as you are well aware, the difference between the projected water demand and the current actual demand is minus 28%.

The projection predicted an increase.

The reality was a major decrease in community water consumption.

That's the last person you signed up to speak.

We have time for a couple more speakers.

Is there anybody else?

Good evening, counselors and staff.

My name is John Gaines and I reside at 214 9th Street, Northwest.

Maybe this evening you will review and amend the noise audience.

There appear to be a need to review and amend the audience that deals with fireworks.

During the 4th of July weekend, my neighborhood was lit up with fireworks.

There is an audience that makes it illegal to set off fireworks in the city.

Amending this audience may force you to employ some quote, firework enforcers.

Presently this audience and the snow removal audience are asking too much of our police department to enforce.

Lastly, I would like to see council lobby our state legislators to restore voting rights immediately to non-violent felons.

I know some of you are saying this is a state problem.

However, can't you place it on your wish list that you present each fall to our representatives in the General Assembly?

Thank you Mr. Gaines.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Ed Housley.

I live at 832 Monticello Road, and I'd like to reiterate the concerns of Janet Hatcher and Thomas on the noise ordinance issue.

We've come a long way trying to address this particular issue, and we can certainly resolve the problem by addressing it now that possibly Bell Rio is or is not going to continue on with the activities they've had in the past.

I've multiple times gotten up past 12 o'clock at night to call the police or to address an issue of one particular person being obnoxious and loud and it's not everybody but it only takes one and this is a point, a turning point in our situation that could be addressed and solve this problem by lowering the decibel rate and keeping a

A moderate control on this area and other areas that experience this.

I thank you for your time and your consideration in all this.

It's been a long road to go through, not only for us, but for you too.

So I appreciate your attention.

Thank you.

One more?

Good evening, City Council.

I'm Julia Williams.

I live at 751 Belmont Avenue.

and I ditto a lot of the comments made by my neighbors about the noise issues.

And in reading the proposed zoning change for neighborhood commercial zones, I'm a little concerned because the definition seems to define music calls as places where there is a fee charge to hear music and the very first incidence of noise issues that I can recall was

Shoot, what's a coffee shop name?

Mataza, had an outside tiki bar set up and they do not charge admissions that I know of.

So I feel like there's some concern that I have some concern that restaurants that maybe there needs to be restrictions on what outdoor activities restaurants can do when they're not going to fall under this category of music hall.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That concludes matters by the public and we will now open our meeting up to council member responses to matters by the public.

I'm happy to start.

First of all, I want to say that the idea of small goats living in yards in Charlottesville delights me.

I was privileged to see a presentation at the Neighborhood Leadership Institute that Mesquite Pines and Marla Ziegler gave about this and they showed the goats in Seattle and I thought it was very compelling.

I'm very strongly in favor of anything that supports local food that doesn't also disturb neighbors.

I'm pleased to hear from Seattle that it doesn't disturb the neighbors there.

Our neighbors, I think, aren't that different, so I'm looking forward to hearing more about it, so thank you so much.

I also want to join Mr. Gaines in saying that I think that we absolutely should put on our wish list the restoration of rights for residents of Charlottesville and all cities in Virginia.

Our state has a rather Neanderthal view of

of restitution of what people when people have served their sentences they continue to punish them for the rest of their lives by denying them civil rights and I think that that's unconscionable.

Two or three comments I'd like to make.

First, again, I agree with Mr. Gaines that voting rights for nonviolent fellows should be restored, and I think we can be in our legislative agenda if we could propose that.

I don't know if it will go too far, but at least it can be done.

Just a couple of comments regarding the water supply.

I agree with Liz Palmer that we are not clairvoyant and that's why I do appreciate the studies that have been done and I also appreciate the enthusiasm and research and work that Rebecca Quinton has put into this and

Just continue to do that because we need to hear your voice and your insight is greatly appreciated and I don't want to underestimate the value of the time that you've just volunteered in doing this.

I'd like to learn more about the goats.

I'm sure there's more of a written history and an unwritten history.

So I'd be interested in exploring more of what happened during the time the ordinance was adopted so we can begin to move forward with that in some way.

also the noise ordinance we're going to be talking about that later and the comment by Mr. Gaines about non-violent felons I think it's so important for us to not only with the restoration of voting rights but other restoring other rights for felons because felons come home and they almost live in a parallel universe and so in addition to voting rights

Thank you.

Just a few comments.

Let's see, I wonder if either Mr. Jones or I know Mr. Frederick came in the room earlier if you could address, because I've had several people ask me what the sort of definition of a drought is and Ms. Hall raised the issue tonight about are we or are we not in a drought.

Good evening.

To address your question, a few years ago there was identified in this community a need to prepare a comprehensive drought response and contingency plan.

It was a joint effort of the City of Charlottesville Public Works Department, the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.

It was collaborative from beginning to end and there are actually responsibilities defined for each of the agencies.

Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, because they maintained the supply, was tasked with identifying when the supply was at risk at various stages.

From the beginning, all three organizations recognized that there needed to be a technical objective process.

Not one that's based on public opinion, but one that's based on technical factual information.

What is recognized in the water industry as state of the art, although there are not many utilities actually using the process yet, is a risk-based approach, which does entail using a computer.

I know some of these words when you talk about statistics, sometimes people tune their ears out because they don't want to talk about statistics, but I like to compare it to what insurance companies do when they are assessing what the risk is of taking on a new

It's a risk assessment similar to that.

We look at levels of reservoirs at a particular point in time of the year, what the local demand is at a given point in time, and we look at

Now it's close to 85 years, I think, of actual historic record, which is 85 divergent paths of how the weather developed from, if you're looking at today, July the 19th, forward over the coming weeks.

And it looks at what's the risk that we're entering a drought.

where we may need to restrict demand or at least put the community on notice.

We have been very close to that point this month.

We ran the analysis on July the 9th, which is 10 days ago.

We were within 3 percentage points of hitting the trigger for a drought watch.

Our consultant said if it didn't rain in the next week we would probably be there.

We did get a little bit of rain over the course of that week.

They ran it again this past Friday, three days ago, and the risk had actually dropped 3%.

I wouldn't suggest we're out of danger, out of the woods.

If it stays dry, very dry for the next couple of weeks, that percentage is going to potentially go back up again.

What I can assure you is that we'll monitor it very carefully and we will make a public announcement if we reach the point where we should

should invoke that.

Thank you, Mr. Frederick.

And that certainly does not mean that people should be over-consumptive of water even though we may not technically be in a drought.

I think the suggestions that Ms. Hall made certainly make a lot of sense.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Thank you.

Ms. Slimini, thank you so much.

I'm a big supporter of the idea of a botanical garden and I appreciate all the leadership you've given to that.

I would like to get an update from staff, not necessarily right at this moment, but I get an update from staff on where we are and in the process of initiating the master plan for the eastern side of the park.

Mr. Gaines, we actually, I believe every year that I've been on council we have had on our legislative wish list

the very thing that you're suggesting which is urging the General Assembly to restore voting rights for non-violent felons.

I certainly would support doing that again this year and I wholeheartedly agree with you and also with Ms. Edwards that it's not just about voting rights, it's about re-entry in general.

and how we best facilitate that process.

Mr. Fiske, you made an excellent point about what more can the city be doing to support neighborhoods, help strengthen the voice of neighborhoods and capacity building and communications and whatnot, so I know that's an ongoing topic of conversation here.

Thank you for reminding of that issue.

We will be talking about the noise ordinance in a few minutes, so I'll reserve my comments on that.

But one thing I did want to note,

is that there actually is, as Ms. Williams pointed out, an item on our consent agenda that in the long run will actually have a much bigger impact on this issue than whether or not the decibel level is 65 or 55.

The problem with Bell Rio is that it is a, or was, a music hall operating, arguably a music hall operating in the guise of a restaurant.

and the neighborhood commercial corridor as many of you have pointed out was not designed to be a destination zone for particularly for music venues.

Now they have been able to follow the letter of the law because the way that the definition was written of music halls allowed them to operate the way they did arguably within the letter of the law.

