City Council Meeting   7/5/2011

agreement, which prompts me to give another thanks to you all.

Citizens have urged you to make the water plan cost share contingent upon dredging.

And I'm sort of reading between the lines that that appears to be the case.

And if it is, thank you.

And lastly, next week on Tuesday, July 12th, Rivanna will hold a public meeting to present the draft report on the demand analysis expected to be posted tomorrow on its web page.

As you know, Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan believe that our county's, our community's multi-year sustained reduced water use of more than 20%, despite increases in population, must be taken into account.

And if the results of the new analyses indicates we need somewhat less than the 18.7 million gallons a day that is, on which the whole plan is predicated, you can be sure there will be calls to rethink

how we address any shortfall in a most cost effective and environmentally responsible way.

Dede Smith, 2652 Jefferson Park Circle.

Good evening.

As I'm sure you all have heard by now, the request for a permit modification from Rivanna to DEQ has been deemed a major modification, which has some significance.

in that it requires, like a new permit would, a 30-day public comment period as well as the opportunity for a public hearing, both of which will happen.

And during that 30-day public comment time as well as the public hearing, new information can be

introduced that will then go on the public record and for which DEQ must consider.

This is a great opportunity to get consideration of the multiple studies that you all have funded and have provided valuable information into the discussion.

Some people I think were quite

Many people, maybe even everybody, were kind of surprised when the modification request came back as major.

We were led to believe it would be minor.

But if you read, actually read the request, it's not as surprising.

And I wonder if you all really knew what you were voting on when you voted for a 30-foot rise.

Like, for instance, it was my impression during that time that a 30-foot rise meant that the streamflow requirements could be met.

and in fact the request included additional stream flow requirements.

That was one of the triggers that the DEQ used and I wonder if you all knew, because I didn't, that that 30 foot rise would provide very little water supply.

In fact, most of it went towards the Mormons.

I say this because this public comment period, I would encourage that we read the

the permit modification request very carefully and use the opportunity for new information to really do a full comparison among all of our options.

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Lee Norris and members of the City Council and my name is Paul Long and I live at 1410 Grady Avenue here in the city and the reason I'm speaking tonight is that with the upcoming election in November to fill three vacancies in the City Council there are literally, I don't know the exact number, but I know probably at least several hundred potential voters who will not be allowed to vote simply because they have no residency in the city

and the City Council

the length of time, could they possibly use an address like The Haven in order to register to vote because I think in America they should be entitled to cast their vote as well and it's not fair to set a requirement that they have to have a residence when they very well may be homeless through no fault of their own.

Thank you Mr. Long.

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

Is there anybody else who would like to speak this evening?

All right, we will close Matters by the Public and open our meeting up to council member responses to Matters by the Public.

I have just a clarification for Mr. Long.

I've registered a lot of voters in Charlottesville and our voter registrar definitely says that people who are homeless can register to vote.

They just have to have a place where they can get their mail.

and they just list where they generally sleep if they want, but they have to have a mailing address and they can use the Haven, they can use the Salvation Army, they can use a friend's house and they are allowed to vote.

So spread the word.

Okay, well maybe we can get someone from the voter registration office to go down there and even register people if that would be helpful.

I just wanted to make a comment on Mr. Collin's question on dredging.

Any other comments?

I just had also a sort of a well I agree with the comments that were just made but Mr. Collins you mentioned something about how if we go with diesel buses versus hybrid buses that we could use the savings in other ways and actually there are no real savings if we use the hybrid buses we'll have to reallocate money from elsewhere if we use the diesel buses that's what we've allocated already in our budget

Am I characterizing that correctly?

That's correct.

So unfortunately, it doesn't mean that we have excess money that we can allocate to other purposes.

I just wanted to clarify that for the public record.

Okay, we will now move on to our regular agenda.

First item, as always, is our consent agenda.

On our consent agenda tonight, we have item A is the minutes of June 20th.

Item B is a resolution transit development plan for CAT, first of one reading.

item C resolution Fontaine Fire Station number 10 grant of easement to Dominion Virginia Power first one reading item D is an ordinance temporary move of Carver precinct second of two readings item E is an ordinance validity period of certificates of appropriateness first of two readings are there any items to be removed any comments or questions or a motion to approve the consent agenda I move the consent agenda

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, please indicate your vote.

Carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Next item is a public hearing in ordinance relating to exchange of land, Madison Avenue, and River Court.

Good evening, Councillors.

I'm here to present a proposed land swap that we came across.

Been a number of years, it's all in your packet there.

We approached, when I was hired, I approached every property owner in the bike and pedestrian trail and asked them how would they feel about easement for a trail on their property.

When I approached this particular person, Mr. Lebeau, who was with us this evening,

He said, well, I have maybe a better offer for you.

Maybe we could trade some land and you could have some riverfront land and I could get a slightly bigger piece of property to build a slightly larger house, but still be a low income housing for the city.

We've gone through a lot of paperwork and negotiations but we're here tonight basically to ask approval to trade what is city land but not park land kind of behind Washington Park at the end of Madison Avenue for a piece of riverfront property basically the lower elevation portion of a property he owns on River Court which is part of our Greenway Master Plan and also it's good park land along the river for

If you can clarify for me, occasionally the idea comes forward about extending Madison Avenue and connecting it up with Preston.

No, this piece is a kind of weird shaped parcel, so it's just the very back corner that we decided does not have use to the city.

I just wanted to clarify.

Any other questions before we open the public hearing?

All right, thank you, Mr. Genzic.

We will now open the public hearing on this item.

I don't believe anybody has signed up to speak, but if there is anybody in the room who would like to speak, just come forward and state your name and address.

Keep your comments to three minutes.

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Okay.

All right, it's been moved and seconded.

It will carry forward to our next meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Genzic, and thank you, sir, as well.

Next item is a public hearing and an ordinance regarding spotlight abatement at 704 Montrose.

Hello, I'm Patty Armstrong with the City of Charlottesville Inspections Office and before you this evening I present to you Spotlight

Abatement that was presented a couple months ago in a joint hearing with the Planning Commission and the law does require that it comes back around to you all and subsequent to that you all asked for further information.

You wanted information on the structural integrity and for

Pests, termites, and we have gotten that since.

Diona had time to abate it for 30 days and his plan of action was not acceptable because it didn't have timeframes to it.

He has not, he didn't have any termite or further pests treatment that occurred subsequent to our meeting with you all in April.

A couple of weeks after the Planning Commission meeting, we did meet with Interstate Pest Control in conjunction with contractors, the owners of alloy construction and remodeling and Mr. Rogers was present when we all met on location and he did unlock

the main structure and the three outbuildings of which we were not able to access any of them because of the amount of belongings that were in all of those buildings.

Interstate did go underneath and find that the front section has dropped to the ground.

The termites were approximately an inch long.

So all that is still happening and deteriorating and there's evidence of the black mold and water leaking and the structural integrity is questionable not just for the one section that you could see when you're underneath but in addition to what you could see on the outside.

Questions for Ms. Armstrong before we open the public hearing?

Thank you very much.

We'll now open the public hearing on this matter.

There's nobody who's signed up to speak.

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

I'm Mr. Rogers.

I own a house at 704 Montrose.

I'm a handicapped veteran and I was doing a lot of the work on the house myself, but I got a very bad back problem.

I'm being treated at VA Hospital in Richmondville.

I can't do much bending over.

And I didn't have the money to get the thing repaired.

But last, very recently, I sold a lot.

that owned in Belmont on Druid Avenue, surprised to get $85,000 for it.

So I've got enough money now to repel the house.

And the Planning Commission said that they would allow six months to either fix it or they would order it to be demolished.

and Ms. Armstrong said that they might give me 30 days.

There's no way I can get the thing back in shape in 30 days.

It can be repaired.

The house is not about to collapse or fall over.

