City Council Meeting   2/22/2011

Thank you.

We have a very special award in recognition

This is a city that's very proud of our public school system and tonight we're going to honor in particular one school and one educational leader for an accomplishment that stands out above many others.

Four city schools this year earned a statewide VIP, Virginia Index of Performance awards for high performance.

Those included Greenbrier Elementary School, Burnley, Moran, Venable and Jackson Via.

Greenbrier Elementary School earned the highest honor.

the highest possible honor in the state, which is called the Governor's Award for Educational Excellence.

To qualify for this particular award, school has to meet all state and federal achievement benchmarks for at least two consecutive years and achieve applicable excellence goals for elementary reading and participation in the Virginia Preschool Initiative.

Schools earn bonus points for other performance measures including the Governor's Nutrition and Physical Activity Scorecard.

We have invited tonight to receive this plaque of commendation on behalf of the city of Charlottesville.

We've invited Jim Keiner, who's the principal of Greenbrier Elementary School.

And the plaque says, proudly presented on this 22nd day of February 2011 to Greenbrier Elementary School for acknowledgement and recognition of their excellence in education by the state of Virginia during the Virginia Index performance of 2011.

I just want to say thank you for this nice plaque.

I know budgets are tight and you're doing lots of building with schools and that, so we won't add another room for the trophies.

But really appreciate it and would have to say be remiss without saying how hard our teachers and parents and students have worked, not just

recently, but through the years of holding high expectations and then providing support for the kids to meet those expectations.

So thank you and appreciate all of your support as well.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

We have a couple of announcements tonight.

First of all, I want to announce there will be another Design Charette community design workshop around the Belmont Bridge replacement project.

This workshop will take place on March 2nd at 6 p.m. at City Space downtown.

It is open to the public.

And for more information, you can go to belmontbridge.com.

Also, if you are passionate about trees, as I know many of our citizens are, as a reminder, we are accepting applicants for the new City Tree Commission.

We have nine positions available and the deadline for applying is February 28th.

There's another workshop coming up, and I'm going to ask one of our guests to come forward and give us a little bit more information about it.

But this is a workshop that our wonderful sheriff, Mr. James Brown, has pulled together on disaster preparedness.

This training is being sponsored by us.

The National Sheriff's Association is going to be coming in to do the training.

It's on Saturday, March 12th from 9 to 4.

It'll be at the Holiday Inn on Emmett Street.

And basically it's going to be helping people in the community prepare for disasters.

This winter, fortunately, was nowhere near as bad as it was last winter, but we did have people that were, you know, vehicles that were stuck, people were stuck in the snow.

We had the microbursts last summer, so people, you know, had homes damaged and left without power for days.

So what they're doing is they're going to have basically work with families for preparing a kit when these types of things happen.

We're also going to be working with the community and talking with stores to try to make sure they'll be able to keep certain supplies in stock and make sure they'll have vehicles and trucks to be able to come deliver stock so people will be able to get products that they need.

And it's going to be focused on that and also with the train tracks that we have cutting through town.

potential problems if there was some type of leak from a container of some sort that caused an evacuation.

So it's a free training.

They're providing continental breakfast and a lunch for the folks that come out and it's basically a first come, first serve type training and people who want to register can contact me at the Sheriff's Office at 970-3777 or they can also contact the Sheriff's Office through the city's website.

That's it.

Thank you, Sheriff.

Appreciate it.

Yes, Healthy Birth, Healthy Baby, a collaborative health fair celebrating community pregnancy, birth, and babies.

It's a free event with door prize.

It will take place on Saturday, March 5th from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Herman Key Center.

Some of the free mini workshops include Mom's Mood, Chiropractic Care for Pregnancy,

Body Work for Babies, Acupuncture, Nutrition, Prenatal Yoga and more.

This Thursday is the rescheduled meeting, carbon, our energy for future, and you at the community workshop to be held at the county office building.

And basically, it's the city which signed the mayor's agreement on climate change and the county who signed the cool county's agreement figuring out how to implement the goals of our community using way less energy and less carbon.

It's going to have, it's from 6 to 8 p.m. in the county office building.

A wide range of stakeholders have gotten together, people ranging from home builders to the CR Club, and have really identified specific actions the community can take and really want input on how we can make this plan work.

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Any other announcements?

We are now going to open our meeting to matters by the public.

And as is our custom, when you come forward, please state your name and address.

And we ask you to keep your comments to three minutes or less.

Good evening City Manager Jones and City Council.

It's my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak with you tonight.

My name is Karen Waters.

I live at 1014 St. Charles Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 and I am the Chair of the Housing Advisory Committee which was appointed by Council.

In February of

Well, let me just start here.

In December 2010, the Housing Advisory Committee passed a resolution clarifying the HACS 2025 goals for affordable housing recommendations.

The resolution reads as follows.

It was unanimously passed by the Housing Advisory Committee to provide guidance and clarity for City Council and the Planning Commission in determining the CIP contribution for the Charlottesville Housing Fund and FY12.

The HAC hereby clarifies that the intent of the City of Charlottesville 2025 goals for affordable housing report as adopted by City Council on February 1st, 2010 to consider the annual funding level necessary to achieve the 15% citywide target by 2025 as exclusively Charlottesville housing funding.

seen in table 8, goal 3 of the report.

This further clarifies that CDBG slash home funds and other federal and state funding should be considered additional money to be leveraged by the city's contribution.

Therefore, the HAC recommends that the FY12 CIP contribution line item for the Charlottesville Housing Fund

be $1,488,8865.

Additionally, the Charlottesville Housing Fund line item for the duration of the current planning horizon through 2017 should be adjusted consistent with the annual goals listed on Table 8, Goal 3 of the report.

As you all know the report was written as a result of the efficiency study and it was written by city staff with the support, input and guidance of the housing advisory committee.

It was approved by the housing advisory committee and you all unanimously decided that you would accept goal three.

We outlined three different goals for three different levels of affordable housing.

We also analyzed the city's investments going back five years.

The key point which is addressed in the first paragraph of the executive summary is that for every one dollar that the city invests in affordable housing requires a match

from federal, state and other funding at a level of about $10 to $11 for any of this to work.

Consequently, our intention was for this report to advise the city on the city's housing investments, not how the city chooses to invest

its funds from other sources.

We want to make this clear.

We want to ask that you would fully fund the housing plan if indeed your intent is to have 50% as a goal.

The figures are outlined right there in table 8.

I would like to ask anyone here who supports fully funding the housing plan to stand up for affordable housing right now.

and I would ask the city to be sure that the Charlottesville Housing Fund has city dollars only.

We set this back in December.

Great, thank you very much.

Mayor Norris and members of the City Council.

My name is Paul Long.

I live at 1410 Grady Avenue here in Charlottesville.

The number of homeless people in the Charlottesville area continues to grow.

There is a dire need for emergency housing for many of the homeless, plus additional support services such as vocational counseling, social skills training, and addiction counseling, plus others.

I again ask this Council to appropriate $2 million from the current $3.5 million city surplus to provide additional services for the homeless.

And on another note, I want to address Council, particularly Councilor Edwards.

I was very sad that you had decided not to seek re-election, but I want to thank you because I think you, above all other members, have been a voice of conscience and concern on this Council.

Good evening, Mayor Norris and honorable councilors.

My name is Kurt Burkhardt and I'm the executive director of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention Visitors Bureau and this evening I come before you as co-chair

for the Charlottesville Albemarle Civil War Sesquicentennial Committee so I can share with you this evening about an important upcoming event.

Over these next four years and throughout the Commonwealth and locally, there will be many activities, lectures and events that will concentrate on the years leading up to war, the eventual conflict and the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War.

Locally, our committee, which began in July 2010, is comprised of educators, historians, military strategists, local businesses, attractions, the tourism industry

and others who meet every couple of months to engage in meaningful discussions on how best to present our historical assets, especially the visitors coming to the Greater Charlottesville area.

The door is wide open and we welcome anybody who has interest, time and a willingness to be a part of this multi-year undertaking.

Each of you is invited to attend and I hope some of you can.

I want to let you know and to those who are watching this evening about the Civil War 150 Legacy Project that is coming to Charlottesville on Saturday, March 5th for an all-day event beginning 9 a.m. at City Space.

We encourage folks to park at the Market Street Garage and come in on the street side entrance to the Charlottesville Design Center to access City Space.

Those coming will obviously have their parking validated for up to two hours.

Library of Virginia archivist will be here to receive and scan personally held documents that reflect the social, political, military, business and religious life in Virginia during the period of the Civil War and the early period of Reconstruction.

Local residents are encouraged to bring their historic letters, diaries, journals, photos, medical records, enlistment and discharge papers, war claims against the U.S.,

and Confederate States of America and more on March 5th so they can be professionally scanned and retained for future research online at the University of Virginia.

Let me say those personal documents will not be retained.

They will be returned to the owners.

The Legacy Project is a collaborative two-year initiative by the Library of Virginia and the Virginia sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission.

Already documents from other locales are available online for reading.

This process is by appointment only and more information about the Legacy Project can be found on CivilWar150Charlottesville.com Interested individuals can also call 296-1492 to request more information or an appointment.

We hope that our local media will cover this event as it is believed locally there exists a treasure trove of personally held historic documents that have the potential to shed light on what life was like for so many

from so many different walks of life here in Charlottesville during the 1860s.

Thank you, Mr. Burkhart.

Mayor Norris, ma'am, ma'am, gentlemen.

I'm Bob Fenwick, 901 East Jefferson Street.

If a majority of this city council supports the county water plan,

Make it the best plan for the city and our community as possible.

There are a few items to consider.

First, make provisions for future dredging at Ragged Mountain and access a ramp, a slip, probably 10 acres of drying for the stuff that comes out of the reservoir, and space for the administration buildings for that reservoir.

Every reservoir ever built has to be dredged at some point or abandoned.

Engineers design and build.

They really don't care about maintenance and dredging.

I asked one of the Schnabel engineers why the American Society of Civil Engineers didn't add a dredging addendum to every dam and pipeline or reservoir plan.

And he simply said, we don't do dredging.

If the engineers who designed the Rivanna Reservoir had thought about this, our community would be in a much better position now.

and we wouldn't be facing possibly a huge public expenditure in tax increases or excessive water bills.

If this is truly a long-term plan, don't make the same mistake twice.

For those who say Ragged Mountain will never silt in, I would suggest they drive out Avon Street extended and try to find the small lake that used to be out there.

This is now Mill Creek Subdivision.

There is no longer a lake.

It has silted in, just bull rushes that breed mosquitoes.

On a small scale, visit any one of the schools of development lakes, forest seasons, red fields, forest lakes, any one of them, and see what happens to any impounded body of water, whether it's in the mountains, on the plains, large watershed, small watershed,

They all silt in.

Quickly or slowly, they all silt in.