We are changing the letter of that law tonight through this through this ordinance

which will make it very clear that these kinds of establishments can no longer operate in neighboring commercial corridors and we have put the landlords on notice that whoever occupies that property in the wake of Bell Rio will be expected to abide by this new ordinance which means they cannot serve as a music venue that only incidentally sells food.

It has to be a restaurant where they may have some light music as many restaurants do but it cannot be

It cannot operate the way that it's been operated.

Anyhow, that's all my comments.

Any other comments?

We'll now move on.

The next item on the agenda is appointments to boards and commissions and Vice Mayor Edwards.

Yes, I do.

To the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Robert Stevens, Joy Johnson, Keith Woodard.

Second by Mr.

Hood.

Any discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

Thank you.

And I would note that there's a number of boards and commissions which we still have openings.

And so we would encourage any citizen of the community that would like to take on a leadership role in this community, please go to our website or call our clerk of counsel's office to find out about other boards and commissions where we're still taking applications.

Next item on our agenda is a consent agenda.

On the consent agenda, we have item A, which is the minutes of June 21st.

Item B is an appropriation of $40,727, Piedmont Workforce Network, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Youth Employment Program, second of two readings.

Item C is an appropriation of $10,000, Metro Planners Conference, second of two readings.

Item D, an appropriation of $5,000, Virginia Commission of the Arts Challenge Grant, first of two readings.

Item E is an appropriation of $88,522, fiscal year 2011 Friendship Court sponsorship agreement, first of two readings.

Item F, an appropriation of $15,000, a 2009 state Homeland Security program grant, hazmat, first of two readings.

Item G, an appropriation of $30,000, contribution to stormwater management improvements, first of two readings.

Item H, an appropriation of $65,000.

CASA START truancy prevention program, first of two readings.

Item I, an appropriation of $316,957 fiscal year 2011 transit grants, first of two readings.

Item J, resolution acceptance of River Bluff Circle and the River Bluff Development, first of one reading.

Item K, resolution clean energy source, first of one reading.

Item L, resolution appointment to the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission, first of one reading.

Item M, a resolution appointment to the CACVB, first of one reading.

Item N, resolution rails with trails, first of one reading.

Item O, an ordinance zoning change for neighborhood commercial and restaurants and music halls, second of two readings.

Item P, an ordinance grant of utility easement under Emmett Street to UVA, second of two readings.

Item Q is an ordinance, snow removal enforcement ordinance, first of two readings.

Item R is an ordinance renewing century link franchise agreement, first of two readings.

And item S, an ordinance granting fiber roads franchise agreement, first of two readings.

I'd like to make a comment even though I don't want to pull the agenda item from this.

There is an item relating to rails for trails.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

and the motion carries unanimously.

I would note just for the public's

information.

What we're adopting tonight in terms of snow removal basically changes the way that failure removes snow from your sidewalk is treated.

It used to be treated as a criminal offense.

A local court said the city can no longer treat that as a criminal offense.

We are now treating it as a result of this ordinance as a property maintenance offense which is enforceable by fines

and the net effect will hopefully be the same.

That's correct and then also the pushing of snow into the street as well because that was a problem that we had during the snowstorms last year as well.

All right.

We will now move forward to a public hearing and ordinance regarding the conveyance of the Jefferson School property.

And I believe our acting city manager, Maurice Jones, will lead us in that conversation.

Mr. Mayor, thank you very much.

About three years ago, the City of Charlottesville entered into an agreement with the Jefferson School Partnership into an option and purchase agreement for the property at the Jefferson School.

That was supported unanimously by the City Council.

and there was a 12 month option that was placed on that.

That has expired and the partnership has asked that we would renew that and request that we approve a new agreement that would not only renew that 12 month period but then also would allow us to

to extend the property

get all of our ducks in a row to allow this project to move forward and we're getting very, very close to seeing that happen.

This is an important step in that process.

There's still things that need to occur over the next few months to make it happen, including going through the site planning process with the city.

making sure that we have all the tenants lined up, working on lease agreements, those types of things that still need to take place.

But this is a very important step in the process.

We do feel very comfortable with moving forward on this project and with moving forward with the conveyance of this property.

Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Any questions for Mr. Jones before we open up the public hearing?

Okay, we will now open the public hearing on this matter, and I don't believe anybody has signed up to speak, but if there's anybody on the audience who would like to speak on this subject, please come forward and state your name and address and keep your comments to three minutes.

Mr. Burks, I think you've been drafted.

Yes, we've worked very hard.

We have identified the folks to lease the space.

And it's just a matter of just tweaking a few.

We have letters from those folks that say that they will, in fact, lease.

And we're just so close.

and we're just ready to go.

We're just waiting on the property, we have banks' interests, so we're ready to go.

So, we thank you and if you have any questions, we have lots of Jefferson School supporters here.

The panel of experts.

Alright.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Burks.

Anybody else like to speak on this matter?

As the city manager has outlined, this is a project we've been working on for a long time.

Before I second that, I would like to say that even if I didn't feel very strongly that the community sort of

owes something to the Jefferson School historically.

I think that I would want this anyway, because I think that it really is something going forward that we really need in our community, which is a really strong, active cultural community center.

And I hope that it will eventually be not only a center for activities in the community, but also a draw from people from outside the community.

So I think it's a wonderful project.

That's implied, you're seconding it?

It's Mr. Bergson, so close, ready to go.

I agree.

A few years ago when we were talking about this there was a lot of potential and it's now realizing its potential and that's exciting to see and I commend all of you for your involvement in getting it to this point.

I know there's a lot of work left to go but it's moving forward and we're excited to see that happen.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

It's been moved and seconded on first reading.

I'll carry forward to our next meeting for second reading.

I think you have a sense of where we're going to vote.

Thank you all.

Next item on our agenda.

Got a little carried away there.

The next item on our agenda is a report.

As most of you know, we are in the process of kicking off a search for a permanent city manager for the city of Charlottesville.

Here tonight to sort of give us an update, a status report on where we are in the city manager search process is Mr. John Anzivino, who is heading up that process.

Good evening, Mayor, members of City Council, Mr. Jones, a pleasure to see you again.

We're back to seek endorsement of both the community and position profiles that have been developed with a significant amount of community input.

Just to give you a sense of the lengths that the City Council directed us to go to, to go through to obtain citizen input, we interviewed each of you as council members, nine department heads,

We also sought information from over 30 citizens during a televised public meeting where we actually took phone calls, which was real interesting, had one phone call.

We received and reviewed 73 responses to the online survey and we actually, from the information received from the city, had to consolidate some of the comments and you'll be receiving a full report prior to the interview process

for the city manager candidates, but we received 73 responses indicating what levels of

of problems that the city had, what types of quality, skills, and abilities that the candidates should possess.

And then finally, and in your memorandum that was provided to you by Ms. Barfield, we noted that we had interviewed 18 community leaders out of 25 provided by the council.

That actually increased to 19 out of 25, and a very good number.

We spent about an hour and a half on the phone with each one of those individuals.

to seek out information concerning issues in the city, things that they would like the city to do better, what types of qualities, what types of traits they would like the new city manager to possess.

So we've received 122 personal comments from individuals that we've reviewed and tried to consolidate into the position profile.

Now, you have a 12-page community position profile.

I will tell you, working with the information that we had provided by the city available on your website, very difficult to narrow down to 12 pages what the city of Charlottesville is all about.

This is a spectacular community and you all know that.

The citizens know that.

But we did get it down to 12 pages.

We hope it's satisfactory to you folks.

What we're seeking from you this evening is endorsement of the profiles

but as part of that we have not included salary range.

We did provide you a salary survey of comparable communities here in the Commonwealth and one outside of the Commonwealth and we are suggesting a salary range for consideration to be included in the profile and in the advertisements.

When we receive your endorsement and any changes that you would like to make to the profiles, we'll begin a national search.

We've already had contacts and made contacts in regard to the

In regard to the city and the position, we've actually had folks begin to contact us about the city and their interest in the position as well.