And I've got a lot of books stored in there.

I'm a book collector and I try to deal in books selling, make a little money here and there.

The back of the house is definitely sagging because over the years termites eat the sill out and the studs are collapsing and this has been going on now for several years so it's not something that's just happened but it can be repaired and I know the city is committed to have as much affordable housing in the city as possible and if it's fixed it will definitely be affordable

If it's demolished and it becomes a vacant lot, I'm sure a new house put up there will probably be unaffordable because most of the houses they're building now are very expensive.

They don't want to put any cheap houses on because lots cost so much.

And the house can be repaired.

And I'm hoping the Planning Commission had said that

The city council will probably give me six months is what I will be given.

That will be more than ample time for me to hire somebody.

I was working on it myself, but I stopped working on it a couple of years ago when I got this back problem.

I can't do much bending over or I'll get a lot of sciatica pain.

I've got degenerative disc disease and it can't be, it's not something you can get operated on to repair.

But now that I've got the money to get it fixed, I hope the city council will give me enough time to get the thing

It's repaired.

A lot of the studs have got to be replaced.

It's not going to be cheap.

But I'm quite sure the amount of money I got will more than adequate fix it.

I hope that they won't have to be torn down because it's still a pretty sound house except for the back.

That's the big problem.

The back part of the house is definitely sagging.

The termites have long since departed, so there's no termite infestation in it now.

This was going on for a long time.

And there's going to be no rodent problem in there because I put enough warfarin bait traps around there to kill a herd of elephants so that I don't want any rodents to sit down.

knowing all the books.

But the whole thing has got a lot of books stored in it.

So the floors are holding up pretty good.

There's a lot of weight on them.

So the house is not going to collapse or anything.

And I know it's been a long time and I apologize to bother you people with this problem.

but I just didn't have the money to fix it.

Now that I have that money, I hope you'll give me a time, enough time to get it fixed.

The planning commission indicated it would be six months, I'd be given six months.

And if that's, if that will be given, there'll be more than enough time.

If I don't get it fixed within six months, I'll agree to have it demolished.

If it costs too much to fix, and I don't think it will, but there doesn't seem to be all that much problem, it's only in the back part of the house that's really a problem.

But if it costs too much, I'll just have it demolished.

But I'm quite sure it can be repaired.

And so I'm asking all of you to give me enough time to do it.

And I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to get this house up in shape.

And I'm hoping you will get some earphones for people in the front row who are hard of hearing like myself.

I haven't understood half the stuff that's been said here today.

I'm 77 years old and I'm no longer a spring chicken.

It seems like everybody, there's not much amplification on this mic.

So if y'all will just give me the time to fix it, I apologize for the problem it's caused and I will guarantee that it will be fixed or else you can order it demolished.

May I ask you a question before you set this down?

Sure.

As I talk informally to two or three of them, but I've got to get the books out of there.

I've been holding back on doing anything so I can figure out what the council is going to do.

If they're going to give me 30 days, like Ms. Armstrong indicated, there's not enough time to clean it.

I've got to get all the books out of it so the contractors can actually get anything out and examine the walls and everything.

But it's going to probably cost $20,000, $30,000.

But I think that will be more than an ample reward.

And once I sell it, I'll get enough money to make that worthwhile.

So as soon as I get the books in there, I'm going to have the contractor look at it.

And then I'm going to have to do this fast, because I can't really work myself.

I was hoping I'd be able to really work myself.

My back would get better, but it's not getting any better.

So I'm hoping that they will give me enough time.

Mr. Rogers, have you seen the letter from Alloy, the contractor, the gentleman that came to see your house with Ms. Armstrong?

His professional opinion was that the house is in bad enough shape to where it doesn't make sense financially to try and renovate it.

It would cost so much money to renovate it.

It just wouldn't be a good use of your dollars or

or the community dollars for that matter.

I don't think it's in a bad shape, personally.

I hope to get the books in another two or three weeks and I'll look into the matter.

Two or three people have already contacted and want to buy it as is and fix it themselves.

Several people have wanted to buy it as is.

The roof's in good shape.

I just put the new roof on here just a couple of years ago.

And all the walls are in good shape except the back.

The back of the seals have been turned like there's an acre seal left in the suds of kind of slowly but surely society.

And that's been going on now for three or four years.

Mr. Rogers, I'm not, the 30, I think this might be some confusion, the Planning Commission meeting was giving him six months to sell or abate from the April 12th meeting.

The 30 days was when we cited him

Well, I've been waiting for the city council to shoot it before I didn't say anything.

Okay, so the six month window, is that still in effect?

The six months was a discussion with the Planning Commission, three or six months, if it was not going to be torn down immediately.

That was a recommendation.

Again, they don't make a decision on this, as you know.

It's for you to consider.

I think they recognized if it was going to be fixed, it would take longer than 30 days.

But their recommendation was that it be demolished, though.

Yes, we were asked after the Planning Commission meeting to have a contractor look at it and determine what they felt about the structural integrity.

And again, with the best access that folks from Alloy could have, you can't get in it, it is part of it, it is collapsing.

They looked at it and they said they just do not believe in their professional opinion.

Anything can be fixed, but they felt like the fix would result in more money than the property was worth to be spent on it.

These are the gentlemen that just rehabbed the house on Ridge Street.

For us, they've done a lot of rehab of houses in really bad shape.

The impression I got from talking to them was that this house is in a lot worse shape than the one that we fixed.

I think that, you know, we have some neighbors that spoke at the Planning Commission meeting that talked about the problems with the termites and that they had seen, and yeah, mosquitoes that are around it, it's, you know, being there is, you know, it's an attractive nuisance that

You know, it's very difficult to get in, but somebody could get in.

It's been vacant for years and years and years.

I can interject also that back in the early spring, even the winter, we had to have the vegetation near the sidewalk

opened up because there was evidence of drinking and hanging out going on.

So again, when you have a house like that that's sitting vacant and is known to be vacant, that's when you start getting criminal activity and the neighborhood picks up.

I know Mr. Rogers feels his house is rehabable, but when you're on the outside, if you're standing in front, that front

I think if you go back, our ultimate goal, we would rather have had the house repaired.

Correct.

Interstate does not recommend the belongings being removed and taken somewhere else for storage because of the unknown that's in them that will transfer to other people's belongings.

As in bugs and the termites.

Termites have already gone.

That was years ago.

They did that damage years ago.

Mr. Huja reminded me we're still in a public hearing so I want to make sure if there's anybody else in the public that would like to speak on this matter before we close the public hearing.

Mr. Mayor, I have two or three comments.

I am familiar with this house.

I think I've been in this house a few years back.

and it is in bad shape and I realize that we have followed all the procedures and given all the notices.

I was at a Melbourne neighborhood meeting last month and there were at least one or two people there who were willing to

Buy it out of that house and fix it.

Even though it is very difficult, it would be very costly to do that in my mind.

But I would be in favor of giving them six months or six months and plus 30 days to try to fix it or demolish it.

We have it here for 27 years and it can be fixed.

None of these people that came by to inspect the house went inside because if you go in the door, there's all kinds of stacks of books that I've been keeping in there.

So they never went inside except into the front hall.

Are you suggesting six months, an additional six months, or are you talking about the same six month window that the planning commission?

Same six months.

So it's not six months from today?

Six months after the 30 days notification period.

The concern that I have is the safety of the home and the safety of Mr. Rogers as well.

And in addition to having to make a decision about this particular house, I think this also opens up a conversation of how we can support people as they age in place to be able to maintain their dignity as difficult decisions are made regarding the property that they own.

I wouldn't have a problem with the six-month, as I think you're describing, Councilor Huja, if somehow that also includes the use of other resources that are in the community that may be able to provide support as you continue to make decisions.