Period.

Don't ask an engineer if this is true.

Ask a dredger.

That's their life's work.

Second, accept no excuses for the delay in publishing an RFP, a request for proposal, for dredging the South Fork Reservoir.

You are already about to give the county the Ragged Mountain Natural Area.

Don't give them the Rivanna Reservoir as well.

Third, insist on a water demand study that is based on the current American Water Works standards, not outdated standards that have been superseded.

Our community deserves the best water plan we can pay for.

And for heaven's sakes, don't let the county politicians steamroll you into hasty decisions that don't serve the city's interests.

This is a 50-year plan, not a one or a two-year plan.

No community in Virginia has ever had to prematurely implement a water plan because of an arbitrary deadline.

Every deadline we have is for the purpose of crafting a better plan.

The efforts of the citizens for a sustainable water plan have already saved this community tens of millions of dollars.

In any economy, let alone a recession, this is not chump change.

and that to me is the real meaning of community cooperation.

The best plan at the best price at a time when we truly need it.

We don't need experts to tell us that.

Thank you, Mr. Finley.

Hello.

Phyllis Koch-Sherris.

I live 340 Cedar Bluff Road in Albemarle County on the beautiful Rivanna Reservoir.

and I am here to echo what the speaker just said and to add to ask you to please put dredging into the cost sharing agreement.

You've made some decisions now which may be irreversible but if we can make sure that dredging is put into the cost sharing agreement now we can be assured that it will happen.

Otherwise,

It may not, it probably will not, and what was just described that happened to Mill Creek will happen to this beautiful resource that we have.

And we know that based on what the RWSA told us about, costing $223 million is not true.

Thanks to the study that you, City Council, funded, we see that it would cost at most $35 million, probably far less.

So it would be fiscally responsible as well.

And we've already said that the RWSA plan destroys valuable city natural resources as well as the river, the Rivanna River.

Many, many trees talked about this tree project.

If I looked in the city, I'd be on that committee.

So much of the natural area habitat in Ragged Mountain that will be destroyed by the

pipeline and the possibility of an earthen dam which I don't think is needed.

It will destroy more trees than using what we already have and build up on that as Mayor Norris has told us in the past.

So I will leave other informed concerned citizens to speak more about that.

What I want to end by saying is that, again, as Mr. Fenwick said, the Ragged Mountain Reservoir cannot fill itself and that we know that it will silt up just as the Rivanna Reservoir is and it's going to take a long time before this whole plan is put into effect and we might, you know, have a drought this summer.

I mean, I see it happen.

I'm a rower and I don't get stuck and it's been happening.

and if we could get a dredge in the reservoir now, we can be assured that we have something happening and we don't have to end up with this crime against nature that I'm so afraid in my nightmares might happen and the 9-mile uphill pipeline is not going to necessarily do it.

We need to dredge or that silt is going to suffocate us and the river.

I definitely hope that you will take into account that outcome and that you will put in dredging into the cost sharing agreement and dredging now.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

I'm Rebecca Quinn, 104 4th Street, here in the city.

As you know, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority recently issued an RFP for a water demand analysis.

It's a required component of the regional water supply plan that's due in November of this year.

Rivanna has known about this requirement and that a new analysis would be needed.

They've known about this for actually exactly a year from the date the RFP was issued.

While we should all see this and be pleased that this is finally going to happen, it is unfortunate that various delay tactics have pushed it so late.

It comes as no surprise that the demand analysis will be watched carefully by many people.

I urge Council to ask Rivanna to organize a committee with citizen representatives to monitor the work.

You all support transparency in government.

This is a perfect opportunity for you to make sure it actually happens.

The committee should have access to the same data provided the consultant, see the progress reports, see and be able to comment on interim products, attend, if not participate in

presentations by the consultant to staff.

All of the data that will be used are in the public domain.

The methods that will be used are in the public domain.

There is no reason for Rivanna's staff to hide the process from the public.

Same topic.

It's short-sighted, I believe, of Rivanna to limit the scope of work to only 30 years.

I urge you to request that the analysis extend far enough into the future to compare

with the Gannett-Flemming analysis that is the fundamental justification for a huge dam and uphill pipeline.

I've heard some people are concerned about the uncertainty associated with extending such analyses far into the future.

But you know what?

Those same people are willing to accept the Gannett-Flemming analysis that is extended that far in the future.

That result is not cast in concrete.

Extending the analysis shouldn't cost any more.

It's all done on computers.

It's using the same data.

and the state regulations suggest, well, require that future use be projected at the beginning of each decade in the planning period, a minimum of 30, a maximum of 50 years.

How can on the one hand you endorse a 50-year water plan but accept an analysis that falls short of that same period?

Think, too, of this.

Suppose the results of the new analysis show we don't need that much water, only by using the existing Lower Ragon Mountain Dam

Can we retain the flexibility to go higher if we need water or not go higher if we don't?

If we don't need that much water, we don't need that much dam.

Dredge first, repair the spillway, or at least use the existing dam for a 13-foot pool rise.

Good evening, Dee Dee Smith, 2652 Jefferson Park Circle.

Tonight you are being asked perhaps to make a decision about a concrete versus an earthen dam, but I would like to encourage you to think about three good reasons.

There I am going to give you three good reasons why that may not be such a good idea to do tonight.

And I'm going to encourage you to be very cautious about setting anything in stone at this point.

Number one, Rivanna, as you just heard,

Just put out an RFP for a new, very comprehensive demand analysis.

This is the one we've been talking about for, actually it's been more than a year.

And you're going to get really valuable information out of that demand analysis, or you should.

and I'd actually like to note too that in Rivanna's upcoming budget that's on the web right now, Rivanna is not anticipating that we will have any 0% water increase next year in demand, which is interesting in itself.

Number two, we will see, it looks like very soon, an RFP-like process for dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.

It's on the agenda for Thursday at the Rivanna meeting.

It's called a PPEA or something like that, but it will explore a range of options for maintaining this valuable resource.

At the end, we hopefully will know what options we have and how much water we may have in 50 years.

It's a valuable piece of information.

Right now, we're assuming almost nothing that is going to go down to 200 million gallons of usable water.

That's almost nothing.

That's down from 1,200 in its original.

That's an incredibly valuable piece of information.

Three, cost share agreement.

That's happening now.

The Albemarle County Service Authority just had an executive session on it.

You all should be having one soon.

All three of these things should be known in the next couple months, in the next few months at least, at least by summer.

You should know about the demand.

That's new information.

You should have new information about dredging.

and you should have new information about cost share.

These are three critical pieces of information.

Your resolution that's in your packet tonight

is contingent on a cost share agreement.

So I ask you, please do not make a decision that is set in stone.

At least make it very clear that this is not necessarily going to be what's going to happen because you've got valuable information.

All three pieces of information that you will get should have been gotten at least a year ago.

If you're told, too late, we have deadlines, don't believe it.

It's not true.

This is information that you should have had.

It's not your fault that you don't have it, and you will have it soon.

So please wait.

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Galen Stangle.

I live at 129 Goodman Street.

I want to echo some of the comments that have just been made.

Understanding that the water demand analysis is about to be renewed, it seems like it makes a lot of sense to wait before making further decisions about new water infrastructure until that information is in hand, especially considering that flaws have been found in earlier demand analysis.

and so I encourage you to wait on any further decisions on new infrastructure until that analysis is available and also as far as dredging goes, that's maintenance and we should move forward with that and I encourage you to continue to apply pressure on RWSA to make sure that

the dredging RFP process moves forward so that we can get that happening.

Thank you, sir.

Hello, Stratton Saletis, 704B Grave Street.

Ms. Edwards, I also wish you were going to run again just because I love your warm and wise presence here on council and I think it is quite a gift to the city.

But at the same time, I understand.

So I actually wish you do, you know, whatever you want to do.

And at the last meeting, there was a letter and someone spoke from the Dunroa Association about opening up the county part of the parkway.

and I think Ms. Szakos had a pretty good answer to that.

First of all, causing problems for our school is not a good thing to do.

Also, I think we should keep in mind that ultimately McIntyre Road where they ultimately hope to dump the traffic is Ridge Street and I think we should ask ourselves if Rio Road is more important than Ridge Street in the city and if that's where we want to be

sending county traffic.

And to get to the water issue, oh, actually I would also encourage council to approve opening that section to bikers and pedestrians.

And I think that could potentially take some of the pressure off of that intersection as well.

So I'd also like to address something that Dr. Brown said at the last meeting.

You said something along the lines of, some people act like there aren't two reasonable sides to this water issue.

And then to support that statement, you

You came up with a bunch of names of people who were for and institutions who were for the big dam plan.

And that to me is the opposite of a fact based decision.

That is the definition of a politically based decision.

And I think

that we need to recognize that this area is just as much a victim of legalized corruption as what we see at the federal level.

Whereas George Bush had everybody thinking that Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center

people here think our dam is going to fall apart or that we'll never get a permit for dredging or a lower dam and that we already have a permit for an earthen dam and all other kinds of things that are just wrong and it's not by accident.

Why has the RFP for dredging just come out today?

All other kinds of things.

Just the fact that our city manager, the person who got us into this to begin with, is now working for the county.

I find that, and nobody ever talks about that.

but the basic mechanism here is showering and shunning is what I've come to see and it's a lot more subtle than people would think in general but the sprawl growth industrial complex are the people who make money from public

investment decisions.

And so they are the people who put money into public policy.

And they do it through campaign contributions.

They give money to nonprofit organizations who don't challenge decisions that they would like.

They will advertise in newspapers, news weeklies that depend on that advertisement for all of their funds.

You know, their housing developments, their auto lots and such.

And also, as I mentioned with Gary Connell, if you're a city staff person and you serve those interests well, you can be sure you'll get a job in the private or public sector.

Anyway, the key fact is the demand analysis.

We already know that it's 26% wrong after only six years, and they're telling us that they know how much water we'll use in 50 years.

And that, everything is based on that.

The stream flows, the finance plan claims that it's environmentally friendly, so please make this a fact-based decision.

Thank you, Mr. Salinas.

Good evening, Councillors.

Thank you.

Jennifer McKeever, 1140 Locust Avenue.

I'm here today to discuss the CHF money as a member of the Community Development Block Grant Task Force.

I am really interested in keeping those monies separate from the CHF funding source.

I believe that the CHF monies need to be fully funded from the general fund.

and for several different reasons.

Of course, many that Ms.

Waters has already mentioned, including the leverage aspect.

People who apply can use CDBG and home monies to leverage CHF monies, which is very helpful, and to keep the pots separate is very important.

Policy associated with CDBG home and with CHF monies are different.

They just are.

They're made separately.

The HAC committee deals primarily with the housing fund monies, whereas council, along with council, but also council separately decides policy for CDBG funding and home monies.

Further, the CDBG emphasis is not on units.