She still has it.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm actually very pleased with the process, especially the interviews with folks just out in the community and going the extra mile with that telephone thing.

I read all the comments that came in on the online survey and it really represented a really broad range of people.

How many people responded to that?

And on a proportionate basis, when we worked with Arlington County, it's about the same proportion of response that we had in Arlington County, which is a county about five times larger in population than the city.

Great.

Any other comments or questions?

So the next step would be after we bless this profile, then what would you do with it?

Well, we'll begin the advertising recruitment process.

That profile, actually I have about 150 letters waiting to go out to prospective candidates that we're going to recruit.

A copy of the profile will go with that letter and that will be part of the recruiting materials.

You indicated that you prefer

You know, Mr. Huja, if we have an idea that council is in the ballpark, it may be better in many of our localities.

We, in many of our localities, we advertise that salary is dependent upon qualifications and experience and we're happy to do that.

But we certainly don't want to encourage candidates who are expecting a salary of $250,000.

We're working with some communities on the north shore of Chicago right now.

And that's a very expensive area.

And the compensation levels up in that area are just, well, they're outside of Virginia standards, I would say.

Would it be appropriate to say that we would kind of give it our tacit blessing unless you hear the contrary from any of us in the next few days?

Yeah, well, I'll work with Ms. Barfield and Mr. Beck-Mullen.

Okay.

Well, we'll wait to hear from you all.

Great.

And then, so there's a time frame for doing the recruitment.

dependent upon when we're given the go-ahead to move forward with placing the advertisements and really beginning the recruiting process.

It'll be about a 30 to 35 day to receive the resumes.

Then it will be about a two to three week process for us to screen those and prepare a report with 10 to 12 candidates for your consideration.

We'll bring that to you at one of your work sessions.

We'll go over the report with you and then you'll begin the narrowing process, the narrowing the candidate pool process.

to bring it down maybe to a more manageable number for interviews, which may be in the five to seven range initially.

We would then suggest after you've conducted that initial round of interviews, this being a community which has a considerable amount of public interest in the position and operation of the city, that we move to the next level, which would be comprised of some panels of folks who would be interviewing and providing input to the city council as well.

Thank you very much.

We'll be in touch.

Alright, we'll look forward to it.

Next item is the report and ordinance regarding noise ordinance, first of two readings, and Mr. Tolbert.

Just to give some background on this, for those of you who have been monitoring this, you know we adopted a lowered noise ordinance about four months ago.

roughly, March.

And we said we'd review it every three months.

We reviewed it upon the first three month benchmark, saw some signs of progress.

I know there were some discussions still planned in the neighborhood and with the particular property owner or property operator that were supposed to happen soon thereafter.

In the view of

Many of us on council, the situation only got worse since then, based on the feedback we were hearing from the neighborhood.

And so we had a request from Ms. Szakos to expedite consideration of a lowered ordinance and not wait another three months, but given the fact that the situation seemed to have been getting worse, but to go ahead

Again, as the mayor said, this is one that we brought forward in March and council actually lowered the decibel limit from 75 to 65.

You've seen the reports from the police department and really there was no change after it was lowered.

As Mr. Fiss talked about in his presentation, we had a meeting on site hoping we could make something happen.

It had to happen the night when there was a band that was moderately loud and probably quiet by most standards.

You know, the next night it was back up to where the complaints were coming in again.

What you have before you tonight is an amendment to the ordinance that does two things, and there's two important things.

One of them that goes almost unnoticed is we had to correct the fact that this affects restaurants and music halls.

Where we measure the desperate levels now has been changed from where it used to be.

Could you give me the wording of what used to be the wording?

Well, the old ordinance measured it at the property line of the business.

The ordinance you adopted in March measured it at the property line of the closest residential property.

It's at the adjacent property line where it's measured.

What happened when you change that to 65, the readings we were getting at that property line were in the high 50s, low 60s.

So they didn't change the music, we changed where we were measuring it and we still had a problem.

So this was measured at the residential property line but if you pass it by knocking it down to 55, the average reading has been above that so it would require the turning down of the music again.

the operator's not there but anybody that comes back is going to be completely different this is just a really it's an extra safeguard I think as the mayor said earlier the change you made in the consent agenda is more important than this but also as the issue was raised you know we do not prohibit music outdoors at this point at establishments

Could you just enlighten me one more time?

We felt like it was just more uniform in our review of ordinances around the state and around the country.

Most of them read it at the receiving property line instead of the generating property line.

So we felt like that was the appropriate place since you're trying to protect

Well, and there's also situations, and we have one in our other neighborhood commercial corridor, where you have a restaurant, Dirty Nally's, that plays music, but there isn't, there's no residences immediately adjacent to it, so we haven't had

issues of noise complaints.

Right, to my knowledge never had a complaint.

Right, but if we were to measure it at the property line of Dirty Nellie's, yes it may exceed the level but it's there's it's a you know you don't have a neighborhood impact that you do in Belmont.

Absolutely, right.

And so that was one of the concerns I think was that we don't want to, yeah.

Hopefully it gets at the root of the problem.

Is there any record of restaurants other than Bel Rio exceeding 55 decibels in either of our neighborhood commercial stores that have been measured?

To the best of my knowledge, no.

Okay.

And I've heard, and Mr. Rahal, I don't know if you want to reiterate, I believe I've heard you say before that it's your sense that other restaurants in downtown Belmont are fine with the 55 decibels.

Absolutely.

The other restaurants are operating as restaurants.

Right.

And there's a major difference.

I think that one of the most persistent problems again is the base levels and that tends to travel in a different way than the mid-range and the high range.

Vibrations.

And so, you know, we can maybe refine or fine tune where the measurements are taking place.

Dirty Nellie's case, for example, nobody's going to complain because there's nobody contiguous or adjacent to it.

So you could, they could exceed the limit, but somebody would have to complain for that to happen.

Also, Dirty Nellie's is not a late night establishment by definition.

that sort of creeping hourly hours of operation is what really brought us to this point anyhow it began to morph and change and so I think that if restaurants are restaurants it's very helpful for them to have some discipline and rigor in the ordinance so that they understand who they are and what they're supposed to be because

You're one of the regulatory agencies, so to speak, that they deal with out of five.

And this presents problems down the line for all the others.

Health, ABC, of course law enforcement.

So we welcome it from the standpoint that their resources are already stretched to the max.

They don't need to be dealing with us on a regular basis.

It's really not what they're there for.

So we welcome that.

And as well, I think it would be helpful if we did finally have some sort of convenient meeting with the rest of the restaurant owners in the district.

So that we're all on the same page with this, I noticed that the restaurant that was in application, Southern Crescent, that has expired without them acting on their ABC application.

so we don't know what is going to happen with them or whether they're viable or not but also Gibson's is an application for another license so I think the major issue we're dealing with now is this concentration of ABC licenses in such a small area and having talked to the ABC agent recently it's a problem for him as well because enforcement and open beverages these are issues he expects to deal with on the corner not downtown

in Belmont in a residential neighborhood where it's quite frankly even harder to regulate because you're not as exposed, it's a little bit darker.

There's more on street parking for people to duck in and be furtive about what they're doing.

We just want to make it easy for everybody so that we can all coexist over there with the neighborhood in a holistic way if possible.

Thank you, Mr. Merrill.

Yes, sir.

As you have received the report and I have received the report,

It is a consistent problem, it has been a problem for a while and I think the council tried to deal with it on an incremental basis, 65 does well, it hasn't worked and I think it should be lowered to 55.

I'm not even sure that eventually we will need to change more for the definition, but at least I'm incremental in nature.

I think that will help a great deal.

In looking at the police reports that we have reports of, there was only one, and it was at the very beginning of the period that they were studying, where a police report showed less than a 55 decibel at the residential property line.

So I guess I would be comfortable with that too, just changing the number at this point.

One more comment Mr. Mayor.

As you mentioned earlier, David Brown is not here to speak for himself today.