I don't know how your family is involved, whether or not it would be appropriate to have Java involved with some of the resources that are available, but to have the six months just an opportunity to have as many resources to make the final decision as comprehensive as we can.

It sounds like because this is your home,

I mean, you own it.

You own it.

Nobody's living there, but you own it.

And it is your home.

It's your house.

It's your property, however you want to describe it.

It is property that you own, even though no one's living there.

It is still yours.

And because it is yours, it's important to you.

So the way that you see it, despite the reports, is a lot different from the way that we see it.

Because you've had a chance to look at it over the years, and the property is important to you.

So your perception may very well be different, but the bottom line is that we want you to be safe.

And we don't want you to make a decision to do anything that's going to make your safety at risk.

And it makes me a little nervous because of the integrity of the home as to whether or not you should be entering the home at this point, even to remove the belongings which, such as it is, such as they are, the belongings are yours and they're your treasures.

But I want you to consider all that very carefully as you try to decide what's going to be best in terms of the investment in that property at this time.

And I know you've been waiting on the city council to give you some guidance as to go forward.

And I know you've been very apologetic.

You've maintained your taxes.

You've been up to date and responsible on that.

I hate disagreeing with Holly but I actually do it seems to me that over years and years

It's been pointed out to you that this house was in violation and nothing has been done about it.

And now it's to the point where we've had someone independently look at it and say, no, it's actually unsafe and it's not worth fixing.

I think I have the floor, please.

It seems to me if we're going to give him any time, I'd like to see it be a very short period of time, not six months.

I think six months will come, we'll have the exact same conversation we're having now.

I think we should instead, if we want a period of time, I would say come back in a month.

and in that month time have a contract with a contractor, A, or B, have letters of intent from the people who say you want to buy it from you that you're going to sell it.

And if you don't have that, I think we should just declare it and be done with it.

But I think you have people who you say would buy it as is.

Come back in a month with letters of intent, and then we'll give you another month to get a contract to sell it.

Alternatively, if you have someone you can hire to fix it, come back with a contract saying, this person's going to do this work for me, and this is when it's going to be done.

When it's six months, if it hasn't been repaired, I'll have it demolished.

Mr. Rogers, let's wrap up the council discussion first.

Well, if that means that if he comes in a month with a plan of action for sale or a contract, then we can give him the extra money in months, then that will be fine.

I guess what we're saying is that we'll give you 30 days to find out a contractor to see if somebody could fix it or somebody could buy it.

If you come back in 30 days and have that information, we'll give you some more time.

I really appreciate what Ms. Edwards was saying about the need to

to kind of offer you some support in this process.

I think if you would accept help from someone at Java or somewhere to kind of help you through this process, it feels to me that because of your back, because of your other obligations, that this has become a very difficult thing for you to deal with quickly.

and so it may be that there are supports in the community to help you with that.

And I don't know if, we can't tell you to do that, but we can offer you what's available and I would encourage you to take that help.

I'm comfortable with the one month to get a contract.

If you come back in a month, in 30 days with a contract, saying that you can get it repaired, that it will be repaired or demolished or sold.

That doesn't mean that you have to get it

brought up today that I really appreciate, and this doesn't help you at all for this event, but is the suggestion that we have hearing phones for people who are hard of hearing, because I think a lot of churches have that.

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have that here.

I actually like the 30 day plan.

That makes me feel comfortable as well.

But what I want to be assured of is that Mr. Rogers, do you understand what that plan means?

Well, I'll try to have a contractor look at it and determine if it can be fixed economically.

All right, I've heard three votes now in favor.

Mr. Huja, are you willing to accept that friendly amendment?

So, Mr. Rogers, we're going to give you 30 days to come back with a written document either from a contractor saying this is the work that he'll do or she will do to help bring your house up to code or a letter of intent to purchase your house from one of your neighbors or anybody else for that matter.

So we'll have staff follow up with you just to make sure that you're clear on what the expectation is.

Jim, are you clear on what we're saying here?

Okay.

I have one quick question.

Our next council meeting is in fewer than 30 days.

It's in 27 or 8 days.

I think we're asking the staff to ensure compliance.

Okay.

We have to come back here.

I think, as I understood it, if he can bring it back to us in 30 days, if he's okay with that, we advise you

He gets his permits and we work towards it.

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Thank you.

I said thank you for coming tonight and we'll look forward to hearing back from you.

If the contractors say it's not worth fixing, they'll come back within 30 days and let you know that it could be tomorrow.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

Alright, next item on our agenda is a public hearing and ordinance relating the transfer of property on Elliott Avenue.

It's before us tonight.

First, the two readings.

Good evening.

This is the second time we've brought this to you on June the 20th, which was your last meeting.

We discussed this very same project but we did not have, the publication had not been done properly to advise the public so we had to come back a second time.

Just to give you a refresher of what we're proposing to do, which is to transfer property on Elliott Avenue to Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville.

and Habitat plans to partner with Southern Development to undertake Burnett Commons Phase 2.

They have met with multiple neighborhood residents as well as the neighborhood association with Burnett Commons and have even incorporated some modifications into their design to address the concerns that were raised.

As proposed, they would move forward with 48 units, three of which would be, or four of which, I'm sorry, would be given over to Habitat to develop and these lots would be fully sewered and ready for building.

and three more promised and designated as affordable.

On page two of your report, one of the report says that last bullet

The Southern Development Group would not take the ownership of Lot 2, but they could put in grading, entrance sign, and landscaping.

Well, since this was originally proposed, Southern Development came back and said that they would be more than willing to take possession of it

and to upkeep it, it would become a common area as part of the Homeowners Association and that they would pay to maintain that.

I have no objection to either one of those things.

Only my objection is that you're giving it for free.

That's a council decision.

We have three ways to go with this.

We can continue the sale to Southern at $40,000 for them not to build on it.

Or we can come back to you as we had proposed to and actually transfer that lot to Habitat to fold into this whole development, but we'd have to come back to you.

Or we can maintain it as a city lot and then we have to pay the maintenance cost on any landscaping or improvements

that are there and we'd have to grant an easement to the neighborhood to put a sign on the city property.

This really came about because when we had the meetings with the neighborhood about the overall development, the Burnet Commons neighborhood said, we'd really love to see that as a landscaped area, as an area that didn't have a house on it, that had art in place like there used to be on it before the sewer project took it out.

And so we thought the best way to facilitate that was to actually come back and ask you to give that lot to Habitat, which would then

Let me try to make my point one more time.

that we landscape it, put a sign on it.

My only objection is that it should be paid for somehow by the developer because it's going to benefit the development.

That portion I'm talking about.

And I guess, Mr. Huja, we were looking at it as benefiting the community more so than the developer there because of what would be used on it.

We did and now this is part of a larger development and the neighborhood has said very strongly that they would support the overall development but with this piece not being built on.

Other comments, questions from, or questions from Council before we open the public hearing?

All right, we'll now open the public hearings.

Nobody's signed up to speak.

Good evening, I'm Charlie Armstrong with Southern Development and I want to thank you all for considering this and specifically I wanted to address the point that Mr. Huja brought up.

It is worth going back to when we talked about that corner parcel which is about a fifth of an acre right on the corner of Burnett Street and Elliott Avenue.

When we initially talked and had a public hearing maybe six months ago,

about that corner parcel.

The agreement was that it would be sold to us.

I believe the price was $40,000.

and the idea behind it was that we would build one house on that lot and only one house and that was the agreement made as part of the purchase contract with that and so coming back now with the neighborhood desiring that that be open space we would rather either see it remain city property and city maintained or become Burnett Commons Homeowners Association open space so that the Homeowners Association can maintain it just as they do the rest of the open space in their subdivision

I think that either way would be fine with us.

I think either way would be fine with homeowners at Burnett Commons and other neighbors.