It's not on gaining units.

It's not.

It's a separate analysis that we go through.

It's assisting targeted neighborhoods and that's where I believe we need to continue to emphasize, the CDBG monies need to continue to emphasize supporting neighborhoods and not just

creating units, although certainly something we have attempted to do with a lot of our funding, but I don't want it to be the primary focus of the CDBG monies.

So in conclusion, I would definitely support, I ask that the council completely fund CHF funding through the general fund and not co-mingle CDBG and home monies with that.

Good evening, Councillors.

I'm Charlie Armstrong and I'm on the Housing Advisory Committee.

I am the past chair of the Housing Advisory Committee from 2007 to late 2010 and was the chair of the committee as we worked on the 2025 goals report with staff and with you.

I want to provide a little perspective and context to how that report came about and where those numbers came from.

We backed into those numbers, into the goal numbers by first setting three optional goals to choose from.

One was to maintain the current number of affordable units, two was to maintain the current ratio of affordable units, and three was to increase the ratio of affordable units to about 15%.

The current ratio now is about 10%.

With those goals in mind, and an enormous effort by staff, we researched how many units it would take

to achieve each of those three goals when the units would either need to be preserved or produced.

With the number of units known, we researched the historical amounts of leverage that cities cede money toward affordable housing translated to.

and knowing that one city dollar translates to 10 to 11 additional dollars, we were able to back into the recommended funding amount needed to achieve each of those three goals.

So what I'm getting at is the amounts arrived at were done completely without bias in a very scientific manner with input from dozens of housing experts in town.

Knowing that I want to urge you to fully fund the CHF with the goals recommended in the report both this year and in coming years.

I want to leverage one other point or emphasize one other point that has been made by Jennifer and Karen before me and that is the leverage.

That's really important to think about that 1.4 million dollars of city money would translate to around 15 million dollars in investment in affordable housing in Charlottesville.

That really says a lot there.

Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jennifer Jacobs.

I live at 1211 Harold Circle and I'm the executive director of AHIP, a 35-year-old local affordable housing community development organization that has worked in the city for 16 years and in the region for 35.

Can I interrupt you first because I know you signed up to speak in favor of the on the Charles the Housing Fund and also William Taylor Plaza.

We're actually going to have a separate public hearing on William Taylor Plaza.

We're actually not taking public comment out of fairness to people on both sides of that issue.

Well, we already have a public hearing on the rezoning.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

Well then, I urge you to do one thing, and that is

To fully fund the Charlottesville Housing Fund, as some of my colleagues said before, I serve on the HAC Committee as well at the $1.5 million mark.

This is an incredible resource that helps Citi reach its affordable housing goals, and not just by adding new units, but by protecting existing units.

So far,

CHF funds in the last three years that the fund has been up and running has enabled AHIP to directly help more than 80 families stay safe and healthy in their homes.

And not just stay safe and healthy, but actually stay in their homes, keep their homes running, keep a roof over their heads, sometimes quite literally.

We have 176 families right now on the rehab waiting list and about 25 families on the emergency repair waiting list.

So there is a lot of work to be done in the city and every dollar counts.

That's the last person signed up to speak.

We do have a very full agenda tonight, so we're going to move forward with the rest of our agenda.

There will be an opportunity at the end of the meeting for additional matters by the public.

Any councilors like to respond to comments made by the public?

Yes.

Just now.

First of all, Rebecca Quinn's question about why we are not doing demand analysis for 50 years, I would like to explore that possibility, see if we can do that, because it seems that we are having a 50-year plan to be logical to have 50-year demand analysis.

Second comment, I also want staff to explore whether Parkway and Cowley could be used for bike, as a pedestrian can be open for them.

I took mine.

Both of those I agree, I'd also like to look at.

The other one that I just wanted to check, it's really more of a question is, is it possible to put information about the legacy project on the city website so that people can learn about it there as well?

Yes, ma'am.

Dr. Brown?

And I just want to thank Stratton and Paul for those kind words and to Mr. Long, your consistency.

with the homelessness and the issues that are presented is admirable.

Thank you.

I wanted to also echo the comments made by Mr. Huja about the need to do a 50 year demand analysis.

I would also endorse, heartily endorse Ms. Quinn's other suggestion regarding citizen participation in the water demand study.

So I'd like to have staff look into that further and see how that might

and I also endorse Mr. Salidas' recommendation regarding opening the parkway to bikes and pedestrians.

Thank you, Ms. Kochscher.

She's not here.

But I fully agree that dredging needs to be in the Kochscher agreement, that we should proceed with dredging in due haste.

So thank you to everybody who came and spoke tonight.

As I said earlier, we do have a very full agenda, so we're going to now move forward with that agenda.

But one item I wanted to note, we are going to shift one thing around a little bit.

Item two is a report and ordinance on the amendment of the William Taylor Plaza PUD.

It's before us tonight on the first of two readings.

What we're going to do on that is have the staff report on that item, but not actually take action on the ordinance itself until after the public hearing on item 3, which is a related matter regarding the purchase and sale amendment for city properties for William Taylor Plaza.

Okay, so first item on our agenda is a consent agenda.

we have on the consent agenda tonight item A is minutes of February 7th item B is an appropriation of $7,500 family finding training second of two readings item C is an appropriation of $3,177 2010 state homeland security program grant first of two readings item D is an appropriation of $18,362 2011 juvenile accountability block grant first of two readings

Item E, an appropriation of $2,500, Charlottesville Newsplex Scholarship Program, first of two readings.

Item F, an appropriation of $382,090, Highway Safety Improvement Program, first of two readings.

Item G, an appropriation of $102,576, Aid and Localities Fire Dispersant Fund, first of two readings.

Item H, an appropriation of $122,398, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities Grant Funds, first of two readings.

Item I is a resolution Belmont Bridge revenue sharing application first of one reading.

Item J a resolution allocation of capital improvement program contingency first of one reading.

And item K an ordinance fiber light agreement first of two readings.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda or any items to be removed for further discussion?

Or any comments or questions?

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

And it carries unanimously.

Thank you very much.

We would now like to invite Mr. Brian Haluska forward to provide a staff report on amendment of William Taylor Plaza, PUD, which again, after the public hearing and the next item, will be before us tonight as an ordinance, the first of two readings.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

This is an application for an amendment of the plan development at the corner of Cherry Avenue and Ridge Street known as William Taylor Plaza.

The applicant has modified the proffers in the plan as well as the overall concept plan of the project.

This item came before the Planning Commission at their meeting February 8th Planning Commission recommends that the application be denied The discussion really focused on whether or not those in support of the project at the Commission level Focused a lot on the the units the affordable units that were being provided are 30 units proffered Under this application and the need for those units in the city those in opposition cited the design of the new

of the changes to the project, the changes to the concept plan that the design was inferior to the currently approved concept plan, as well as the division of the units within the project and the reduction of commercial space because of the division for Cherry Avenue speaks to commercial space along Cherry Avenue.

Is this the place at which we can ask what the differences between these two pictures are?

Sure.

What are the differences between these two pictures?

Oh, okay.

I was hoping for changes.

And just a process question.

Right, the city code states that if you modify a preliminary proffer statement substantially between the preliminary stage and the final stage, the final proffer statement is what comes before you.

You have the option of rejecting those changes and voting on the original proffer statement presented to the commission.

holding your own public hearing on the new proffer statement or sending it back to the commission for another public hearing at their level.

So what's before us tonight is essentially exactly what was before the Planning Commission.

Okay.

Other questions for Mr. Holuska?

I want to make it clear just for public's purpose we're not being asked tonight or in the Planning Commission wasn't being asked necessarily to approve development of the site per se.

Correct.

The plan development that was previously approved on the site in 2009 was, is the zoning of this property, if these changes are rejected, that original PUD that was approved two years ago still is on that property.

It's in there in perpetuity.

The original plan, I believe

was for a 100, a maximum 100,000 square foot development on the site with 20% commercial.

So 20,000, at least 20,000 square feet of that devoted to commercial.

And there were no affordable units proffered in there.

There were 50 maximum residential units in that original plan.

The proffer that, the profit that did apply to that was a $253,000 payment to the city for the benefit of affordable housing or parks.

The modified project is a maximum of 110,000 square feet with 10% commercial, so a minimum of 11,000 square feet commercial, a maximum of 80 units, and the proffer for the quarter million dollar payment to the city is an either or option where they can do that or provide 30 affordable units in the project.

When comparing the original plan and the new plan, there is an overall reduction in the number of trips generated on a daily basis.

The reason for this is apartment units, which this development has a large number of, generate on average about three trips a day.

And a trip is, you know, if you go to work and from work, that's two trips.

So apartments generate about 3 as compared to single family units which generate about 10 per day.

So there's a big drop there.

So even with that 30 unit increase, the reduction in commercial space in the project is a very large drop.

Commercial space generates a lot of trips.

employees and customers coming to that.

So the reduction in commercial space offsets the increase from the residential and overall to decrease.

I guess the question I have, looking at the

I know the Planning Commission and this may be a discussion question but it really is a question and so maybe I'm asking for advice.

The Planning Commission had some specific concerns about design and also some of the allocation of affordable units versus non-affordable units or I shouldn't say non-affordable but non-subsidized units.

There, I believe there was some discussion with the developer and some other members of city staff.

I'm not immediately aware of what's in the land sale agreement, but my understanding was there was an opportunity to change the conditions with the land sale agreement.

Obviously, if they modified the proffer statement, they would have to go back to a public hearing, and I understand that.

The rezoning itself.

No, not without modifying the proffer.

Any other questions for Mr. Hleska?

All right, thank you very much, and we'll probably come back to you in a moment.

Next is a, we have on our agenda the public hearing and ordinance resolution again regarding William Taylor Plaza.

This is for the land purchase and sale amendment for the city property located at 521 and 529 Ridge Street.

Thank you, good evening Councilors and Mr. Mayor.

The item before you for public hearing tonight involves the two city-owned parcels at 521 and 529 Ridge Street.

Some of you may remember in October of 2008, Council approved a land purchase and sale agreement.

for these two non-contiguous city-owned parcels at that time.

The parcels together equate to approximately a third of an acre.

They've been under city ownership for over 30 years and they are vacant at this point.

In 2008, the Land Purchase and Sale Agreement

called for a mixed use development that included commercial as well as market rate residential units.

It also included, as was referenced earlier, a $253,000 cash contribution towards affordable housing at the time.

Recently an amendment has been requested by the developer which would change the agreement and allow for still would be a mixed use development but it would be a smaller amount of commercial space and a mix of affordable dwelling units and market rate units.

and what they have requested that they be able to have the option to provide 30 units on site in lieu of the $253,000 contribution towards affordable housing.

So they're asking for that option.

They've also asked to substitute Earthcraft building standards as well as

lead standards, basically adding Earthcraft building standard in addition to lead and extending the timeframe for the development is another change to the current agreement, excuse me, to the amendment, proposed amendment.