I would just reiterate the point I made earlier which is

We could change the noise ordinance to 35 decibels and as long as there was enough sound insulation that's not going to address all the other issues that are caused by having a music venue in a single-family residential neighborhood and so I think this is a one-two punch that we're seeing tonight where we're addressing the sort of underlying issue

of the mistake that was made by allowing music halls to operate in neighborhood commercial corridors by making the definition of music halls too narrow to catch everybody that it needed to catch.

So I really think that's the more important of the two, but clearly the noise is its own issue.

Okay, so it's before us tonight on first reading.

Is there a motion to approve?

We've already had time for public comment, but we'll have further opportunities at the end of this meeting and then at our next meeting for public comment.

And certainly, any time between now and the next meeting, you're welcome to contact Council.

And thank you, all of you.

We now have, next on our agenda is a report, an update on dredging.

Good evening.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, this will be a PowerPoint, so in an effort to save your time, if you want to move around while I do my introduction.

This is an opportunity for you to be updated on the South Fork Urbana Reservoir dredging feasibility study.

Some of you did attend the

July 30th, sorry, June 30th public meeting and Mr. Kerry Birch of HDR is here to give you a little shortened version of what was given to the public and give you the opportunity to ask him questions and then we'll be back at the end of the presentation.

I'm now live and ready to go.

I'm Kerry Burch with HDR.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to summarize for you the results of our feasibility study.

The purpose of the study was to look at the feasibility of taking the reservoir back as close as possible to its original contours and water volume.

This was not looking at expanding the reservoir beyond those original contours or water storage capacity and nor was it looking at long-term maintenance of the reservoir but just sort of a one-time dredging event to remove the accumulated sediment and get back to that water storage volume it used to have.

The study was done in two phases.

Phase one was a characterization of the existing conditions within the reservoir.

Phase two looked at the actual feasibility of dredging itself, looking at dredging alternatives, dewatering alternatives, and beneficial reuse.

Just to quickly summarize what we found in that phase one reservoir characterization process.

The sediment was clean, there were no environmental contaminants identified.

Most of the sediment occurred in the upper reaches of the reservoir and in Ivy Creek.

For our planning purposes, we broke the reservoir into three sections, looking at the lower main stem from Earliesville Road Bridge down to the dam.

We found very little sediment.

What sediment was there was all in the deep or dead storage of the reservoir.

The upper main stem of the reservoir from Earliesville Road Bridge up to Raysford Road Bridge contains most of the sediment.

and then Ivy Creek from the Woodlands Road Bridge up about three quarters of a mile also has its fair share.

What we did find is that the upper segments of the reservoir have a high percentage of sand.

The upper portion is close to 77% sand and then that drops down to about 20% sand, give or take, in that lower part of the main stem.

Not surprising, the sand particles are larger, heavier, they fall out first.

In terms of obstacles to dredging, the only serious obstacle we ran into, aside from the issue of limited access, is the Woodlands Road bridge itself.

You can't move a dredge from the main stem into Ivy Creek and back and forth underneath that bridge.

You'll have to move the dredge out of the water and relaunch in order to get up into there.

And of course, some of the sediment deposits have become vegetated wetlands.

We identified 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment would have to come out of the reservoir to bring it back to its original contours.

However, we recommended that the existing wetlands not be disturbed to minimize the environmental impacts, make it easier to get project permits.

We recommended not dredging underneath or right up against the several bridges that cross the reservoir.

And we recommended not dredging right up against the shorelines as well so that you're not undercutting the shoreline, causing the shoreline to later erode and slump.

that drops sediment load that can be removed by dredging down to about 1.5 million cubic yards and so we said as a target 1.4 million cubic yards we subtracted out the 119,000 cubic yards that's tucked down in that lower main stem down near the dam in that lower deep storage it's really not hurting anything difficult to get to, difficult to dewater

So we moved forward looking for dredging alternatives that would get us to 1.4 million cubic yards.

And again, we looked at a variety of dredging alternatives, a variety of dewatering alternatives, and we looked at what can you do with the dirt after you get it out of the reservoir and you separate it out, dry it out a little bit.

This is not a stepwise approach.

It's an iterative process because how you dredge it determines how it has to be dewatered and how it gets dewatered determines what you can do with it and so forth.

It all feeds.

We determine that hydraulic dredging

was the most feasible approach.

It is also the most, I guess, standard or conventional approach for this type of large-scale reservoir dredging.

It consists of a cutter head or other device on the front of a boom to loosen the sediment, and then there's a hose and pump attached that sucks the loosened sediment in a water slurry mix and pumps it away in a pipeline.

And therein lie your advantages and your disadvantages.

The key advantage is it's typically low cost type of dredging.

You can transport it a great distance through the pipeline.

You don't need a lot of lakeside access with heavy trucks, minimal disturbance to the water quality within the reservoir.

The largest disadvantage is you do have this water slurry mix that has to be dewatered.

at the end of the pipeline.

Typically, you look for a large level upland area where you can create a basin, pump the material into the basin and dewater it.

The larger, flatter the basin, the better your unit costs for dewatering are.

And of course, you need a pipeline route to that dewatering site.

I said we looked at the local market for similar materials in the Charlottesville and Albemarle County area.

What you see here are the range of retail costs for a cubic yard of these materials if it was delivered within 20 miles of Charlottesville.

Topsoil

screened or unscreened, fill material a little bit less, and sand.

Sand has a very high dollar value because there are no local sources of sand in Charlottesville.

All of your sand here is trucked in from actually fairly considerable distances, some as far away as Williamsburg.

Multiple users for all of these materials, very few large scale uses for these materials.

That is no single customer showing up and buying 10,000 or 50,000 cubic yards of topsoil.

It tends to be smaller purchases scattered amongst multiple small projects.

The only single large user for fill material that we identified is the Charlottesville Airport.

They have a source for their fill material needs on site, but are willing to consider other material if it can be shown to have a cost advantage.

However, we did run into some difficulties getting your project and capabilities to mesh with theirs, so I'm not really sure that's a great option for you, but it is an option.

Eventually, out of all of that, we recommended a two-part dredging approach to get back to that original project purpose of trying to get back as close as we could to the original contours of the reservoir.

Part one, hydraulically dredge segments one, two, and three of the reservoir.

That's those upper segments from Raysford Road Bridge moving down into the reservoir where there was a high percentage of sand.

Set up at a parcel of land owned by Mr. Spottswood Conley who is considered to allow us to use his parcel, at least for the purposes of this study.

Set up a mechanical dewatering system there that would separate the sand and the sediment from the water, return the water back to the reservoir, and then go ahead and reuse that material within the local market.

It shows you Mr. Connolly's parcel.

It's on the left bank of the river just upstream of Ray's Ford Road bridge.

We would need to make some improvements into the driveway, into that parcel, set up a work pad, and put in some access down into the river to stage the project there.

Mechanical dewatering systems, fairly standard technology.

These are truck-mounted rigs, very similar to the types of dewatering systems that are used in wastewater treatment or potable water treatment.

Typically, we begin with the unit on top.

It's a sand separator or sand shaker, as it's called.

As the flow comes in the pipeline off the dredge, it would be filtered through a trash carrying to remove branches and debris.

It would then go through the shaker screen and the sand is separated.

From there it goes to a mix tank where it's held and remixed before going to a series of filter presses.

And the filter presses are used to separate out the silts and clays, the finer particulates.

The end result is something on the consistency of wet coffee grounds.

A little bit more clumping to it than that perhaps, but no standing water, no fluid remaining.

So in part one, we're looking at dredging a total of 290,000 cubic yards, pretty much all of the sediment that's in those first three segments.

Running it through the mechanical dewatering, we would separate out, we estimate approximately 189,000 cubic yards of sand.

The rest would be the silts and clays.

Cost for this project for the dredging and the dewatering

would be between not quite 8 million to not quite 13 million.

Total water volume gained by doing this is 58.6 million gallons within those upper three segments of the reservoir.

This part of the dredging has a potential cost offset because you are going to separate out that sand and that other material and have it there

in a relatively dry, reusable consistency.