But if we're not going to be able to build on it, which is what the neighbors desire, we would rather not have to purchase an unbuildable lot.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Anybody else from the public like to speak?

I'm clearer on this now than I was before, in the sense that it will be part of the homeowner's responsibility, not the developer's responsibility.

Is that a motion, Mr. Huja?

Yes.

Well, before I ask for a second, make sure there's opportunity for counselors to ask questions, comments.

I'll second.

All right.

It's been moved and seconded, and that will carry it forward to our next meeting.

Thank you, Ms. Huja and everybody else who's been involved in this project.

Good evening Mr. Mayor and Councillors.

I believe you have in your packet the full report that was put forward by the Steering Committee.

I first would like to really thank the city staff and other people who are on that Steering Committee for some very diligent work over the past nine months and that includes Mike Murphy, Ryan Davidson and Leslie who have really been

along with a number of other people on the steering committee very involved in this.

I also, when I heard you talking to Mr. Sanders earlier, I want to say that we received a tremendous amount of help from the University of Virginia in conducting research for this project, so I want to acknowledge that as well.

By way of background, as I think you're aware, year before last, during the FY10 funding process, we were asked by the localities to establish priorities after we already received applications from nonprofits.

the agency budget review team came back and asked city council and the board of supervisors to in essence freeze the funding process for a year to allow us to conduct a study and make a recommendation regarding the prioritization process to you and the results of that are what you have before you today the steering committee came with six recommendations staff has passed five of those on with a recommendation

to adopt those.

The first recommendation was to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment.

The last comprehensive needs assessment that was conducted in 2004 cost about $60,000.

And staff did not feel that that was a practical recommendation.

The second recommendation is to adopt three high-level priority areas which are listed in the report.

that community residents are physically and mentally healthy, community residents are safe and have basic needs met, and children in our community develop appropriately and succeed academically.

The steering committee also endorsed three additional priorities, but not at the high level of the first three, and that was that the community provides a vibrant economic climate, the community manages natural resources to sustain current and future generations,

the community uses arts, culture and recreation and the community is inclusive and engaged.

In essence what the steering committee is proposing is that programs that meet, effectively address indicators on the first three would get a little bit extra credit in their review by the agency budget review team.

The committee also identified a number of indicators for each of these

priority areas and we're proposing that agencies and programs that are applying for funding respond to those indicators or to other indicators that meaningfully reflect the goals that we recommend.

We recommend that there be a review process that demonstrates need,

that programs evaluate or report on their results, that there be a demonstration of financial benefit to the community, and that programs that are funded have outreach to an engagement of underserved populations.

The steering committee recommends that non-contractual agencies, both those previously reviewed by the agency budget review team and those that were previously reviewed by the offices of management and budget, all be consolidated into one process with one application.

The city funds a little over three million dollars for community non-profits through competitive grants.

There are a number of other organizations like the library, the jail, juvenile detention home, the SPCA that the city has either contractual or statutory obligation to fund.

Those would not be included in this process.

The steering committee recommends that applications be considered on their merits and that an application that is rated as exemplary or solid be funded at no less than 90% of what it was funded at in 2000, FY10, and no more than 125% of what it was funded at.

The programs that are rated as fair would have at least a 25% decrease and the programs rated as poor would be defunded and have to go back through the process the following year.

In the past programs that were rated as fair were typically decreased by about 5 percent.

Programs rated as poor were decreased by more than that and then defunded the second year they were rated as poor.

And I think there was consensus on the steering committee, the majority of whom were

and people from nonprofits that it really wasn't a good use of public funds to fund a program that was rated as poor.

The new rating criteria that are being reviewed by staff now are much more objective than they were in the past.

I have a couple of questions.

One is that, hold on, let me see what I want to ask first.

One is, well the first one is, when you talk about the, in determining funding levels, if things are, I'm watching cookies come by and it's distracting me, I love them.

How long is it going to be based on the 2010 amounts?

So if you talk about whether they get exemplary or fair or poor, it's based on what they got then.

Each year.

Well, they could get as much as 25% more per year.

Because I'm just wondering where in this and I think that it's, I really appreciate the work of this committee because it's obvious that

You know, there are lots of kind of counterbalancing needs here.

We need to have a need for stability and for groups to be able to plan.

And so you don't want to say, well, every year it's just going to, we're going to throw it all up and you get what you get.

And yet we need to have some openings for new organizations or new programming and if everything is kind of locked in, we don't have much flexibilities.

And that's why the committee came up with that recommendation of a decrease of no less than

to no less than 90% per year.

So it's on quality.

Based on quality and based on the priorities that we're recommending that you guys adopt today.

So that will build in some flexibility in terms of bringing new programs in or expanding existing agencies, expanding programs.

So that was the intention.

This is a good group and there was a lot of changes that needed to be considered and

among them were how do you get new programs into the process, how do you shift the dollar amounts among the existing programs because the greatest determining factor is

of what you'll get now and in future years is really about what you've already been getting.

The band in which you might move is three to five percent in one direction or the other.

We don't reward high performers.

We don't greatly punish those who aren't performing.

I think that perhaps you may have seen more in the way of

naming priorities, but without needs assessment, without research dollars, that's hard to give you more than to take high level indicators of community health and say which ones might be most important to you all.

So I think that we're on our way to getting the process improved.

That doesn't mean that city staff should not continue

to look for ways to make sure that the investments that you all make are sound.

And that's in addition to whatever happens in the ABRT process.

But I hope that answers where we're headed with this.

And actually, what you talked about with the needs assessment goes to my third question, but I also have a second question, which is I understand in the process of the discussion, one of the things that came up in the report was

the question about so where is the role of like is there an appeals process or you know how to counsel priority funds come into this as far as you know what groups that come directly to counsel.

Can you just talk a little bit to that and sort of your recommendations and how that got talked about?

Well this year I know that a couple of groups who didn't get funded came directly to council and we were able to do a couple of things and so I know that there's some thought that if we have a very good process we don't want there to also be a free-for-all at the end and yet we do have council priority funds which may be you know

for particular initiatives or things that don't come through this process and do we want to have like maybe that could be done once but not for recurring funding or how do we want to look at that?

There was certainly a lot of discussion about that outside the process

phenomenon that occurs.

What we hope is this is a very objective tool that we're looking at this time and I think we'll be able to give you a very transparent review of why a program was rated in the way it was that will help inform your decisions.

I think I can speak for staff and for the Steering Committee to the question about organizations that come in and are funded through your discretionary fund and that would be that we would recommend that those programs go through the process the following year.

I would just amend Gretchen's statement saying that they would come forward in the following ABRT cycle as a new program, not as something that's already funded because what you would be doing is adding to the pool of the ABRT agencies

with the council reserve and so taking it from 3 million to 3.1 million without really incorporating in that budget increase.

If I could just make a comment on that, our use of sort of

Council funds really changed in my time on city council.

Most of the time on city council we had a much smaller pool of funds whose purpose was to allow council's flexibility to deal with unexpected things that came up during the year, a great idea for a new program or

a sudden shortfall and for council to have a pool of money without being a big deal to say well why don't we fund that.

It's only been in the last few years that we've had a larger pool of money that in some ways was designed to allow us

to fund organizations that either got a negative answer from the agency review process or chose not to participate in the agency review process.

And I think if we're comfortable with this process, one of the ways we can facilitate it is to have a smaller council reserve.

So it's pretty much you need to come through this process.

I think if agencies know we have $200,000 that we need to figure out something to do with,

That's just hard to resist the temptation of saying, why bother with the agency review process?

I'm friends with the mayor and two of the counselors.

I bet I can get this.

And I actually don't mean that to say that that implied any way that happened, but I think it becomes way more political in a sense.

So I like the idea of trying to have a smaller reserve

I would say I do not quite agree with you.

I think this process is a good process and I think it should help but I still worry about

people who are not that sophisticated to take advantage of the process.