So there's actually two items, there's the ordinance which requires the public hearing that would amend the agreement and then because there is a third party involved now that would actually handle

the Affordable Dwelling Units, there would need to be an assignment, a resolution to consent to the assignment to the third party.

So those are actually two items and the city attorney can provide guidance as to how to handle both of those as you would like.

Yeah, so there's three basic changes.

The one is to allow the affordable housing units to take place on site.

The second is to add Earthcraft as an acceptable standard.

I have a question for the applicant in terms of the

I'm Charlie Armstrong again with Southern Development this time and the Housing Advisory Committee.

The Earthcraft standard is typically a little bit more suitable for residential construction.

LEED is

Typically more suitable for commercial construction.

That's not a steadfast rule by any means.

Just to follow up on that, we've received a number of emails asserting that Earthcraft is a lesser standard.

I'm not sure I would agree that it's a lesser standard.

It's certainly different and has different focuses.

It's focused more on the building itself than on the surrounding area.

For instance, I don't think you get points in Earthcraft for things like transit options or serving transit, having a bus stop nearby or having bike racks or something like that as part of your development where you would get points for that and leave.

I have a question about the, it's again from emails that we got and I want a clarification because I think I know the answer, but if the affordable housing units in this

are for people with 50% of median, area median income.

That's a very good question.

The rent stays fixed at that level that meets 50% area median income needs.

However, the people can stay in their apartment if they get a raise or get married or get moved to a different job and make more money.

They don't have to leave.

I want to add just one other item.

In the agreement, another addition was to allow the BAR to have review of the entire site as opposed to just the corridor along Ridge Street, which I believe they would normally have review of.

Mr. Armstrong.

It was a change.

No, it wasn't.

Oh, okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions before we open the public hearing?

All right, we do have a number of people who signed up to speak tonight on this topic.

And when you come forward, again, please state your name and address.

And again, keep your comments to no more than three minutes.

Internet Roads, 406 Oak Street.

The two city parcels featured in this item are not, of course, owned by you exclusively or personally.

They're owned by all the citizens of Charlottesville.

So if you have a plan for their divestment, all should be involved.

And if you have a plan for their investment, which is the case here, all should be both fully informed and fully involved.

But that has not happened.

Instead,

You've set a plan, a real product of a bait and switch scheme rocketing through the system so fast that not even the most vigilant citizen watchdog could keep up.

That's bad enough.

What's worse is that you propose to give these citizen-owned parcels to a favored developer, not for a previously agreed cash price of more than a quarter million dollars, but for a proffer.

A proffer like your favored developer has publicly styled little more than legalized bribery.

But worst of all is what you propose investing our parcels in.

Instead of the large invasive mixed use complex you approved in 2009, it is a much larger, much more invasive mixed income rental complex that relies on low income tax credits.

As such, it constitutes a massive social experiment that could result in disaster.

As such, it would not only destroy an irreplaceable natural asset but destabilize a fragile historic neighborhood that is already an exemplar of mixed income living and mixed everything else as well.

Many have asked you not to approve any aspect of this, the contract, or anything else.

Your appointed planning commissioners judged it inferior, not just in design, but in function.

And citizens of all stripes have done the same via emails, personal conversations, statements delivered right here, and silent demonstration in this room.

No opponent has voiced any antipathy to affordable housing.

In my neighborhood, we live in it and we provide it.

No opponent has voiced any antipathy to mixed income living.

In my neighborhood we do it every day and we have for 180 years.

What we oppose is the massive scale of a very chancy social experiment.

One that would add hundreds of people and cars to an intersection already at gridlock.

And of course we oppose the total lack of public process that got us to this point.

One other thing, by actual count, there are within site, SIGHT, of the Ridge Cherry site, SITE, at least 659 guaranteed low income and or affordable rentals now.

And more lie nearby to set aside and more are already in the pipeline.

659 guaranteed affordable units in site of the site.

So a lack thereof cannot, repeat, cannot be an excuse to force us via this sale, or I should say giveaway contract, to invest our Ridge Street parcels to subsidize more.

Thank you, Ms. Rhodes.

Good evening.

Peter Loach at 1620 Rose Hill Drive in Charlottesville.

I'm here as an advocate for affordable housing in Charlottesville related to this Ridge Cherry project.

I cannot speak to the specifics of the housing project, but I can assure everyone that there is a critical need for more affordable housing in Charlottesville and that mixed income and mixed use developments are crucial to supplying affordable housing that creates economic opportunities and reduces poverty.

According to the State of the Housing Report of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District published in 2006 by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission under contract with the Virginia Tech Center for Housing Research, quote, there is a severe deficit of rental housing for low income renter households in the Charlottesville region.

Most units that are affordable by extremely low income households are occupied by households with higher incomes.

This forces low-income runners to spend large portions of their income on housing."

This has led to a situation where many hundreds of families pay as much as half of their income renting housing.

As the largest employer in the district, the University of Virginia tracks over 1,500 employees from as far as 60 miles away one way.

Many employees choose to live in areas further outside the urban core from which they work due to the lack of affordable housing here in town.

This leads to higher commuting costs and less quality time spent at home.

The trend negatively impacts the region with additional financial burdens due to the lack of integration of land use and transportation.

In the year 2000, there were 17,910 low-income renters in the region.

That number is projected to increase to 21,860 by 2020.

This equates to a need for an additional 3,950 affordable rental units.

Charlottesville area is way behind in meeting that demand.

Without these units, rents go up, more families have to double up, more people have to drive from the valley to work and more businesses relocate or decide not to open here in the first place.

Charlottesville needs more affordable rental housing.

Finally, lessons from across the country, and this is not a social experiment, show that sticking hundreds of low income rental units in one place does not lift people out of poverty.

What seems to be helping in many communities is to build relatively small, mixed income, mixed use developments.

They create a social capital synergy of role modeling and economic activity that creates jobs and inspires workers.

Thank you for your attention.

to this issue.

Mr. Mayor, City Manager, my name is Pascal Bussières and I live at 414 7 and a half street in the Fifeville district.

I would like to give you the reasons why I am fully supporting the William Taylor project.

and first of all I would like to introduce myself not to show any good spots but if you have not understood yet with my accent how a foreigner can support a local project.

We have moved here in Charlottesville two years and a half ago with my wife and our son who are American.

I was dreaming of a big garden.

My wife was dreaming of leaving France and coming back to the United States, what I fully understand, and our son was dreaming of entering UVA where he is now a student.

And we have found a Victorian house that had to be rebuilt

on Seven and a Half Street, the Updike House built in 1896.

We have put a lot of money in it to render its pristine condition inside and now outside.

And we believe in this neighborhood.

It's a very pleasant neighborhood.

Stressful sometimes because there are security issues, but the police forces are doing a very good job in Charlottesville.

and also it's a neighborhood with many fragile families, hardworking families, single families that deserve a decent housing and what we have discovered was

that too many owners are not responsible with low income families.

And we support this project because there will be a manager in this housing development ensemble.

and people will have the possibility to have something organized at a reasonable price and this is the kind of thing that this neighborhood deserves to obtain because there are two risks for our neighborhood.

There is a go down risk

and I don't believe in it because there are more and more people like me, like my family investing in old houses because there is definitely a return to the centers of the cities.

Look at Detroit, look at 500 rebuilding projects in the cities of the United States.

It is the same in the United States as in Europe.

The risk is a go up.

is that realtors are going to speculate and to chase the low-income families of this neighborhood.

And low-income families deserve to have jobs on the spot where they live.

They deserve to have their future for their children in the center of the cities instead of having to pay incredible amounts of gas.

Thank you, sir.

Scott Beyer, 2556 Summit Ridge Trail.

Before I give my opinion specifically on William Taylor Plaza, I'd like to relate my broader position on proper urban growth strategy.

I believe both for cities across the nation and for Charlottesville that to develop existing urban land densely shows greater foresight

than to develop it sparsely or not at all.

There are multiple reasons I believe this, but leaving aside for now the role density plays in providing affordable housing, preserving rural land, diversifying local economies and creating vibrant cultures, I think that it also works miraculously in renewing blighted areas.

To support this idea, I can mention dozens of inner city neighborhoods throughout America from Harlem to Bed-Stuy to Compton to the near south side of Chicago who have opened to business and development in the last 20 years and have renewed as a result, at least to a degree.

but any of them demonstrate the connection between the two often through measures as simple as the construction of a few new condos, chain supermarkets, or a few renovated old homes.

One way density improves these areas is by placing more people on the streets to make them feel safer and more relevant.

Where inner city neighborhoods fail around America, they are underdeveloped with empty lots and abandoned buildings.

Where they succeed, they manage to achieve a certain critical mass of pedestrians to minimize the natural sense of danger and such critical mass generally coincides with increased density of development.

With this said, I think we should look at how density could improve Cherry Avenue.

We already know that for years the area has been stigmatized and I realize that a lot of the stigma is unfair and it's formed by people who stereotype just because of its demographics.

But a lot of the stigma is justified through statistics and news reports and in many cases basic observation.

We know for example that Tonsler Park has been cited both by the comprehensive plan and general opinion as one that can turn dangerous at night.

We know that the Cherry Avenue business corridor has long lacked diversity and services that can be found in other growth corridors around Charlottesville and that that can be unaccommodating to locals.

We know that the area has struggled with vagrancy and petty crime, perhaps from its proximity to nearby social service centers.

I don't think I'm being reactionary in saying simply that Cherry Avenue could bear to be improved.

and something like William Taylor Plaza I believe would do this.

Rather than further blighting the area, such a density could renew it in the ways I mentioned before.

By adding the sidewalk foot traffic, by increasing the customer base for local businesses, by increasing the sets of eyes looking down on Tonsler Park and the general walking path,

and by achieving the critical mass necessary to make potential danger seem less dangerous.

Thank you, Mr. Beyer.

I cannot read the next name, but somebody lives at 1201 Harold Circle.

My name is Jennifer Jacobs.

I am with Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.

Second, I urge you to support the William Taylor Plaza project.

I wanted to point out specifically how this project is in line with the 2025 goals for affordable housing document that we've been talking about this evening and that you all approved last year.

As elucidated in that document, the city has aspired to mixed income projects and the William Taylor Plaza project does that.

The city has aspired to mixed income mixed use projects and this project does that.

The city has aspired to creating affordable communities that are connected, transit ready, within walking distance to a bus line, on a bus line, and walking distance to employment centers, services, and downtown.

This project has that.

The city has aspired to creating affordable communities that are sustainable and sustainably built.

This project, affordable for a minimum of 50 years and built to Earthcraft or LEED standards, will be that.

The city has aspired to creating communities that are accessible and affordable to families below 60% of AMI.

That was the target listed in the report.