Cost recovery for sand is in the $4 to $9 million range.

And this is including some additional cost for further processing of the materials.

hauling in the materials.

Again, this is comparing it back to those retail prices we showed earlier.

Cost recovery for the remaining material.

If you use it as sediment, it has a wider range, you're probably looking at the lower dollar value there because the material coming out of the reservoir, although suitable for use for topsoil, does not have a lot of organic matter mixed in with it, so it's not going to necessarily be cost competitive with the topsoil that you would be buying from a lot of your local purveyors.

and for Phil, it's a mixed bag.

You may make money, you may lose a bit on it depending on where you are and what the market is doing.

Part two of the dredging process.

We looked at hydraulic dredging segments four through nine.

That's the remainder of that upper main stem of the reservoir down to the Earliesville Road bridge and then dredging up into Ivy Creek.

We would stage the project at the Virginia Rolling Association and we identified several sites where some confined dike facilities could be set up to dewater the material.

Under the part two portion of this dredging, there is no reuse of the material.

And that is due to the landowner's requirements.

That is, if the material is going to be pumped onto confined dike facilities at Panorama Farms, one of their conditions is that it simply remains there.

Virginia Rowing Association staging area, they've got a grassed field cleared

largely unused.

We would again put in a small turning road, gravel work pad, and a floating dock.

This is where the crews would stage to assemble the pipeline necessary to run from the dredge to the various dewatering facilities where they could have equipment storage and small boats to access the dredge and the other equipment as necessary.

Here's an example of one of the sites on Panorama Farms.

Because of the sloped topography and the nature of the land that was available to us for this, we were unable to develop one single large cell.

So what we did was for each of the sites that were available to us, in an attempt to maximize the storage of material on each site, developed a series of cells stair-stepped down the slopes.

The same thing with the site three on Panorama Farms,

and then a smaller portion of the Llewellyn parcel which is just downstream of the Raesford Road Bridge.

Between those three confined dyke facilities, we estimate that we could remove from the reservoir 835,000 cubic yards of material.

The cost would be $26 to $27 million.

Dredging cost is about seven to eight million, most of that cost going into construction of those dewatering facilities.

Typically those dewatering facilities do not cost as much as we are showing here, but because we have sloped sites and we need to construct multiple cells, the earthwork cost does increase.

Removing 835,000 cubic yards from the reservoir would restore 169 million gallons of storage.

Combined, these two dredging approaches would remove 1.1 million cubic yards of material at a cost of 34 to 40 million, not counting anything that might be gained from the resale of material generated from part one.

We got to within 79% of that 1.4 million target goal.

Total potential is to restore 227 million gallons of storage.

This might be useful just into getting yourself situated as to what we were talking about with the parts.

Here is the Connelly parcel just up from the Ray's Ford Road bridge.

We would dredge sections 1, 2, and 3

and pump the material back here, mechanically dewater it and then truck it off.

For part two of the dredging, which would be sections four down through here and then up Ivy Creek, it would stage out of the Virginia Rolling Association parcel and the material would be pumped back to these areas here where it would be dewatered and left.

and then the sites after they were completed with the dewatering process would be restored.

And that is a very fast summary.

Thank you very much for your very informative presentation, for all your good work.

And I want to echo the comments that Ms. Quinn made earlier.

I think everybody was very impressed with the work that you did and came up with a lot of very valuable data.

So thank you.

I have a couple kind of basic questions, just shows my ignorance about this sort of project.

Anytime you have standing water, more than about three days, you have the potential for a mosquito issue.

In the basins themselves, yes, there is a possibility that mosquitoes could breed there.

There isn't large pools of standing water there as the material is designed to settle and run off.

With this type of operation, typically a polymer is injected into the material just before it goes into the basin.

The polymer causes the silken clays to coagulate and drop out.

It's the same types of polymers that are used in drinking water treatment.

So those ponds, I'm pointing to invisible places, but those ponds in Panorama Farms and the other lot you were talking about,

Those ponds are designed to decant off the top.

They're basically a large settling basin.

So each pond from the top would then be channeled to the pond below and so forth.

So as the material is pumped in, starting from the top,

the sediment will start to settle out and the water is decanted through a weir system off the top into the next pond where more material is allowed to settle out and so forth until it's eventually discharged back into the reservoir.

And the other question was how much storage capacity do we have for the

the stuff, the sand, the dirt that comes out of this.

If we don't sell it, do we have to get rid of it?

There is not storage capacity on the Connelly site because that is within the floodplain.

So the material would have to be removed from there and stockpiled elsewhere.

We did not identify a stockpile location.

So that would be something to look into for a further study or effort or there are various companies that do sell sand.

It could be, depending on the production rate, simply moved to their facilities under some arrangement and moved out from there.

You've got some room to play with the production rate of that

Phase One effort depending on what the market demand for the materials may be.

And it's sort of hard to project.

I was thinking that we're probably at the lowest, I hope, lowest development market right now.

Can almost only go up from here.

The water which you will be gaining capacity after dredging, what percentage is the water needs?

I was wondering what the water you dredge after dredging gets the capacity of water.

The community water supply plan that was approved in 2006 identified a need for 1.7 billion gallons of additional storage for a long term need for the community.

The part one dredging that Mr. Birch recommended would supply 3% of that volume.

I had a question and maybe a couple of questions.

I know you're probably aware there's been some discussion about doing, dredging a different way than you envision doing it here where instead of doing it, going in and doing all at once, doing it over a matter of years,

which the argument goes would may not require us to build the large holding ponds or the hope is that would not require us to build the large holding basins which are a huge proportion of the cost that you envision for dredging the reservoir would be actually building those basins as I understand it.

Is it, can you comment on

the analysis that's been done about what an alternative way of proceeding with dredging were you doing it in small, as they say, small bites or small amounts over a period of years rather than doing it all at once.

Would that be more cost effective?

Okay, first off, doing it in small increments would not work at all with part two because the cost involved is in developing the site, building the basins, and once you've sunk that cost, you'll get a better unit cost on your dredging by then using a larger dredge that can fill them as quickly as possible.

You could go to part one

and expand that dredging process.

And in theory you could dredge the entire reservoir using mechanical dredging.

I believe it would be tremendously expensive to do so.

As you move farther into the reservoir,

you're going to find that the dewatering costs are going to increase because you're now into a much higher percentage of silts and clays.

So it's easy to get sand out of that water slurry mix.

The sands and clays are much harder and more expensive.

And as you move out of those first three segments that we've identified for part one, you're going to see increased

dewatering cost and a decrease on that potential return because you're now bringing back much less sand for the unit cost.

As to feed a mechanical dewatering system, you cannot use the largest, most efficient dredges because the systems can't handle that flow.

So you're looking at probably a 10-inch dredge, you might get to a 12-inch dredge.

that will slow down the dredging efficiency and process and extend it out further over time.

As you do that, you're going to incur additional mobilization and demobilization cost because as you move down the reservoir and you get farther away from your dewatering site, you have to keep extending and building more pipeline.

And then each year, that pipeline is going to have to come out of the reservoir for the winter, be built back,

again the next spring.

So you're going to incur mobilization costs each year.

And the longer you stretch it out, eventually those will start to add up.

It's a valid approach if you want to focus on managing your cash flow.

You only want to spend a certain amount each year and make progress.

It certainly works.

Over the long term, I think

And I'm going to ask you a question similar to a question I asked you at the Rivanna meeting.

So I already know the answer, but for the benefit of the public, did you look at the challenges of, I mean one of the issues here is that the sort of natural dewatering sites that are adjacent to the reservoir within

You know, a short distance of the reservoir are, as you say, have challenging topography.

They're not big, flat fields where you can easily deposit and dewater sediment, which is one of the reasons why you have to build these very expensive basins.

That's correct characterization.

A substantial part of our effort was focused on looking for and identifying potential dewatering sites both for mechanical dredging as well as hydraulic dredging.

We considered several different means here.

We went out several miles from the reservoir working our way outward using desktop searches based on aerial photography and GIS data.

getting out and doing windshield cruises and then reaching out and talking to various landowners that look like they might have sites that could work.