And when we hear quite a few times, we don't know how to go to the bureaucracy.

Some agencies are very good at it.

And I can understand how people get frustrated.

So I think it is a good escape wall to have council money to fund some projects which could be tried for a year or two.

If I could make a quick comment on this discussion on two things.

First of all, in my role as the grants officer, I really try to provide as much technical assistance as I can to new agencies that are coming in.

I'll sit down and go over their application with them three or four times.

to provide assistance.

One of the things, and I've been managing this process now for about six years, that I advise agencies to do is to think very hard about coming in directly to counsel or to the Board of Supervisors because I've seen it really end up hurting organizations who come in and maybe get $10,000 and they're sort of, in the past process, stuck there and so they may indeed be providing a very

substantial service to the community, but because they came in at a level that really wasn't where they should be, they've been trapped.

That actually leads right into my third question, which is the needs assessment.

Because it seems to me that if we don't do the needs assessment,

it's really going to be hard for existing programs in a way we kind of have this thing of we just kind of analyze them but a lot of what we're analyzing them is on how they meet community needs and if we're not sure what those needs are in any sort of concrete way you know we can kind of intuit it but we may not be really right it may not be what we think then we end up sort of just going along with kind of what we've done before which is sort of doing what we do because of what we've done and I to me it seems like that

I would hope that it would be possible for less than $60,000, but it seems to me that if we're giving away $2.5 million in this process, that if we're going to be spending that kind of money

for Community Investment, which is what we're doing here.

It would behoove us to use part of that money, maybe, if we don't have extra money over that.

Even though that is coming out of program money, I would rather take it out of program money to know that we're doing it correctly.

I would rather it just appear somewhere else, but I think it's really important that we do a needs analysis.

I'd also, I know that there are some other organizations that we might be able to get some cooperative assistance with on that.

Well, the Steering Committee agreed with that, but frankly,

Localities didn't have the money, didn't feel that they had the money.

And I do want to remind you that this has been a joint city-county process for a number of years.

Certainly the agencies would like to see it continue to be that way.

Related question.

They will.

What we will have is small specialized sub-teams of the agency budget review team and one of those will be people with expertise in that area.

People who are involved in the hospitality, the visitor's bureau, people who are retired from arts programs,

Are you suggesting that they would go through the same application process?

Yes.

The festivals have typically gone through the budget offices.

They've always completed applications.

So we're not going to be asking them to do anything that they haven't had to do in the past.

They've always had to have applications in, submit outcomes and information.

even if it's a small festival like the Jefferson Festival, for instance, they submit outcomes and they submit an application.

So this shouldn't be anything that's overly burdensome on them at all.

And again, as Gretchen was saying, they'll be looked at by a subgroup of people that aren't looking at it from a human services standpoint, but looking at it from a tourism and an arts and culture and a quality of life standpoint.

For the arts and culture, we are in the process of recruiting.

Certainly, the Tourism Bureau will be part of that.

We are looking for other people with expertise in that area.

It does concern me that for a small amount of money, regardless of what Leslie says, you've had a great deal of money helps to cross through.

Secondly, I think council takes some interest in encouraging new festivals, new art programs, which are seed money providing many times.

I think it is a

This is what makes our community healthy.

I might like to see that committee, to be some way of doing that on a trial basis just to get a sense of how burdensome is it on the agencies and what type of expertise ends up resulting in

You know, I'm a little concerned.

For one reason, I think it's the city and the county, you know, have an overlapping population with similar needs.

I mean, the county, the city has more poverty, but the county, whatever.

But then when it comes to arts and culture, it could easily be an issue where a festival, you know, does a lot more for the downtown mall than it does, say, for, you know, county businesses.

And so figuring out how this joint

recommendations work.

I'm just...

They do.

And the county, we definitely, the city does fund more festivals in the county, there's no doubt about that.

They submit the same application, the same application has city and county requests on it, and they might request something from the county, the county doesn't have to fund them, but it doesn't mean the city won't fund them, so we often come in with different recommendations.

But they're owned by the committee.

Right, I think what's happened, just like what the ABRT has done and what the budget offices have done, is that they brought these recommendations together to be part of the city manager's proposed budget to you.

We don't, that doesn't mean that we absolutely have to take those recommendations point blank.

I mean, if this subcommittee says we're not going to fund the Festival of the Book, I don't think that's obviously going to happen.

I think we would look hard, really hard at that recommendation, for instance, so I think

We're going to have to see how this goes.

The genesis for having the arts and culture come under this review process, does this come from the city and the county wanting to see it happen through the third agency?

This actually came from, as Leslie said, the agencies or the Arts and Cultures festivals were reviewed under the budget office process in the past and with the

need to combine the two processes, the AVRT and the budget office process.

The festivals were included in that and we brought them in on the discussion.

There were members on the steering committee and we talked with them and they expressed the interest, the great interest actually to remain as part of the main process, not to be separated out.

Yes, the larger group was inclined to recommend a separate process and we had four members of the steering committee who were from the arts community and they persuaded the rest of the committee to keep them in with the agency budget review team.

I think it's when we look at our priorities and at the things that we want for our city they include not just human services but also arts and quality of life and all of these things and I think that for us to put those in a way that recognizes that we don't support arts just because

It's kind of something that we just do.

It's because it actually meets a human need for our community in the same way that, not in the same way, but in an equally valid way as a soup kitchen might.

I think that this recognizes that those are basic human needs in a way.

I think that's a really nice way to look at it.

If they really are city priorities that they be under the same process.

I agree with what Councillor Szakos just said and I also agree with her on the idea that I think a needs assessment, I'd love to see us having more conversation with the county to try to get that done because in some ways I know what you ask of the agencies is to figure out outcomes and it seems to me a needs assessment is the way of providing outcomes on this process.

You know, every four years is saying, okay, how are we doing?

I mean, are we addressing some of the needs we identified four years ago?

I wanted to make a couple of comments.

And I don't agree.

I think the arts and festival process that we were using was fine.

And that's fine to kind of

Just complicated and convoluted that it's gotten folded into the other process and I don't want to take away the value that the festivals have but I just thought the way we were able to fund the festivals and even the new ones was just fine.

I do have a couple concerns that I'd like to express.

I do appreciate the work that has gone into putting together such a lengthy document.

And my first comment will be that from my Charlottesville Quality of Service and Efficiency Study from February 2009,

One of the things that was said about the contributions to youth and family oriented programs, it is strongly recommended that these services be also reviewed and assessed every three years by an outside expert to determine how well they benchmark nationally.

Now this was just a statement to see how we would do just in comparison to other states, but I think that one way to begin this process is to have an outside reviewer to see how we're just doing locally.

with some of our services.

I was a little concerned about the makeup of the steering committee because many of the names were of the same names who were also in the partnership for children.

I still have this 2009, 2010 booklet.

So I was concerned that there wasn't enough outside objectivity and it didn't seem

to be any indication.

of how the constituents that use the services and how the receivers of the services were included in this entire process at all.

I didn't see where there was a focus group or any kind of conversation with the poor people in the community that are to benefit from some of the programs.

So I was concerned about that.

And so in many ways, it seemed as if you had a group of good people who were together who were kind of evaluating themselves.

And so I struggled with how objective it could be in the end.

And I kind of see this as just the beginning of a larger process of us getting there, because I also had my notes from the agent budget review process that we had back in June of 2009.

And I must say that this is a big step from where we were back in June.

But the bottom line for me is we're going to have to start making difficult decisions about our nonprofits because I've learned that just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it.

And if we don't learn how to better collaborate, the poverty issues that we're struggling with, the issues of homelessness that we're struggling with, the numbers are still the same as they were from the time I got on council from now.

and so based on that I'm not seeing how we're really making a good investment with some of our programs and I'd like to see how there's more conversation about collaboration because if people could work better together then that would be just a better investment overall and I can't just emphasize the value of

needs assessments across the board.