And this project, incorporating universal design standards and affordable to families up to 50% of the area median income is all of these things.

There's an important opportunity here to create 42 new units of affordable rental housing that would otherwise not happen.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Jacobs.

Good evening, counselors.

Right, well I'm speaking today as a former chair of the Albemarle Housing Committee and as a frequent participant in various affordable housing initiatives in Charlottesville through the HAC and the CRHA redevelopment process.

So I'm for the project for William Taylor.

I feel very strongly that our

Affordable housing stock is really, it comes back to basic arithmetic of just supply and demand and we don't have enough supply in Charlottesville for rental housing.

Something that came out a couple years ago was the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission State of Housing report and they listed in that report 4,000 units at a deficit.

That's just affordable units in this community, not even addressing market rate housing.

So I think that really speaks to

just the dire need we have for more housing in general.

And I think it also addresses what Mr. Loges mentioned previously is that the deficit's not being met in Charlottesville.

So it used to sprawl out into Albemarle, now it's going to Louisa, it's going to Green, going to Savannah, going to the Valley.

And so you're having tremendous, I say, ancillary, you know, problems that are going with this.

I think ultimately it's running to this is not just an issue of the real issue is its lack of capital investment and you're talking about thousands of additional apartments it's hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of capital improvements that need to need investment that needs to occur in our city

And it's not just a capital investment that can occur simply with government funding.

It has to be a private sector leading the way.

It needs to be.

It takes the creativity of our private sector to do so.

So I would just encourage you to please support this.

I think this is a unique public-private venture and something that we should support in our city.

Thank you, Mr. Beyer.

That's the last person to sign up to speak.

Mr. Mayor, everybody, council, Herp Porter, 509 7 1 2 Street.

I sit back and listen and I hear a lot of people who don't live in my neighborhood giving us advice about what should be done with it.

Most of the people who live in the neighborhood over the years have told you in meetings and Ms. Rhodes alluded to that, how we participate, how we've tried to make this an open and be involved process.

I take offense at the neighborhood being called blighted.

I think most of you all probably knew when that word came out I'd say something about it.

As it stands right now, we have people talking about the doctors and the bus drivers and the waitresses and if you look at Fifeville, we have all of that.

We have all of that.

We have doctors, we have lawyers, we have dishwashers, we have IT professionals, teachers, bus drivers.

We have that in this neighborhood and have had.

I'm not even going to go into other neighborhoods around the city.

We won't do that, okay?

But what I'm asking you to do is not, under any circumstances, allow

the exchange of those two parcels of land that I consider to be my land and the members of my neighborhood association and the city.

They're nobody's personal land.

They're our land.

The development has been noted as inferior.

I don't think it's something that you all really want to put your thumb on.

I don't think you want to approve that.

I don't think you want to go down in history being known for having supported a plan that

can cause irrevocable damage to a pretty pristine area.

Again, if you look at Pine Street, we have homes for the, what is that from, Habitat for Humanity along that street.

We've got a mosque going up.

That neighborhood, if you walk through it, you'll find everybody, every type home.

We have people sitting on the porch speaking to one another.

We have people walking through the neighborhood.

If we could have that neighborhood and the attitudes in that neighborhood dispersed throughout the city in my neighborhood, within five blocks of it, we wouldn't have almost 1,200 affordable properties, affordable units.

You can't say that for other neighborhoods in the city.

So I think the Fifeville neighborhood has been over backwards to allow affordable housing

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Porter.

Anybody else like to speak?

Sam Teller, 1601 Green Street.

I'm just going to say generally that I'm for selling lots for cash rather than proffers.

We were next to a PUD.

I won't get into what happened to us, but I wish that developer had given the cash at the time instead of a proffer.

You could take the cash from the lots and at the Martha Jefferson Hospital site, maybe affordable housing could be done there and also a walker school that you're planning on closing, maybe in that area also.

The other thing I don't understand is how

The developer says it's not in our interest to do affordable housing, but we will do it if you give us these lots for free.

If half our project is financed with affordable housing and we have 30 extra apartments, then we'll do it.

I don't know if there's anything in the original plan saying that they can't do some on their own.

I'm just saying take the cash for the lots instead of giving it to them.

Thanks.

I moved on to Douglas Avenue, bought the property about seven years ago and renovated it, got it down.

I'm a supporter of affordable housing, I guess to clean my conscience in a way.

I've seen a large number of houses, mine included, that were apartment buildings with three or four units and a lot of poor people living in there move out and in return it's been one family with two people.

and I kind of hate losing these people from the neighborhood.

A few houses in the area have stayed in affordable houses because the landlords have basically fallen in love with the people and want to keep them there for a long time.

But as the city develops and more and more of these properties become upscale, there is a need to get more and more affordable housing.

I think the

The ambiance of the city is the mixture of the two people and by doing affordable housing you're able to achieve it.

The only thing I'd like to quickly talk about is the bike trail and not the rider of bicycles.

And the only thing that can really connect me with Belmont

to 29 shopping areas is cutting through the park.

It's a real opening for us to get there.

Otherwise, we have to go down a lower road and the traffic down there is dangerous.

I really encourage the city to quickly reopen that up by springtime for the bikers.

Good evening.

My name is Pat Napoleon and I live at 700 Lyons Avenue.

The reality is, ladies and gentlemen, people choose to live in neighborhoods and communities for personal reasons.

The bottom line, Charlottesville will never succeed in forcing diversity upon the populace.

Real genuine and healthy diversity mixed use I believe occurs in a more natural manner and just as it has gracefully evolved and now exists within the historic and established corridor at Ridge and Cherry.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak on this matter?

Okay, we will now close the public hearing.

And again, just to recap, we have three separate items to take action on tonight.

One is taking up the Planning Commission action, whether or not we support the Planning Commission action regarding the amendment to the plan unit development.

That's item one.

Item two is we have the changes to the sale of the agreement regarding the city-owned properties.

That's item two.

And three is a resolution to consent to the assignment to the third party, which I gather is a little bit more of a technical issue, but I think the main issues before us are the first two.

I guess maybe just open up first to general comments from counselors based on what we've heard tonight, what we observed at the public hearing with the Planning Commission's general thoughts about this project.

And again, I would remind the public, the question before us tonight is not whether or not development should occur on the site of William Taylor Plaza.

That question, if you will, was settled in 2009, I believe.

The question before us tonight is, are the changes that have been proposed acceptable?

And I'll be happy to entertain council comments or further questions you might have on that matter.

I guess I'll start because I didn't approve

And I'm going to remain consistent with that.

In as much as I believe in the need for affordable housing, I don't think it's appropriate for this setting.

And I have concerns about the process.

and I just believe affordable housing should come from your heart and not for a need for low income tax credits.

I am outraged by some of the comments that were made.

We don't have blighted communities in Charlottesville.

There are a lot of things that we need to improve on but we do not have blighted communities.

It's not an empty lot, it's a natural forested area and I'm going to continue to be as

Thank you, Ms. Edwards.

Well, Ms. Edwards is always a tough act to follow, but I'll try.

You know, I always think we should be careful about overturning the Planning Commission.

I mean, we should have good reason not to follow their recommendation, and I frankly don't see that good reason here.

I don't see anything that distinguishes us from their consideration of it to our consideration of it.

But more importantly,

I don't like the way it's changing and I'll actually give some credit to Dee Dee Smith for some of her insights on this.

Earlier today we recognized one of our schools for its excellence.

And if you look at the analysis that based on what D.D.

Smith sent us, the school involvement, the school flew great teachers led by a very talented principal, but it has a 44% free and reduced lunch rate.

Thank you.

Whereas the neighborhoods that would be fed by this development, Clark hasn't, and I'm not sure which school district it would be, but Clark has an 82% free and reduced lunch rate.

And Clark is also a place full of dedicated, talented teachers, talented staff.

And so the mix of the school does become important.

It becomes important to the success of our school system.

And so I really think that

You know, I think Mr. Porter sort of nailed it when he said, you know, we need to find ways to have affordable housing in all of our city and not just located sort of on the south side of the tracks.

Mr. Huja?

I'd like to make one or two comments in keeping in mind what Mr. Brown has said.

I'm not opposed to development on this site as I voted for it earlier, but I think the way it has changed is the quality of development has been reduced and also I think I'm also not opposed to affordable housing but again

Concentration of affordable housing in this location, I think it's too much in the development of my mind.

Well, although I've heard three people say that they're opposed to it, I will still stick out my neck and say that although I came into the room not absolutely sure how I would vote on this,

I do see reasons to support it that I feel need to be said.

And some of the folks who spoke here publicly said it.

But I think that everybody wants affordable housing until it's about to be built.

And then it's scary to think any development in an area, whether it's affordable or not, is a change.

It's different.

It's going to be next to somebody.

And that's always

of tension and it's something that I recognize.

But I think that when we made the long range plan for our city and we brought in hundreds of people into the process of planning what we want our city to look like,

What we came up with was that the areas within walking distance of downtown, within walking distance of major employers, that we would have more density.

And this is what density looks like.

This is the kind of project that we're talking about.

And it's not adding

to the concentration of low-income housing or affordable housing in the neighborhood because it's bringing in both kinds of housing.

So it kind of keeps the ratio relatively similar.

I am concerned about Clark and the additional students that that would be likely to bring in, presumably

It's expensive to raise children and so a lot of people in lower income housing have kids and that's kind of why they're struggling.

And so presumably that would be a lot of students for Clark.

But I think that the fact that developers are motivated partly by tax credits

is because they're trying to find an alternative to taking money from the residents, from the people who are living in the apartment.

People aren't going to give their houses away.

I'm trying to rent out my mother's house, and I can't rent it out for less than the mortgage payment, or I can't sustain that.

So I think that we have to recognize that it is an economic proposition, and we have to figure out ways to make it an economic proposition that's attractive so that people will provide public housing.

because as the folks on the Housing Advisory Committee said that our housing fund money needs to be matched 10 to 1 in order for us to meet the kind of needs that we see in this community and this is the kind of way that it meets it is by having private developers leverage federal funding, leverage their own development funding to make a project that we can support

through the inclusion of a certain amount of land.

I'm somewhere in between where Ms. Szakos is and where the majority council seems to be.

I fully agree with everything Ms. Szakos just said about the need to step up our efforts to promote affordable housing, particularly new units, new construction, and in a way where we're able to integrate

Lower income units with market rate units.

That's a very creative approach that we haven't seen much of here in the city and I thought this was an excellent example of that.

Again, just if we were to focus on the task at hand tonight, which was the proposed change.

Again, not whether or not this site should be developed.

All of us, sorry, most of us have supported development on this site in the past.

The proffer regarding affordable housing was a proffer that essentially said there would be a minimum of 30 units at 80%, up to 80% of AMI, I believe.

And as I mentioned at the public hearing prior, you know, 80% of area median income is a pretty hefty income.