There's not a lot of flat land anywhere near the reservoir that doesn't have something on it.

We did find one perfect site, but somebody put an airport on it.

Now, if you look at the topography, you look at it, there's a lot of rolling hills, you know,

Land that's in conservation districts is out.

Land that's in floodplain is out.

If it has streams or it has wetlands, it's out.

The regulators would not approve us going back in and refilling it.

We tried to minimize environmental impacts by not looking at large forested tracks that would have to be cleared.

Obviously, if there's a lot of houses on it, that wasn't going to fly.

So you start, you know,

striking out properties like that and there's not a lot of choices.

Any other questions, comments?

I believe both of the two parts that we've discussed here can be permitted.

Part one would be the simplest to permit because there is limited land disturbance with that one.

The actual dredging permits itself I think will be fairly straightforward for most of the agencies.

So there would be a permit from the Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Marine Resources Commission for the dredging and the water quality impacts from that.

And then for that part one there would have to be

permit from the county for special use for the Spotswood-Conley site and the typical erosion sediment control requirements and so forth go along with any sort of land disturbance activity.

For part two, there is an added wrinkle of building the basins and those are going to be classified as dams by Virginia law so an additional round of permits would be required from the Department of Conservation and Recreation which oversees dams.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

The discussion continues.

Thank you.

Next item on our agenda is a report in appropriation.

Mayor, Members of City Council, the Rivanna Water Authority charges the city for sewer treatment based on the actual volumes that are treated.

The city can only build its customers based on needed water use.

As you know, this winter seems to be continuing to cost the city money, and in the case of the wastewater utility, because of all the rain during the winter, it created a lot of inflow and infiltration issues, which actually caused us to go over budget by $1.27 million was the estimate when this paper was put together.

The actual numbers ended up being $1,089,000.

We got the actual figures last week, like I mentioned to the city manager.

What we plan to do is to take $1,270,000 out of the reserve fund that's in utilities and pay the bill.

We also anticipate receiving about anywhere from $548,000 to $675,000 in the way of a refund.

because I think all parties have kind of tacitly approved that we're going to change a four-party agreement so that the debt service portion of the Rivanna charges, which is basically 43% of the total charges, is going to be a fixed charge.

Part of the problem that happened this year is because of the way the four-party agreement is set up, they charge you based on total volume.

And your fixed debt service charge may have been $2 million.

We ended up paying $2.8 million just because of the way the agreement is set up.

and I think everyone pretty much agrees that needs to change.

So if you have any questions, by the way, this was 24% higher than what was budgeted.

And if you go back over the last five years, it averages out to a 4.4% change.

So you can see it was a major change this year compared to like the last five years average.

The biggest amount of decrease actually was in 2008, which is 12%.

So when you're looking at a 24% increase, that was really a 36% change in treatment costs this year because of all the water table issues with all the snows and the rains.

Certainly.

I mean, we have an over $30 million CIP budget for wastewater, which will solve some of these issues because of the cracks in the pipes and that type of thing.

This is in essence a huge profit for Rivanna based on the amount of water that went through the system.

Based on the last information I've seen through May, they actually did some processes that saved them money.

I think the treatment costs for the chemicals and utilities are probably about 5% of the budget.

Right.

It looked like between the mid-90s and the late 90s, they were automatically refunding the money.

And just through the process of my discovery, they ran into some financial difficulties and they stopped doing that.

What they did do was set up reserves just in case it comes in less than what they have budgeted.

and I think from the last CAFR comprehensive financial report I saw they had a million dollars of reserve set up for that.

No, no, no.

But when you go back and look at the five year period it was only a 4.4% difference.

This year is just

if you use this word, an anomaly.

We don't anticipate this again hopefully, but you know with 100 degree temperatures for the last two weeks, who knows.

We think there's a better way to structure the building for wastewater and hopefully we'll be able to work with them this summer and maybe make some recommendations to the board, at least that's my recommendation.

The debt side I think is pretty much done, I think everybody agrees with that.

If we denied it, the practical effect is that we wouldn't pay Rivanna $1.27 million and we'd be in violation of the four-party agreement.

I have to say, this is one of those things where I may end up voting for it, but just by holding my nose in doing so, because I feel like this is a

Well when we looked at it first we were estimated to be a million seven hundred thousand dollars and the last couple of months have been good we're talking drought so now we're talking about a million one so if we get the money back

then it won't have an impact on our race stabilization if we get the money back for the debt service refund.

It should be okay.

Well, we ask you to vote on the $1,270,000 unless you amend it.

I mean, basically what we would do is just put $1,270,000 in the budget.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

All right, it's been moved and seconded.

It will carry forward to our next meeting on second reading.

I just did want to make one comment about the four-party agreement process.

I'm not sure what that will entail, but whether that could be a part of that process to see how it works.

It was approved by the council, by the Rivanna board.

These are the amendments.

When is this revision supposed to come back?

I'd like to know when the date is going to be set.

You know, remember, we should be able to get between five or six hundred some thousand of that back.

I don't think that's an issue, but the four-party agreement still has to be, based on the opinion of their attorney, has to be amended.

The amendment, do you have any idea what time frame you're talking about?

I think it's hard to say at this point.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Craig.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, in 2007, the City of Albemarle County and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority

entered into an agreement that contemplated local support payments to Rivanna to cover their anticipated budget deficits.

That came about as what was known as the service contribution fee was being phased out.

That was a subsidy paid by the city on city collected trash and taking designed crossroads.

It was a surcharge on the tipping fee for that trash that

that went to Rivanna.

The 2007 agreement provided for proportional funding of Rivanna's deficit by the city and county according to population and those population percentages used beginning I think with the 2008 fiscal year was 30% for the city and 70% for Albemarle County.

There was recently a request made to see if there was a better, more equitable way of making that allocation and an amendment has been prepared which allocates the responsibility for Rivanna's deficit.

This is Rivanna's solid waste authority.

based on usage and the amendment which is in your notebook does several things.

It allocates the Solid Waste Authority's administrative expenses according to the following percentages, 20% to recycling operations, 50% to all other operations,

and 30% to remediation activities.

And environmental remediation is covered by a separate memorandum of understanding between the city, the county and the University of Virginia, which is not affected by this agreement.

With regard to those allocations of expenses, this agreement proposes that the city be responsible for 33% of the solid waste authority's deficit related to recycling operations and that's based on a survey done at the McIntire Recycling Center and I've set forth the results of that survey in your agenda memo.

The agreement also provides that the city is responsible for 15% of Rivanna's deficit related to other operations and that's primarily the IV material utilization center.

One thing that I don't think was as clear as it could have been in this proposed amendment is what happens after six months because this amendment is worded in terms of

the city and the county funding Rivanna's deficit for the next six months.

One reading, and whether intentional or not, I think it's probably the most likely reading is that after six months it would go back to the population-based allocation, the 30% versus 70%.

What I have suggested is that if council is inclined to approve this proposed amendment that you do so with the additional sentence that says after six months, nothing either in the original 2007 agreement or this amendment

would be construed as obligating the city to make any further financial contribution to the Solid Waste Authority after December 31st, 2010.

I actually had a question.

I don't know if there's more for you or Ms. Mueller.

We had set aside a certain amount of money in our budget that was sort of put on hold pending an outcome and decision on how to particularly to deal with the McIntyre Road Recycling Center.

That would be how you would fund the city's portion of this.

It is anticipated to be less than what you set aside, but I want to make it clear from the start that this is budgets, not actuals.

We do have the funding available.

I believe the Rivanna Board's already approved it.

Have they not?

No.

I know they've talked about it.

and I think everybody seemed favorably inclined towards it.

I think that depends on the status of the strategic plan that was contemplated back in the 2007 agreement.

The original 2007 agreement

Please.

I think the future of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, what programs it's going to offer, is a decision that needs to come from the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, not from the authority board or the authority staff.

The authority exists, number one, to provide remediation and I think it's done a very good job of remediation as reflected by what the neighbors around the site have suggested.