And when we had the discussion back in June of 2009, we also included how the Center for Nonprofit Excellence could be involved and how

the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation could be involved.

They declined to be a part of it.

They felt that they really wanted to maintain their neutral role.

I had several meetings with them about the process, but they did not want to be part of the Steering Committee or be part of making the recommendations.

What they hope to do is provide technical assistance to the nonprofits to help them demonstrate their outcomes more effectively and how they collaborate.

The evaluation tool that we're working on includes some substantial points for demonstrated collaboration and effective collaboration.

And because a draft of that tool wasn't included, I guess that would be my question.

I'm happy to share that with you.

At least a draft of it.

And I think what's going to be key in which I am guilty of is the outside the process phenomenon that you kind of phrase with diplomacy.

Because the bottom line is that when people come to us and they ask for money, the programs always sound really good.

And so we're more inclined to always fund them.

But if we don't have a process where we can make a decision and stick with that decision, we're always going to be right back where we are.

And we're not making a dent in some of the poverty issues as evidenced by some of the data that the Promise Neighborhood Group has presented at some meetings.

If the data that's been presented is the indication, it's not because we have failing families and struggling families.

It's because we have failing agencies and struggling programs.

So we really need to take this time to flip the script.

and find out what it is that we need to do differently to have a city where everyone really does have the opportunity to be successful.

Because right now we're throwing money, we're investing money in ways that I don't think we're really getting as much benefit as we could.

And if the process will allow us to do things differently, then this is the time to do it.

So, some of the other

The comments that I have would be just to, again, the needs assessment, outside assessment, and I guess in the course on council, I guess for the future council,

to really be resilient and stick with the decisions that are made regarding how we fund our agencies, because that's where we get stuck all the time.

And I know that the county seems to be some better at saying, well, this is what the review team has decided, and they kind of stick with it.

I'll share some of my thoughts.

First of all, I slightly disagree with your last comment because I can't think of a single allocation that we made to agencies, even the ones that came to us directly because they

Missed the deadline or whatever.

I can't think of the single one that I regret making.

I think they were all good allocations.

There's not a lot of them.

I think they were all good.

In the comment I would make to that, I agree.

And the reason why we ended up making those decisions was because of the process.

and there has to be some systemic change in the entire process so that doesn't happen.

Some of the people that we ended up funding just didn't feel as if they had an equal opportunity for the funds and that the process allowed them the same chance.

So if we really make some systemic changes so that people really feel as if

They can apply and they will be successful.

Maybe there won't be as much of that in the future because that's what really puts us on the spot.

Is the process really transparent?

Or is it, you know, another example, I think of how the HAC committee is now evolving because there were a lot of people that were serving on the HAC that also served to benefit from the money that comes through that committee.

So there's a more transparent process for that that Jim Tolbert is devising now.

That's a good point.

So I just had a couple of sort of big picture questions, sort of piggybacking on what Vice Mayor Edwards just discussed.

You know, when that efficiency report came out, the gentleman stood here and was commenting about what a compassionate community we are because we do put so much money into organizations that support low income and low wealth individuals and families.

but my response from that has always been you shouldn't measure compassion based on how much money you're putting in but how much success are you actually moving people out of poverty so they're less dependent on the charities and the nonprofits that are doing good work in our community.

And I don't know that I necessarily saw that.

I saw it in bits and pieces in your report, particularly when you talk about economic vitality, and I know it was addressed in there.

But to have, you know, number one priority being, or number two priority being, you know, meeting people's basic needs, we certainly want a safety net in this country and in this community, but I don't think our goal should be to

I think our goal should be to help people climb the ladder so that they're meeting their own basic needs.

And I'd just like to see how more of that ethic can be woven into this whole discussion about nonprofit funding.

And I guess it goes to another issue which I have.

Are these priorities so broad, you know, when you talk about meeting people's basic needs, that's an example, is it so broad to be too all-encompassing, you know what I'm saying?

Okay, that's good to hear.

I want to go back to a point you made, Mike, which is this whole issue of the best predictor of how much money an agency is going to get is how much they got the year prior.

I think we've accelerated the process for

We've changed the expectation about the percentage of funding that might shift within a given year drastically from where it is now.

I think that the nonprofit agency expectation would be to basically be funded in the way that city departments are.

It's a level funding year and you're a good or excellent agency you might get level funded or if they're getting 3 to 5% you might get 3 to 5% So I think that what's prescribed here in shifting as much as 25% in any given year and 10% even to agencies that are performing in the event that we need to shift into other priority areas

That's very different than where ABRT started in the past where it was we've got enough to fund everybody at X level per the budget offices and we won't be able to accept any new applications and you know cuts or new money

So I think there are some differences.

And both budget offices will have somebody assigned to every subcommittee of the agency budget review team to really assure that there is consistency in rating across programs.

and I had another question and I lost it, but any other questions from counselors?

I have a comment.

I generally think a lot of improvements are made here.

I did want to take a little exception to the argument that

outcomes, less than ideal outcomes is the fault of the agencies because the reality is since you know three of the four years that Holly and I since we were elected we've been in a recession and I think I know for myself I've argued actually during budget hearings is is it a time to you know implementing workforce initiatives when when employers aren't hiring and and there's just not a lot that they have a lot of people

already out there who are skilled looking for work.

I just want to make sure people don't leave feeling like what our agencies have been doing has been a failure.

And one of the things that we've always done is allowed agencies to change their projected outcomes.

So you have to make a projection two years in advance.

And they have the opportunity to change that projection the year before they have to put it forward so that they can offer a reasonable explanation for that and change what may have been a very high level expectation lower.

Question about the goals and priorities.

As mentioned, they're very broad and include like comprehensive plan, everything you can find it in there to please you if you want to justify something.

I would think that maybe something like we do in CDBG program, city council every year adds in one or two major priorities and priority goals.

Maybe we can add that also on the city and county basis.

If I might, I would just suggest that the areas you see there as suggested priorities might better be termed as the group's effort at defining what our indicators of a healthy community might be.

And if we take those as indicators of a healthy

That's what we were saying.

I think almost all of us have said it would be good to have a needs assessment.

and I think that the committee and the city staff on the committee were completely 100% in that place and looked at it in a four-year cycle and hoped to be able to, you know, two and a half million dollars a year.

If we set aside $7,500 a year, it's a pretty small part of what our investment is and this document is a

I think Mr. Huja made an excellent suggestion or sort of this line of inquiry.

The last couple of years, we have talked about workforce development as a priority.

I think it's an intriguing idea that Mr. Huja has raised about, is there a place where, as we're entering the next cycle of funding, where council could say, we're particularly interested in receiving proposals for x, y, or z.

It was discussed particularly when we looked at other communities.

When we talked to staff in those other communities, they recommended very strongly against it.

For example, Mecklenburg, North Carolina, their Board of County Supervisors, I think they're called, sets their priorities on an annual basis at a two-day retreat and then they put aside a pot of money and they go through and

hand out the money until they're out of it.

It makes life very unpredictable for non-profits.

It's very reactive to perhaps the flavor of the weak.

And so I think there was a sense that if you on an annual basis said these are our priority areas that we want to fund, you would have some probably pretty good non-profits that

The other thing that some of the nonprofits brought up that I think is a good point is we have some nonprofits that are really doing a good job so that things that might have been a priority five years ago aren't, but if you defunded it

then it would become a priority again.

So you have to think about things like that.

For example, the dental clinic, you know, the health department or the free clinic.

Five years ago when we, or six years ago when we did our needs assessment, dental care for adults was a huge area.

It didn't rise anywhere in any of the surveys we did this time.

And I think it's because the need is met.