People who make under 80% of area median income include most of our teachers, our police officers, our social workers, even when you start talking about 50% of area median income.

I, just as Ms. Edwards was outraged that some of the comments were made, I was extremely outraged at some of the comments that we received, not tonight, I think the speakers tonight were very respectful, but some of the comments we received by email

about and characterizations made about affordable housing were just shameful and the characterizations about the kind of people that a 50% of the AMI housing stock would attract and I thought were really disappointing.

Having said all of that, so I would have supported this product to a certain extent based on the need for more affordable housing.

Where I thought the Planning Commission made

A good point was on what somebody called the inferiority of the design.

And I think many of us came away feeling less than pleased with the changes in the design from the original plan to the one that's before us now.

Had we had a majority of counselors that was in favor of moving forward with the project as reconfigured, I was going to suggest that we hold off on final approval of the design and basically send them back to the drawing board

I have seen any.

For example, if there was an intent of that nature, there could have been some effort between the Planning Commission and this meeting to show some efforts along those lines.

All right.

I'd just like to ask the developer if there is anything that he wants to kind of

just put forward at this point just to see if there is anything.

Sure.

I'd be glad to, and thank you.

The design is a concern of ours, too.

And in the booklets you have in front of you tonight, there are a couple of things in there that are worth noting.

On the cover of those booklets is a rendering of what the elevations of the buildings could look like.

It's a draft at this point because final architecture has not been completed, but that is something that was put together since the Planning Commission meeting.

A lot of effort went into refining that to give you something to look at.

because the two dimensional aerial view that you saw in the joint public hearing really didn't give you much to look at and we really admit that.

One thing on these drawings is the red line that is on the building on the bottom there which is the Cherry Avenue building is the height of the currently approved building.

That's an outline of the building that we got approved with the last rezoning.

I think it's worth noting that this building is lower in stature than that building in almost every area, save for one small spot.

Some places by as much as 16 feet.

And that was something that we thought would give this a little

increase in support because it doesn't dominate up near Ridge Street as much as the old building did.

It's still a very dense and urban style as you move down Cherry Avenue but it softens the Ridge Street side.

So that's worth considering.

Regarding design for as we move forward, we do have to go to the BAR for any approval if we were to move forward.

And as I'm sure you all know, they're very specific about what they want to see.

So putting

a ton of effort into a design for a zoning for a land use decision is not usually a wise thing to do because we're just going to end up redoing it for the BAR when they offer their comments.

So I see we have a significant amount of design work yet to do and would appreciate any comments from you now or anytime in the future.

I believe that in order to apply for the financing we have a deadline to meet that that would not be in time for.

Sure, absolutely.

I mean for architecture we have to go to the BAR and if the council would like to look at it we'd be glad to show it to council for additional feedback.

Well, it would be not just for feedback, for final approval.

I don't know if the legality of how it works.

One of the comments which I was disappointed in was drawings.

Well, what we had before was kind of a sunken plaza.

It was below grade, so it wasn't at sidewalk grade or what we have now, I guess, in the current approval.

It's below grade plaza.

It's not a street level plaza, and I think there was some confusion about that.

What we show now is a little bit smaller plaza, but it has a kind of a brick wall of ink

outlining or defining the plaza from the sidewalk.

And that's really just a sign for the development advertising the William Taylor Plaza name.

That's something that could very easily be removed, put the signage elsewhere and open that up.

The architects that know a lot more about this than I do kind of approach

A corner like that is either a negative space where you have a corner where there's an empty space behind the corner or a positive space where you really completely fill that corner and it sounds like council would prefer to see more of that negative space with a wider area at the corner and that's something that we could certainly work on as we go through the BAR.

Other comments or questions?

I mean it's safe to say, just to boil this all down, I mean is it safe to say if we

Uphold the Planning Commission's denial tonight.

Essentially, it doesn't prevent you from developing the site.

All it does is it requires you to revert to the original development plan for the site, which includes, and the main difference being is that it would have more commercial and it would have no guarantee of affordable housing.

That's right.

That's correct.

And one other thing, the proper change that we've requested was up to 110,000 square foot building

above the 100,000 square foot that's currently approved.

We asked for that because we wanted a little flexibility as we did the final architecture.

We didn't know exactly where that was going to end up.

And since then, with this refinement that we've done since the Planning Commission, it does look like the building that we're proposing is actually still under 100,000 square feet.

Again, it's not final.

But to give you an idea, the total mass of it really isn't going to change appreciably.

I shared the concerns about the design.

For me, the affordable housing and the mix was something that overrode those.

I think with the combination of the design, I feel much more comfortable with it.

I gather the other counselors are still.

I think we're about done with this agenda.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. Mayor, just on the rezoning portion of it, you have a petition to amend the rezoning and a proposed ordinance.

I think you have two options to proceed.

One would be a motion and second to approve the ordinance, in which case it would carry forward to the next meeting for a final vote.

The other option is a motion and second to deny the rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission and that could be subject to a full vote tonight.

The reason between the difference between the two is our procedure says no ordinance shall be passed except by two readings.

Mr. Mayor, I move that the petition be denied and that we uphold the Planning Commission.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

and the motion carries.

My concern with the proposed changes to the purchase agreement is even if you approve them they are now inconsistent with the zoning on the property.

So my advice would be not to proceed tonight with changes to the land sales contract.

There may, and I have not talked to the contract purchaser slash owner about it, they may be

Portions of the sales contract that still need to be amended, or they may like to ask to be amended, such as the schedule, because I think the downturn in the economy has pushed them behind on that.

So, in essence, you're urging that we take no action?

Yes, sir.

Duly noted.

I would just like to just commend the developer for one thing, and I know that there have been some questions in the past, but for this particular idea of mixing low income or moderate income and higher

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move on to the next item on our agenda, which is a public hearing and an ordinance relating to our CAFE ordinance, amendments to our CAFE ordinance.

Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council.

I'm going to start this while I'm twirling through pages on the iPad because I went back 110 while hitting the wrong button.

Right, we'll get there.

The cafe ordinance discussion has been going on for several months.

As you know, you were approached several months ago by a citizen who asked that you consider amending the cafe ordinance to allow cafes to be divided up without

If they were over the size or if somebody else just wanted one, they wanted to be able to have the city manager, thank you, eliminate one cafe and take others.

Concerns that were expressed were that somebody that had a vacant space could not lease that space to somebody desiring a cafe because somebody else had it tied up or because we required a restaurant to be in existence before they could get a cafe.

We've had a number of meetings, started this process with a selected group of DBAC and CATFE and business owners to talk about process and then had a meeting with a larger group and then they've been back to the DBAC one more time and I think we've made great progress.

I think we don't have

Everybody 100% in agreement on what we've come up with, but I think that it's safe to say that the vast majority are happy with the proposals that are before you tonight.

Those will do a couple of things.

They would allow a new restaurant to reserve space by presenting an option to lease or a contract to purchase to the zoning administrator.

Rather than requiring that they have the restaurant be in business and be open, if there was a space available in front of a storefront and somebody wanted to open a restaurant and have a cafe, if they came in and said, I want to lease this, I've got an option to lease, I'm doing my due diligence,

or an option to buy, then we would in effect tie that space up for them at that time.

We'd do that for 30 days and then at the end of the 30 days they would have to present us either a signed lease or a deed to the property showing that they had consummated the sale or the lease.

At that time we would tie the space up for them for six months and that would give them time to do their due diligence

and get the restaurant open.

If they succeeded there, then the cafe space would be theirs.

And that's the situation is that where there is space available.

We also realized as we're going through this that we've got six cafes that are greater than the 800 square feet that we currently allow.

And at first we thought, let's just name those in the ordinance and have it very clear that they're approved because nobody

wanted to take their space away but we wanted to make it clear so that we didn't have requests coming in.

I want to honor the fact that those have been previously approved by council in most cases and the city manager had granted approval and two others.

In writing the ordinance what the attorney said is we don't need to name them by name but just simply state that any that are over 800 square feet

as of today would be allowed to keep that space until they sold their restaurant and then that space would be available for if there was somebody else that wanted to take that space.

We wanted to clarify that space would not be reallocated arbitrarily, but it could be done for public need, public safety if the city needed to allocate space differently.

And then we wanted to talk about and have some way to deal with what happens when a cafe space is sold.

Let's say that a restaurant is sold.

If a restaurant is sold, it changes hands.

How do we deal with who gets that space?

The discussions we had with the restaurant owners were that that space, although it's city space, has value to that restaurant and if somebody wants to sell their restaurant there is a value because they've been able to obtain that cafe space knowing that it's city property that doesn't belong to them but it does add value to the asset that they have.

So we talked back and forth and finally came up with a compromise that we felt everybody could live with and that would say that if a restaurant had space that

and that property was sold, that that restaurant would be able to be guaranteed half of the space that they had up to 400 feet, which is half of the maximum that they could obtain.

We would then solicit from the properties that would be eligible under the Health Department laws to have a cafe there and see if anybody in those properties wanted any more cafes or any cafe space.

If somebody could

followed through the process, provided that they owned their property or they had a lease and they wanted to obtain that space, then the first one of those would get the other half of that.

And then this person would have, the first person would have 400, the other person would have 400, or if it had been 600, they'd split it and have 300 each.

If nobody else applied, then the one going back in the old space could have the full amount

that the previous owner had.

Again, up to the 800.

If it's one of those that's over 800, they would lose down to the 800.

And that's consistent with what we've done.

When the nook sold, the nook was reduced to 800 square feet, so that's consistent there.

There were some folks that didn't think that was quite fair, but the vast majority felt pretty strongly that since we'd already done that to the nook, that had been the policy, that we would keep that consistent.

And then the final thing that was requested and that we felt worked

was that we had a policy that wasn't in the ordinance for the last several years that was really requested by the DBAC that we not allow any more spaces directly adjacent to the buildings, that the cafe space all be in the middle.

And the reason for that was that the business owners, the retail owners in particular, wanted the ability, customers to have the ability to window shop.

And they felt like if they had to be diverted around the restaurants that would harm their ability to have window shoppers see what was in their

their business.

Because we're so limited in space, we propose that, we allow that, and it's only in a few limited cases where it could happen, but that we allow that space to be used as long as there was 12 feet of clear space that was left between a new cafe and any other obstruction, be it a tree, be it another cafe or anything else, that there would be clear space to walk.

We ran that by the DBAC.

and the DBAC members and again we carry this not just to the membership people that pay their dues but to everybody but using the DBAC primarily and at our meeting we had support for that.

We haven't had any opposition to that realizing that that's something that we ought to do.

So I think that what we've come up with are a series of proposals that would change the ordinance

Questions for Mr. Tolbert?

It's very helpful.

So we have a public hearing scheduled for this matter.

There's nobody who's signed up to speak for the public hearing.