Beyond that,

It can exist to provide as little or as much as the city and county want, either collectively or individually.

I think from the city of Charlottesville standpoint, it would be very helpful to this process if the city would make a decision and notify the county what its long-term position will be.

whatever that is and I'm not limiting what your decision should be.

I think that moved the process forward.

What I find happening, observing and really trying to push that let's make decisions based on what the two local governments want is when it falls back on the Rivanna staff, we don't get anywhere because we're trying to do what you want and what the county wants, not what we want.

Yes, I would like to see that the city does decide what we are going to do in the near future and not wait until six months.

We'll discuss, we can have discussion.

We had a work session earlier this year on this issue.

Would it make sense to come back and revisit some of those issues and to do that this fall?

Alright, it's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

And it carries unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Any other business before council tonight?

Hearing none, we will reopen matters by the public.

Is there anybody from the public who would like to speak?

Yes?

I will.

I'm Eleanor Biasioli.

I live at 622 Evergreen Avenue.

I'm here to speak about the noise ordinance.

Eric Zwirling, Director of Rutgers Noise Technical Center, said that a lot of municipalities don't even think about noise.

He also went on to say that it is cheaper to design for quiet than to remediate it.

The people in Belmont have had many years to hear and think about noise.

They wish it had been remediated sooner.

I am here to support the noise level audience change to 55 dB in the neighborhood commercial corridor.

Wolfgang Babish, your senior research officer at the German Federal Environmental Agency, said in an editorial written in 2005 that noise affects everybody in everyday life, at home, at leisure, during sleep, when traveling at work.

However, and he makes an important point, human organisms are not prepared to shut off the noise.

He reports that during sleep, electrophysiological awakening reactions can be detected at noise levels above 40 to 45 dBs in a bedroom, and recent studies indicate that it is even lower.

He goes on to report that a subject may sleep during relatively high noise levels, but still show autonomic responses, that is the release of stress hormones,

Heart rate, blood pressure changes.

Since you are not awake, your autonomic response system doesn't know that it is not a fight or flight situation.

Cortisol, one of the stress hormones, has received much press on the impact of excess cortisol on the body.

Our U.S. Federal Transportation Agency has been studying the effects of noise on health.

They allowed the developers in Fairfax to build houses within the 200-foot buffer of the Dulles Highway if they could be built so that the noise level is lower than 55 dB during the day and 45 dB at night in the house.

The homes in Belmont were not built to the standard.

I sent you an email on January 21, 2010 with links to the sources that I have just quoted when the noise audience was being considered.

There are health consequences.

The noise level is important.

I believe that the transportation has it right when they say that noise compatible land use planning

can have a positive effect on a community's aesthetics, the quality of life, and finances.

My name is Allison Ruffner.

I live at 735 Grave Street, and as I'm sure you all are aware, I came here to talk about the noise ordinance.

I'm trying to abbreviate this because of the time.

I try and keep up to date in blogs and sort of just what the general mentality is in addition to talking to people, and one of the most interesting things I saw

I say put in a wine and cheese bar complete with a three-piece classic ensemble.

That should keep those oh-so-sensitive nouveau Belmonters happy.

And you know, my first thought was, well, what's wrong with that as a business model?

What's the problem?

Are you anti-business, anti-music?

And my second thought was, actually, as I had no idea that Miss Shotwell would have been considered as a nouveau to Belmont, I believe she moved into her current residence the year you and I were born.

So, you know, the truth is classical musicians do count as musicians and wine and cheese are perfectly acceptable at any restaurant to serve.

The issue is not music and it's not the type of food.

If it were, we'd have to deal with screaming, bawling crowds crashing out of the paramount after a particularly

Exciting rendition of Don Giovanni from Ash Lawn or after one of them had broadcast.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Chief Longo has had to stand outside of there with six to eight police officers with a paddy wagon waiting after the conclusion of an opera.

The truth is this really has had to do with the abusive practices of some particular business owners.

They are very lackadaisical landlords and they're very rude patrons which I think can be expressed in the quote that I gave you.

Contrary to the belief of many residences and business owners in that area have the right to the enjoyment of their property and to sleep in their own homes free from the base thrumming through their walls at 1 a.m.

Screaming in the streets and wondering just how much vandalism they're going to experience by the time they wake up in the morning.

They have a right to walk their dog if they work the late shift at midnight at 1 a.m. and feel safe doing so.

And when they see crimes being committed and dangerous, they have the right to bring it up and see laws enforced.

And if they go to the authorities in the governing body to be sure the safety of themselves and their property is protected, they do have the right to see for action.

On the occasion, it may require an ordinance.

We always hope not, but sometimes it does.

And there's nothing wrong with them expecting this, and I've never understood the attitude why there seems to be an issue with that.

What is wrong is for them to have to stand and watch as the police take a hands-off approach and the governing body fiddles while night after night, week after week, month after month, and now year after year, they have watched their rights violated, laws broken, they've been denied sleep, and they've watched their health deteriorate.

It isn't the residents going up and causing troubles for the business owners.

In 2007, when this very question came up due to similar activities by a different establishment in the same building,

Three council members, including Mayor Norris, promised to help, and I think it's time that promise is kept.

The noise ordinance really should be set at 55 decibels after 55 p.m., and it absolutely should include C-type noise, because that gets the whole spectrum.

Thank you.

Mr. Klayman?

Hold on, Mr. Klayman.

My name is Edith Good, I live at 305 2nd Street.

This is about the noise ordinance.

I don't live in Belmont, but I live in a large apartment building and between me and the street is another large apartment building.

and at midnight I can lie in bed with the windows and doors closed and hear on the other side of the building next to me in the street, no music, just the bass.

Some car is there and I can hear this bass, I can feel it.

And I wonder, I don't know about the decibels and the bass, but somebody complained about the bass and I wonder if that's related to decibels or

Good evening.

I'm Peter Klayman.

I live at 407 Hedge Street in the city and I'd like to add to the conversation on solid waste management and recycling.

In the budgetary items that were discussed, there's municipal solid waste that's disposed through some method and that's under consideration as to how that will be done.

There's remediation of

the landfill that has various contamination in it.

And then there's the recycling issue.

And what I'm disappointed about is the cutback in service on recyclable products at the McIntire Road facility.

And that the materials that are no longer recycled as of the 12th of this month are toxic material-related products.

So the mercury-containing items like

thermostats or other mercury products.

The fluorescent bulbs, which also contain some contaminant material.

And these will now go into the basic waste stream – municipal waste stream and, I believe, could lead to another issue of remediation of toxic materials in some landfill wherever they're brought.

I spoke with Vanderlinde

recycling I guess and according to their website also they do not take any of these mercury products and I guess maybe that's subject to review and it just seems inappropriate that we in Charlottesville who are concerned about health and welfare and environmental protection

would consider that our only option for disposing or recycling these toxic products would be to take them to Louisiana County and pay a fee to dispose them at the Vanderlinde site.

It wouldn't be part of the automatic recycling sorting.

Or collect it in our homes and save them for the once a year special collection at the recycling

Center, whatever that is, the Reutilization Center, whatever that's called.

And it just appears to me that it would be a good practice on the part of this council to ensure that toxic materials that are recyclable are provided some recycling option for the

for the citizens of Charlottesville.

So I would encourage you, as you consider what the appropriate role of the city is in accepting waste materials that a high priority be given to, in particular, toxic materials that are recyclable, that they should be either handled by the city or in some regional authority that you're a part of that would be ensured that those products are recyclable.

Thank you, Mr. Kleeman.

Good evening Mr. Mayor, Councilors, Kevin Lynch, 609 Locust Avenue.

First I'd like to thank you for the leadership that you've shown in making sure that Dredging got a serious look for the South Rivanna River.

And I'd like to draw your attention to the last two items in the agenda though because I think they illustrate how the city resident, the city taxpayer gets abused by the status quo with Rivanna.

Peter Kleeman is exactly right.

The recycling of toxic materials is really the only relevant service that Rivanna provides to the city of Charlottesville.