So if you say, oh, we don't need dental services anymore,

I don't think that's what he's saying.

I wonder if there's a way to maybe kill two birds with one stone here and get a concern that Dr. Brown raised earlier which is having this pot of money that's just sitting there.

Maybe we reallocate that pot of money or a big chunk of that pot of money and create a priority fund within the budget review process and then each year say we're particularly interested in receiving proposals

That was discussed at the steering committee meetings and the agencies seemed to be really on board with that.

And we didn't discuss it as a separate pot of money, which the council priority initiative is.

We discussed it in terms of carving out 10% of the existing allocations.

And I think there was strong sentiment that it may not be looked at the same way in the capital.

It just bothers me that it has very little to do with what the mayor said earlier, creating independence among people instead of dependence.

It's mostly geared towards dependence, at least the way that I read it.

And I would say at the high level that you see in the recommendations on the report, Mr. Huja, that that's true.

But when you drill down into the indicators that the agencies will be asked to report on, that you'll find that it won't be easy to establish that they're meeting basic needs unless they have indicators that would show that.

That's right.

Yes, and I think we can build in terms of the review process, we can build some self-sufficiency measures into the process.

I guess and my point of bringing up the other localities is that I'm wondering if there is a locality that has demonstrated a reduction in their poverty numbers and improvement in grades or SOL scores and or a reduction in crime and just a change in neighborhoods.

If there are certain localities that we should really be modeling because

I still think we have the opportunity for greater benefit with our programs.

One locality that I know of that I think that Gretchen and I were both at a meeting where the woman who's in charge of the program spoke and we were very impressed, and Mike was there too, was Nashville, Tennessee.

They have a program that's through the mayor's office there that

And Maurice, you were there too.

Sorry, I'm just thinking about this thing.

But I think that that's something within the structure that I see here in this larger report, something that we could really look at as a model along with some other kind of ways of looking at this that I think this wouldn't be incompatible with.

How have we involved the beneficiaries of these services in this process somehow?

We did not involve the beneficiaries.

What we did do is pretty diligently ask the nonprofits how they involved beneficiaries both in planning and in governance.

And I would have concerns about that because the way the providers perceive their involvement may be very different from how our constituents are perceiving their role.

And so I hope there will be a process that we can get some direct information from them because

Council, let us devise a strategy for that.

I mean, I think that we've certainly heard you on that and I think it's an important part of the process.

I would be interested in floating a motion that includes all of the recommendations, not just

Two on, but including the needs assessment.

Call the question.

I would like to propose an amendment.

Mr. Herjavec.

I said all the recommendations that are here, that came out of the... Oh, you're not talking about the recommendations we made up here.

Well, actually, I... No, I wasn't.

I don't know where you are in this process but it seems to me some back and forth might be in order if we have an idea we think would be a good one.

I'd certainly like to hear from this group on how from their side of the table it would work so that we're not making a recommendation that comes to them and it's like

out of sync with what they've been discussing.

I wonder process-wise if we shouldn't just

You've heard all of our input tonight give you a chance to figure out how to incorporate it or maybe you decide some of it's not advisable to incorporate and let us know that too and then come back to us in the very near future with a revised proposal and also give the chance for, because I don't know if people in the public have had a chance yet to really digest or the affected agencies have had a chance to really digest,

invited to participate in at least one focus group.

They've all been interviewed.

The members of agencies who were on the steering committee were in touch with their peers in smaller groups.

Well, I'm particularly, I think, I didn't mean to imply that the agencies are being left out.

I'm more concerned about the issue that Ms. Edwards raised.

And I think Mr. Huja has also talked about in terms of

People who are interacting with these agencies as recipients of services, etc., have an opportunity for them to

to comment on these changes as well for those who choose to do so.

Not that I can think of.

The only concern I would have is a timing issue as we're preparing for this next budget cycle.

Typically what has happened is the applications have gone out to the agencies in mid to late August and then are normally received back by CCF first week of September?

No, no, no, third week of October.

So and then at that point that's when the review process would begin with the

the various staff from budget offices and from the AVRT committee.

It's August 1st.

And I will say, just as an amendment, I'm perfectly comfortable with the four of you.

I don't think you need to reconvene the whole steering committee.

Well we will hear the Board of Supervisors input and we will be needing to incorporate that at all.

I think we can come back with some sort of at least short-term recommendation by your August 1st meeting.

But I would ask that you include the recommendation back in that there be one.

So we will

prepare a report that will respond to your comments and questions today.

And then I would ask if anybody's watching either here or at home from the public, if you have your own two cents to add, please let us know either in between meetings or come and speak at the next meeting.

I'll withdraw my motion officially since it's still sitting out there.

You're right.

I apologize.

The motion's been withdrawn.

Next item on our agenda is a report, Fiscal Year 2012 Charlottesville Area Transit Bus Replacement Grants, Mr. Bill Watterson.

Good evening.

I'd like to try to offer this in the most positive light possible.

We have been working to achieve the vision of a green city in several ways in transit.

Across the way we have a LEED certified transit station.

I hope we will soon have a LEED certified new base of operations out on Avon Street extended.

That's a process that's in progress.

and we've actually purchased both non-revenue vehicles five years ago now I believe for driver switch outs and we now have two hybrids that have gone into service in January of this year.

We have secure funding for four additional hybrid buses that we expect to receive in September.

And we have funding for three additional hybrid buses on top of that, which will come by next summer.

So our Capital Improvement Program calls for 15 hybrid buses.

and we have nine lined up.

So the remaining six are what is in question.

And what has happened with our grant request for the fiscal year 12 is that perhaps in much the same way that you've been addressing prioritization and needs, etc.

the Department of Rail and Public Transportation made the recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board that requests for hybrid buses in 12 to do fleet replacements like Charlottesville Area Transit is looking at that instead of funding those hybrid replacements that they would fund diesel replacements.

Just to clarify, I know the answer to this, but for the public's benefit,

You're telling us that the state says that we have to use those funds for diesel buses, replacement buses that we can't take.

In other words, it's not that they're telling us we can't use extra funds for hybrids.

Hybrids are more expensive.

They're only giving us the amount that it would take to buy a diesel bus.

Correct.

Well, what we project, and again, we only have a little less than a half a year's operational experience, but what we're expecting is being proven and we expect that with more hybrids in our fleet, we'll be able to sort of know with more certainty.

But we expect a minimum of 25% better fuel efficiency.

And in an environment when it looks like fuel prices are going to continue to go up, that becomes increasingly significant in terms of dollars.

So right now if we did a calculation based upon $3 a gallon for diesel,

which is an arbitrary figure, we could expect to save about $10,500 a year in fuel savings for each hybrid that was fully implemented for a full year.

Now all of this is very dependent upon exactly how much service hours and miles the vehicles use, but that's sort of where we are right now.

It's also going to be a cleaner burning vehicle, it's going to be a quieter vehicle, it's been a vehicle that has been very well received by the community.

On the other side of this, it was only three years ago that we put a vehicle that in all other respects is essentially the same vehicle, same manufacturer, same size into service and that has been also well received and that's a diesel bus.

I think that the Gillick buses that we have been purchasing since 2008 have proved to be very reliable, durable vehicles that are well received

How long do they last, a diesel versus a hybrid?

The Federal Transit Administration basically sets the rules of sort of minimum use before they will give you money to replace.

So it does vary a little bit.

The category that we're looking at right now is a 400,000 mile bus or approximately 10 years.

We also have some buses that are 500,000 mile buses or 12 years.

Over their life?

No.

Our experience with them is fairly short-lived and so we can't speak from our own experience but talking to other properties have had more experience.

I think we have reason to expect that there will be some savings.

I can't quantify those savings to you and I think that part of it though is to have sort of greater homogeneity with the fleet.

I don't think that requires us to have a fleet that would be all hybrids.