Is there anybody in chambers tonight who would like to speak on this matter?

Oh.

Oh, sorry.

Mr. Kuttner.

Ludwig Kuttner.

I stood with farm.

I just want to

Thank you Mr. Talbot for he had a very very difficult job and I just want to bring up one thing and I'm supportive whatever the city does and we always have been but it's very interesting for us and I was here 1984 argued in three meetings

I think you were there and about having outdoor seating.

We then proceeded to take a lot that has been empty for a long time at the city, at the central place, invested money here.

Everybody saw we were crazy.

I think we suffered

for a long time, trying to get restaurants there and doing there and lost money for a long time.

And it's kind of hard for us now to see that one of the reasons why we did it and the city council agreed to that, that you have outside seating that now it may be restricted.

And I don't know if you can do something about it or not.

I just want to get it on the record that it was very important for us to do it at that time and now it gets restricted.

But we understand

all the other public pressures that you have and I don't know that we bought the land from the city, we didn't ask it for free even though it was offered but this was one of our main conditions and somehow it's interesting how it turns over the years and maybe we should have had something in the contract then but

Maybe there's something you can do, have something that recognizes what we have done.

Thank you, Mr. Kuttner.

Anybody else like to speak?

We'll now close the public hearing.

Mr. Brown, we want to jump in.

This is the issue of, as Mr. Brown advised me, that one council can't bind another and can't grant or grandfather these use of public property forever.

And so rather than name the restaurants and the space in cities for Zocalo being one of those, again by saying all restaurants over 800 feet are approved in their current space,

then we do that.

We don't name them, but they're there.

If that restaurant sold, then we might have to come back and deal with it again.

There was a restaurant change, for example,

was to change to some other restaurant.

Yes, that's actually, that is correct.

If they sell to somebody else, if it's just a continuation, you know,

If the people that were operating the restaurant there now change the format, change to another restaurant,

change the name, then this wouldn't impact it.

That's correct.

Again, we couldn't find a way to single them out any differently than the other five, and everybody was pretty consistent saying that when those other five sold, they needed to come down.

Could council at that time give... We could come back in here and bring it before council and you could amend it to allow them

I understand that completely and that's when, if you remember, I forget the name of the restaurant that was there.

Would you say that you'll have to go back to 800 square feet because the new restaurant would come and place the circle up?

Right.

I don't believe so.

That's correct.

You would have to amend the ordinance to do so.

and Mr. Huja, we struggle with how to deal with that one and it's just, you can't, we can't say they're all approved to be that size forever and always and so... No, in this case there will be no competition because it was the same property owner controls the whole property.

At this point that is correct, yes sir.

I don't disagree with you.

I'm just saying that

Again, I think we don't want to get into waiving it for one and not for the others in the ordinance because then how do you make that decision?

But if you've got a unique situation, you could come in and again mend the ordinance to deal with them.

Because if you put that in the ordinance, I guarantee you all five of these when they sell are going to come back here and make an argument that they ought to be able to maintain the exact size they have now.

And the group

I get it.

And I think that's what we're trying to get away with here.

That's what the community down there as a whole wants to get away from.

We had a business owner or property owner come before council not too long ago and had this specific issue regarding wanting to lease her property for a restaurant not having access to cafe space because of what she perceived as a monopoly on space in front of her restaurant.

No sir, it was the consensus of the group that, how to say this,

that that's just the breaks that you get and that a lot of the people that have cafes now said you know we had to wait a number of years to be able to get that opportunity for somebody to go out of business so we could get it and they just and I think I agree with them it feel very strongly that if somebody does a business plan and has been operating with a certain amount of seating that it's not fair to take that away because a speculative restaurant may want to go in and and so they were there was you know all but one unanimous support for

Absolutely not.

Shared space or having part of theirs or absolutely nothing.

Mr. Mayor, we did include one additional provision and this is paragraph C at the top of the third page of the ordinance which allows someone that has an option to lease property

to apply for cafe space.

That doesn't create any additional cafe space.

But if there is space available, it does allow someone other than an existing licensed restaurant to apply for that space.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, please state your name.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

You're right.

So that will carry forward to our next meeting.

Next item on our agenda is a report on the water supply.

And I believe it's not just a report, but I believe we're actually looking for council action tonight.

Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen,

You've seen the cover memo before.

We just keep updating it as we come in each time.

What we attempted to do for this evening's meeting was take the questions that many of you had sent to the city manager and asked to have responses to and tried to set it up in somewhat of a matrix and ask the consultants working for

Schnabel working for Rivanna and Black & Veatch working for the city to fill out the chart.

Since that time we've had some questions.

I would like to address one that I think we got cleared up today.

Many of you also got a letter from Schnabel and there were some numbers in there that may not have seemed to match.

In the very first item, the permanently disturbed areas

You may have seen eight and a half acres in the Schnabel letter.

They are now telling us that was for the dam only, and that's why the number here of 12 is larger than that.

I realize in a

situation that is this complicated, it's very difficult to try to reduce it to some numbers.

So I'm not saying that what we've given you is perfect.

We appreciate that.

But we did try to answer the questions that you had.

We have since learned that there was also a series of questions that came from Albemarle County that we were not aware of.

and that may have prompted the letter that you saw from Schnabel with some other inquiries that we had.

So we're here tonight to try to answer your questions, try to fill you in.

Ms. Hildebrand's here for the technical answers to your questions and we'll do whatever we can.

Question for Ms. Mueller.

I had a question.

It said there were three acres in terms of the footprint of the concrete dam.

Do you have a sense of, first of all, does that include the existing footprint of the dam?

And just looking at the definition, actually Greg and I discussed many aspects of this list, but we didn't discuss that one.

But what was assumed was that the three was additional impact.

So it does not include the existing footprint.

It includes the dam, the access road, borrow areas, which they don't have obviously, and the spillway.

I actually have a bunch of questions at some point, but just to this particular thing.

This is permanently disturbed areas and I'm guessing that

a staging area would be kind of in temporarily disturbed areas and I really wanted a comparison of temporarily disturbed areas because I think that a lot of what we're looking at is which one is going to be the most disruptive long term but also which one is going to be the most disruptive short term.

Other questions?

In essence,

We've got two dams that would produce the same amount of water, that's safe to say.

Two dams that both could accommodate a reservoir that's 30 feet higher than the current reservoir.

Yes, sir.

There is a small difference.

What were we talking about?

110 million gallons of storage.

The Earth.

Just because it's further back.

That's 106 of it.

And digging it out, okay.

But as you say, we're talking about a reservoir that's got billions of gallons, so that's fairly minor.

So two reservoirs that are essentially very similar in size, but one of which that's going to have a much bigger impact in terms of tree loss, in terms of earth and rock that only have to be excavated.

in terms of feet of stream that's going to be buried.

Is that safe to say?

Yes, sir.

These are not our numbers.

The length of stream, isn't it about the same?

No, I think it's dramatically different.

I'm sorry, I guess I was looking at the one that said 9,000 versus 10,000.

That's, I think, yeah, the 500 feet.

What these numbers don't reflect is sort of the baseline of

Much of that is going to be from the larger reservoir.

Is that safe to say, Ms. Mueller?

I'm sorry?

So once you take out, do you have any sense off the top of your head how much of that is from the larger reservoir?

I think we have some numbers.

to most of that is from the reservoir itself.

So, again, I'm looking at the margin, what the earthen dam would do in terms of the number of, the feet of stream that would be buried versus what the concrete dam would do.

Like the stream impacted sea.

The difference between 96 and 10, 1.

Right.

And again,

Most of this 9663 and the 10163 is from the reservoir itself.

What I think we're being asked to do tonight is

is not to discuss the impact of the larger reservoir because that's roughly equal between the two dams.

It's the marginal impact of the dams themselves.

And that's my point was that the earthen dam is going to bury substantially more feet of stream.

It's going to reduce – it's going to result in substantially greater tree loss.

Just by the very nature of having to, when you're excavating 10 times the amount of soil and rock in order to build the dam, that's going to require a lot of forest clearance.

When you're building a structure that's significantly larger, that's going to result in a significant amount of tree clearing.

So all things being equal,

I have four specific questions.

One is that the ITRT report called for a grout curtain that wasn't responded to when Black & Veatch came and talked to us.

They said they hadn't had time to do that, which is fine because I understand the engineering isn't done.

But my question, just looking at this chart, when we look at the cost of that additional work, if they were to do it, is that included in their range or would that be over top of that?

Yes, it is.

They modified, I think they

came back in December to discuss that and they modified the cost estimate to reflect that.

The second question is about the concrete plants.

How much equipment would need to be brought in?

Was that something that we know?

I'm not going to be able to answer that.

In discussions,

Both dams use a lot of concrete.

It's not like one dam doesn't have concrete and the other one doesn't.

The next question is,

somewhat related to it.

I'm thinking of, we've got the figures on bringing in trucks of stuff, whether it's concrete or whatever they need, and we have a very nice apples-to-apples comparison of what's coming in.

And I guess that I would like to know a similar apples-to-apples comparison of what's going out that might be different.

So, assuming that the temporarily disturbed area of the Earthen Dam is larger

Is that, does that correlate into a number of truck trips going out with trees on them?

The area that is inundated from a water standpoint is very similar to the two areas.

Nine acres.

I think her question is... Do you know how that corresponds into truckloads of trees coming out of there?

No.

No.

And my other question is, has Black & Veatch given an indication if we were to, like today, to say we want concrete form,

Well, let's go further than that.

I believe they discussed this in November when they gave a little more detail and they estimated it would take about six to eight months

to Final Design, but that does not, you need to add a little bit of review time for city, Rivanna, and county to that.

But they also have a shorter construction.

Yeah, their construction period is here.

Okay.

But this is, you're saying six to eight months, which is really more like eight

And they're here two to six months shorter building time projected.

Yes.

Okay.

We have a range.

We got a range to complete design is 900,000 to 1.4 million.

Not sure.

Mr. Webster's here, he could- There's about 350,000, what's in it left?

It's closer to about 250,000.

That's correct.

Other questions or comments?

Maybe we should have each counselor based on what you know and where are you inclined to, which option are you inclined to support between the

I would be, tonight, if we had a motion to approve a 30 foot dam, a concrete dam using the approach advocated by Black & Veatch, I would support that tonight.

and again it's largely based on the kind of data that we're seeing here about the impacts as I see them of, or not as I see them of, as reflected in this chart of the difference between the, in cost and in environmental impacts between the two dams.

Even though they both produce the same amount of water, but in my mind based on the data we have one would

Well, you know, I have trouble, frankly, seeing us moving towards a

a concrete dam doing anything other than just throwing a monkey wrench into the process and perhaps just derailing the city and county working together on a dam.