Recycling at the curb, all of our waste is already handled under contract.

We get nothing out of this contract with Rivanna.

All they get from us is a paycheck.

The one thing that they used to provide for the city of Charlottesville

was toxic item disposal, and now that's not there.

So why did we just extend our contract with them?

There was a time when Rivanna handling trash made sense, but the private sector does that now.

There was a time when Wang computers were a good computer brand.

Apple and IBM have overtaken them.

Rivanna is still forcing Wangs on people, and you all are buying them.

Why are you doing that?

Backing up to the cost for the wastewater fund,

agreement that we have with Rivanna, that's up in two years.

It has to be negotiated.

You all need to read individually the four-party agreement.

It's only a few pages long.

You'll see how the city's getting shortchanged in that very agreement.

That agreement brings that city's reservoirs, which we still own, into the system as assets, as city assets, supposedly with county assets.

Beaver Creek, which never materialized.

With Chris Green Lake, where is that as a resource?

So we've put our assets on the line.

The county, or Rivanna, a pledge to maintain them.

No maintenance.

I do applaud you for making sure that maintenance is going to happen.

And I want to remind you that after the drought in 2007, I'm sorry, in 2002, that's why we raised the rates in 2003, 2004.

When we raised rates, we told rate payers we are going to take a sustainable approach and we're going to dredge the reservoir.

It's been eight years.

Rivanna took the money.

It hasn't happened.

You all need to be proactive on this.

You can't just say, okay, we've done this.

Rivanna, you take the ball and run with it.

I can tell you from experience, they won't run with it.

They won't run with it unless you're making them every step of the way.

The next step now is make sure that dredging RFP goes out.

I think you'll find

that when it's a real RFP and people are talking about real money and not just a study, you'll get better proposals back.

You'll see parcels that were not in play for the study because the people who are really in a position to do this cheaply

They know money talks and studies don't talk.

When you guys are ready to spend money, you'll get a lot more proposals on the table.

I think you should do that as soon as possible.

Whatever you do, don't let Rivanna handle the dredging on their own.

They tried that in 2002.

After we gave them the money, they made a hash of it.

I think we're on the right track with HDR.

Get it done professionally, but you all have to drive this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch.

Good evening.

I think it was over a year and a half ago I brought copies of the four-party agreement and handed them out to everybody here.

Ms. Szakos, I probably owe you a copy.

If you don't have one, I have an extra.

Thank you.

The four-party agreement is people in the county even are expressing that they're not completely happy with it.

It does have clauses in there where the people who need the party that needs the water is solely responsible for providing that water.

And I think the demand analysis may shed some light on who needs the water and who solely should pay for it.

It leaves out, as Mr. Lynch just brought up, it leaves out the fact that Beaver Creek was given to Rivanna to maintain and operate.

Yet Beaver Creek is not considered part of the system.

Beaver Creek is 521 million gallons.

It supplies Crozet who uses 400,000

Gallons a year, 521 million gives them a safe yield that could raise 2.6 to 3.6 million gallons of safe yield for the system.

That's a 12 million gallon safe yield need, demand.

So it's a big part of it.

and studies have been done on Beaver Creek.

Above that 521 million gallons is an additional 585 million gallons that's used for flood control.

And, of course, the operating people say, well, that's for flood control.

But we don't have floods when we have droughts.

We don't have droughts when we have floods.

All of that flood control is drained down the Meacham's when it could be drained down the Sugar Hollow Pipeline, which comes within two miles of the dam.

Two miles.

The dam exists.

You need to do some geotechnical work to make sure over the years that it hasn't degraded, that it was actually designed for this.

They talk in their studies about raising it, raising the emergency spillway to provide even more water than the 1.1 million gallons that the two would add up to.

So there's a lot of water available that's sitting there, built, ready to roll.

You need two miles of pipe.

You can take out some pumps because you don't have to pump it downstream.

And it's

Quick, cheap, and easy, and it belongs to Rivanna, not to the city.

Rivanna has the obligation to maintain the South Fork Reservoir.

South Fork Reservoir hasn't been maintained, hasn't been dredged, and you can do, and I think you all got copies of small bites.

Just a few moments ago, you heard Kerry Birch talk about the dewatering sites, and in the big presentation that he gave at City Space, he talked about, they looked at 100-acre sites.

and they narrowed it for all the reasons of conservation easements and streams and forests.

They're going to cut the trees to build the reservoir, but they won't cut the trees for the dewatering site.

But at the same time, they looked at 50-acre because they couldn't find enough 100-acre sites.

But then they stopped.

They never looked at 5-acre sites, which is for small bites approximately what you need to dewater on a smaller scale.

So if you look at five-acre lots, you're going to find that there are many more of them because the lots around there are smaller.

There are very few hundred-acre sites immediately available.

And I think if you were to do a real analysis, you would find that to be the case.

So we talked about the four-party agreement, and the last thing I wanted to talk about was this demand analysis for Schwartz.

He's a fine man.

He seems to be a very kindly elderly man who's extending his career by starting a consultancy practice.

His employment in his firm is 1.5.

He has a part-time secretary in himself.

If you work for a corporation, you know, we got sued.

We're talking about a $4 billion corporation.

We got sued daily.

What we would do is go out and find our legal department.

You're probably very familiar with this.

We'd go out and find consultants.

and you'd find a hundred of them and you'd interview them and you'd find the ones that kind of sided with your slant and you'd take them to court with you and you'd have your consultants there.

I'm not saying the man buys our life up here but it'd be with a one-man band you're kind of tied to consider yourselves.

What if everything were given to Maurice Jones and didn't have the rest of you to temper his judgments, to provide your shared experiences, to

Rob Albo's with.

It would be like having a... We'd all live in harmony.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Dede Smith, 2652 Jefferson Park Circle.

Thank you all for your long night and for, once again, thank you for funding that dredging study.

It really was incredibly valuable information and I think will serve you well.

I'd like to speak to a couple things.

I will reiterate that I think the next really important step is for the city and for it should be done by the city to put out for bid.

because as Mr. Lynch said, as I think Ms. Quinn said too, that you will, I think, get many more options.

This idea of small bites of an incremental market-based

process would, I think, bear out better what Mr. Birch suggested because I'm not entirely sure he understood what the question was.

Just lastly, I'd like to comment on Mr. Huja's question to Mr. Frederick about how much water

is gained by dredging.

And I think I spoke to you about this before, is that what he doesn't tell you is what you lose.

And, in fact, it's a – it's close to a billion gallons that you will lose if you don't do anything about the South Fork.

And that is half of the water that they're adding at Ragged Mountain.

So it's – and then you're stuck.

And it belongs to you all with a reservoir that's all silted in.

And then who's going to pay for that?

So it just is a domino effect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Anybody else like to speak?

Just in response, I wanted to, I had asked staff, I don't know if it was our last meeting or the one before that, to sort of come forward with what would it look like if we were to proceed with an RFP and I think I agree with the speakers that have said, you know, that's something we should move forward with or at least consider taking as a next step and I know we have, as a council, haven't decided to do it yet but I still think it'd be very valuable to get

that kind of input from staff on what an RFP process would look like, what it would entail, so that we can make a decision about whether or not we want to actually do that.

So if we can get that from staff.

And I absolutely agree with Mr. Kleeman.

I think one of the most valuable services that Rivanna does provide to this community is the hazardous waste pickup and recycling.

and it's one of the things that I'm certainly going to push to restore as we look at a long-term solution for solid waste in our community.

Regarding the dredging moving on to the RFP, I noticed in the staff memo that they said that the future actions would include whether or not this environmentally sound and cost-effective remove sediment by dredging, evaluating the length of time to complete the dredging process, how often intermittent dredging might need to occur, the feasibility and markability of dredging,

Right.

I think a lot of those issues would be addressed through an RFP because we'd simply be asking whoever would be doing the dredging to address those kinds of challenges and issues and obstacles in putting forth concrete proposals, actionable proposals to dredge the reservoir.

I would phrase that as future considerations.

Meeting's adjourned.