I think potentially, in fact the word I'd invite would be sort of discussion of what steps would need to be taken in order for this to smoothly move forward, including

How do we dovetail what we've already spent on Black & Veatch, what the County Service Authority has already spent on Schnabel, what's remaining to be spent on the Schnabel design, and who is planning to spend that.

You know, I see, you know, to me a big part of this is how much area is permanently disturbed.

And it seems to me it's pretty close to being awash.

I mean, there's a 10% difference with the new dam.

The amount of stream impacted is similarly close.

I think we have a choice between a new dam,

or building on top of an older dam.

And the fact is when the study was done by the consultants, they expressed some concern about issues building on the existing dam.

Thank you.

As I mentioned last time, I support the earthen dam basically because the old dam in my mind

The team of experts reviewed the old lab.

They had serious concerns about its integrity.

It was very questionable.

And I think we need to think about that a little bit.

Also, I think it is going to have significant negative environmental impacts in terms of footprint, in terms of CO2, carbon dioxide,

carbon footprint will be three times greater than our other dam there will be significantly more truck traffic and I think the cost in the long run in my mind will turn out to be not that different and if I had to buy a whole dam with a 100 year old dam with questionable integrity with the same amount of money I would rather buy a new one

and I think also I'm not even sure that the existing time could be done in a timely manner in terms of deadlines we have confronting us.

Well, I have to say that

It's going to be significantly different in terms of the concrete.

I must admit that there's information that I was hoping we would be able to get this evening that we don't have.

But I think that one really, I'm really not concerned about safety.

I don't, I think that the dam as it's engineered, or as it's kind of pre-engineered,

I would be confident was safe.

I am very concerned though about the expectation that the city would be expected to pay for the engineering.

You know, if we had 1.4 million dollars, I think we're expected to give it to the schools.

As far as, you know, extra money hanging around, I'm not aware of any.

And, you know, when we're talking about cost share with the county on this project,

I would support this if I thought they were going to pay for that engineering, or not they, but if this was part of the whole project, not if we were expected to pay for the engineering.

Because I think that it's a Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority project and they should pay for the engineering.

I'll have to say that I've been very frustrated in this whole process and I've only been doing it for a year and all of you have been doing it for longer than that.

And largely with really folks on both sides who are so vested in their own preferred outcomes that they've really provided slanted and incomplete data throughout this whole process.

And I think that really the difference between the earthen dam and the concrete dam at this point

might be almost a wash as far as the ratepayers, as far as the long-term impact.

You know, I think that, you know, two months ago people were saying, no, no, no, you can't do anything, are now saying, really push for that concrete 30-foot dam.

And so, you know, the folks on the other side are saying, you know, no, it has to be 42.

We're now saying, go for that 30-foot earthen dam.

I feel like, you know, at some point we're going to move beyond this and it'll be okay.

You know, I just don't think the world is going to end based on the decision we make tonight.

But I'll admit that the nastiness that I've heard from a few of the people in this discussion has been very disheartening.

And it did more than anything the other side could do to make me unsympathetic toward their cause.

I've heard from many people who support the community water supply who've been reluctant to come here to speak publicly about it because they don't want to get slammed the next day in the hook blog or called out as sold out or corrupt during public comment at our meetings.

As an elected official, I feel like I have a pretty thick skin.

I don't mind that.

When I got elected, I expected that.

But I don't think that our citizens should have to expose themselves to that kind of treatment when they come in to speak out on an issue.

You know, I think that this has been going on for month after month after month after month without a whole lot of new information.

And a democracy doesn't mean that the most vocal people get their way or that the people in the room are necessarily representative of the majority opinion in the community.

And the facts that are repeated the most often and the most loudly are not necessarily the only facts.

But as city councilors, we're responsible for safeguarding our assets and doing what's best for our residents.

You know, I think that that's something that I'm really struggling with on this issue.

Just let me make one or two more comments.

As you said, it's basically cost the wash.

Almost.

And if you're thinking of the

I hope that if it is the one idea selected by the community, you know, whether I agree or not agree, it will be safe.

I definitely hope so.

But when three well-known experts raise serious questions about using, it concerns me that when we could do the same thing for any dam,

Safer Dam, you should know the quality, you know where it will be.

I don't see, in my mind it is very hard to take the risk with the old dam.

It may turn out to be fine, but why take the risk when it is for the same price you have in your car, when new dam?

So at least, in my mind it is a, I think environmentally, both have their own problems and concerns.

But I think, I also want to keep in mind that it is not only for the city of Charlottesville, the whole city and county could work together in some ways.

And I doubt that a complete dam would be acceptable to the county

for reasons which I mentioned to you.

And if you want to continue to have more dialogue for another year, hoping that some things will change, then it seems futile to me.

But again, it's up to you, the majority of the council, to decide what you want to decide.

I just don't see how, with all due respect, you could say that the cost is a wash when we have, albeit still preliminary numbers, but we have numbers that indicate that the concrete dam is a 10.6 to 15.3 million dollar project, whereas the new earthen dam is a 15.8 to 19.3 million dollar project.

a potential on the lower end of a $10.6 million versus a high end of it on the other dam of $19.3.

So you've got a $9 million range.

Now, obviously, it probably won't end up being that much of a differential, but there's a substantial difference in cost, potential cost.

I think Mr. Zaminski, when given the opportunity to address the issues of risk and safety, I felt like he addressed them pretty convincingly.

It seems to me that if Albemarle County were to see this council come down firmly on our commitment to building a 30-foot dam, that's really their primary interest here.

They want to lock in a dam height, and I think they're less invested in which kind of dam.

I think there is a legitimate

issue that we'll have to deal with as we move forward is should they be reimbursed for the costs that they've incurred in designing Earthen Dam to this point.

I will remind everybody that we spent, I don't know if anybody remembers the exact amount, we spent a lot of money designing through

What's the other firm that we were working?

Gannett Fleming.

We spent over a million dollars, I believe, almost two million dollars designing that dam, which we all are swallowing.

Let me say, Mr. Mayor,

I was quite open to the alternatives till I heard the reports from the experts and I also have heard from at least a few of the county representatives saying that they could not live with an existing concrete dam.

Well, and that's partly, I don't mean to interrupt, but that's partly because they, you know, they had made a commitment to hear from Black & Veatch themselves and to have Greg Ziminski come and give the same kind of presentation to the county board that he's given now twice to us.

Can I ask a question of staff?

Since what we're talking about here in terms of cost is the dam itself, is there some expectation on how that cost would be shared?

With either of the two dams, there will be a cost share allocation.

There will be a decision made of what portion of that cost can be considered maintenance and that number hasn't been

agreed to.

We know we have to repair the dam.

Well, you know, one of the numbers that's been out there has been seven million, but that's not been agreed to.

That's a number that's out there that will be part of the cost share allocation.

The additional amount above that will be for the additional supply, and that will be

divided up based on what amount of supply, additional supply the city chooses to have and what amount the Albemarle County Service Authority chooses to have.

So that's all part of the, you know, people want to say what's it going to cost.

We're not that far in the cost allocation agreement to be able to tell you what those exact percentages are.

And in the discussions on anticipated growth, I guess I'd had the impression that

And that the county would pretty much take the rest.

Yes.

So above whatever portion is

That's generically.

Right.

Is it fair to say they'll have a majority of the cost?

No.

No?

If you're talking about a $10 million dam,

Is it appropriate to say that the university has looked at that and they just prefer a new

And have you, in your conversations with your peers in the county, heard anybody say that they could not live with a higher concrete dam?

I've not had that discussion.

Okay.

Suppose this was a deal breaker.

I think the city council has gone a long way towards accommodating Albemarle County's desires for a larger initial water supply and at some significant cost to our city assets.

And again, I think it's less of an issue, my sense is it's less of an issue for the county

Well, I mean, I can refer to a, well, I had a private conversation where you related

And again, I think it's largely because they've never taken the opportunity to sit down with Black & Veatch and have these questions addressed.

Black & Veatch is not a fly-by-night engineering firm.

We hope so.

We don't hope so, we know so.

Black & Veatch, I believe it was 20 or 25% of the world's population that lives on public water, not the population of Virginia or the United States, of the world's population that lives on public water.

drinks their water from a water supply that was either designed or built by Black and Veatch.

This is not a small mom and pop operation.

They know their business and I think it's been very reassuring.

I was fully prepared.

If Black and Veatch, I know people probably won't believe me when I say this, but if Black and Veatch had come back and said, you know what, that old dam, it's not reliable, in our professional opinion,

You're better off going with a new dam.

So what happens if Black & Veatch, which has really done only preliminary engineering at this point, and we're still... What happens if they go ahead and do the final engineering and come back and say,

Oops.

Sort of like Gannett Fleming did initially in saying, you know, it's going to cost a lot more than we thought.

There's nothing that we can do tonight to make that not happen.

From what I understand, we can't lock them into an estimate like you can with a car repair.

Well again, maybe Ms. Mueller can address the process when we hire a firm to do engineering work for us.

This is a fairly difficult question because there are no guarantees.

on either side of this.

We think that, as the mayor has said, that Black & Veatch is a very credible international engineering organization.

We have not had any indication from them as we've moved along that there are any major, they have a very large contingency in their estimate at this point.

Just as Schnabel went forward

and was able to refine their numbers.

They were able to lower their contingency because there were less unknowns in there.

We would anticipate that should you choose to go forward, that we would be, as more information comes forward as they do more design, we would probably be lowering some of their contingencies too.

And some of the things are raised, you know, as they find more information, some things goes up.

very much like when they went back and looked at the things from the ITRT, the expert panel.

Some things went up and some things went down.

It's a refinement.

But can I guarantee you right now?

But you also can't guarantee that once, for instance, once we start trying to excavate 645,000 cubic yards of

I think it's only fair to say that there are going to be questions on both sides.

I think the consultant, which is obviously a very competent person, there's no question on that in my mind.

One other concern I have is in our negotiations with the county and I know actual negotiations have to be all kind of behind closed doors but

You know, I'm concerned that one of the things that a lot of people have been calling on us to put into those negotiations and to make sure that doesn't get forgotten is the whole idea of dredging.

And I think that that is also, when we're called as city councilors to be responsible for our assets, that reservoir, the lower reservoir, is one of our assets.

And it's an asset that's been in the hands of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and has been neglected through several administrations of that authority.

and has been allowed to silt in.

And I'm just guessing, and I may be speaking out of turn, but I'm guessing that if we say, if we kind of draw our line at the concrete dam, then we've won our victory.

And we may not get one on dredging.

I have never once heard anybody in Albemarle County say that the city is expected or will be expected to pay 100% of the cost of dredging.

I've never heard them say that.

What they've said very clearly is they don't want

Dredging to hold up expansion of the modern reservoir and hold up the permitting for that.

And we've agreed to that.

But I've never heard anybody, maybe you have in private conversations, I've never heard any of them say dredging shouldn't be part of, or that there's not going to be some kind of cost share.