I think part of it is enjoyed by having a fleet that is the same manufacturer and that's sort of where we're trending right now.

Well, the emissions coming from a hybrid bus, again, the amount of

benefit is sort of depending upon what you're contrasting it to.

If we were contrasting it to a vehicle that we don't own, in other words a brand new clean diesel bus, the amount of reduction in emissions would be somewhat less than the bus that we will actually be replacing.

I read the thing you sent around online that the batteries have a six-year life.

I'm just showing off my new knowledge.

Mr. Mayor, this is an important issue in many ways.

First, we have made a commitment to hybrid buses for environmental reasons more than anything else.

I think it will be worth the investment, extra investment to buy two hybrid buses.

I realize it takes about $270,000.

But if we already have nine and if we continue to add two, my feeling is that maybe in the future there will be more money in federal and state level.

We don't have to spend our own money.

I'm a little concerned about the cost associated with the battery life.

Correct.

Because one of the issues just generally with electric cars and to a lesser degree with hybrid cars is if the battery packs is expensive, does that affect, I mean, what do you do when you need a new battery pack?

It's not a big deal for, say, a Prius or a small car, but for an electric car, a battery pack can cost $15,000 and certainly

I'd be curious about whether during the lifespan we're going to have this, is there going to be a significant cost with the hybrid or not, and I don't know the answer to that.

So I think it's a lot of money.

I mean, if you look at the difference, I mean, it's actually around, I mean, we would save $150,000 if we went with diesels, right, over what we had budgeted.

and if we go with the hybrids, we have to add an additional $270,000.

So, I mean, that's basically $425,000 difference between the diesel choice, two diesels or two hybrids.

Is my math right there?

Yes.

Yeah, me too.

Mine, I have that it's a $60,000 difference.

So it would be a difference of did you say 60, 30?

No, the logic behind the CIP request required a city contribution of $185,000

Based upon the award of funds, which was more generous in percentage terms than what was anticipated, but less generous in terms of what they were willing to fund, the cost of the city would be $30,000.

So the difference between the two is the savings that's listed here and that Dr. Brown is alluding to.

So not counting the savings, but basically if we get the diesel buses

We save, we get, we spend $150,000 less.

So what, I assume that the buses to be retired really need retirement?

Well as a practical matter we have to keep the buses or

We need to keep the buses in order to put service on the street until we receive their replacements.

We would not be receiving an award of funds if the vehicles didn't meet the requirement, which is basically that they've served their useful life.

I think if we want to spend this money on transit, I think instead of spending it on the hybrid buses, we should earmark it towards improving service.

What would it take if we split the difference?

Can we do that?

Get one hybrid and one diesel?

Because I too look at the environmental thing over the next 10 years of the amount of particulates and things that we'll be putting into the air, the amount of gasoline that we use.

I'm going to try to do the math in my head, which is a dangerous thing.

That's correct.

So it wouldn't be a matter of being able to add an extra route or buy these buses.

For part of it, that's correct.

I see what you're saying.

That is true.

That we couldn't do.

Okay.

So $270,000 is the additional amount that we're talking about to buy the hybrids versus diesels.

Correct, over what's in the CFP.

I think that that would be a conservative number.

Could we find out how much it costs to replace the batteries?

Well, I guess what I would say, Dr. Brown, is that we have had some pretty good luck when we've had to do things like replacing engines to get supplemental grant resources.

So while that may need to happen before they end their useful life, I don't think that that will have to be all on the city's dime.

But we can put together that information.

Let me make a motion and see if there's a second.

OK.

I recommend that we approve $270,697 to buy two hybrid buses and my motion is because I think in 10 years there will be enough savings plus environmental protection, environmental pollution which we'll be avoiding which will be at least worth $60,000 in my mind.

Alright, it's been moved and seconded.

Please indicate your vote.

And that carries four to one.

Next item on our budget.

Our agenda is a report.

It's feeling like a budget.

Public Works Summer Construction Projects.

And this is a PowerPoint presentation.

Mike.

Okay, good evening.

My name is Mike Mollica.

I'm the Capital Projects Coordinator for the Public Works Division.

I also head up the Facilities Development Division.

We oversee all the capital projects, both on the government side as well as the school side.

I'm not sure who I'm talking to here, but I guess you guys are all behind me here.

In the round, okay, perfect.

Is this not working?

This is on.

So I've been asked to come and give you an overview of some of our school projects this summer, as well as some of our government projects.

I've given a PowerPoint here.

I've got about 17 projects that I selected.

I was also told that I had about 15 minutes to do this and also have some discussion with the council and answer some questions, so I'm not sure how we're going to pull this off.

But I guess I'll just start through it, and you folks can ask questions as I go through.

So I'm going to start with the government side.

These are large-cap projects.

Large-cap projects are typically anything larger than about $50,000 to $100,000 in value.

I've got about a half dozen here.

The first one is the Smith Aquatic Center, which I know all of you have probably been to.

This is a project that is still active in my division.

It's a project that we moved into

last fall and we're in the process now of closing it out.

And the reason I show it is because it has been taking a significant amount of time for our division to get this project closed.

And the primary reason is the way this project was organized in terms of the bidding process.

You can see an area there where it talks about the closeout with the trade

Contracts, typically we would go through a bidding environment where we would put out a lump sum project.

We'd have bidders bid on it and they'd provide us with a price and they would do the whole package.

Because of the complexities associated with the Boys and Girls Club, we elected to break this into multiple bid packages.

In fact, we had 24 bid packages.

That allowed us to act as the GC on the project and to construct this simultaneously with the Boys and Girls Club.

There was significant savings to this city in doing this but it's taken quite a toll in terms of staff involvement and time to get it closed out.

We're now at 19 of 24 contracts closed and I would say probably within the next 30 to 60 days we'll have the project closed completely.

Fontaine Fire Station.

This is a project that has been on our plate now for a couple of years.

We are currently at about 95% CDs.

What that means is we're 95% through construction document phase and preparing to get this project out to bid hopefully in the middle of August.

So coming up

Relatively quick now.

We have a couple of milestones to achieve.

One, we're going back before the Planning Commission on August 9th for entry corridor approval.

That's a recertification.

And also we're going through the NDS final site plan approval process.

Assuming everything falls into place cleanly, we anticipate putting this out to bid approximately mid-August.

And we're looking at about a 14-month construction window.

This facility is a maintenance renovation.

This is a project in the public works yard on 4th Street.

This is a facility, actually you just met with Bill Watterson.

This was the home of his division until he moved out to Avon Street.

This building was owned by the FTA.

We spent the better part of a year working with the FTA.

to transfer ownership from the FDA to the city.

We were able to accomplish that.

Now we are designing the building to accommodate our facilities maintenance division.

The design was complete, we have bid the project, and we are now under construction.

We anticipate a completion approximately early September.

Again, this is the site in the public works yard off of 4th Street.

Just a couple of photos here to show you some of the work in progress.

Mark Street parking garage, fairly significant project for us.

If any of you have been to the garage today, you probably noticed quite an improvement over the weekend.

Fourth of July weekend was our kickoff for the construction, so the garage was actually shut down for two days when we installed a new driving surface on the lower level of that deck.

That's kind of the tip of the iceberg here.

We have a lot of work to do on this garage, almost a half million dollars worth of work.

It includes everything from concrete repairs, spalls, rebar, non-glamorous kind of work, but certainly a necessary evil to protect our investment out there.

We do anticipate completion of this project somewhere around October.

And these are photos that were taken today.

Actually, if I was out there last week, it would have been a very different scene out there.

The garage actually looks amazingly good right now.

And this actually, this looks like a crime scene, but actually it's areas of the garage that are marked for concrete repair.

Police Department locker room.

This project here would essentially take a portion of the incubator space in the lower level of the Marcus Street parking garage and convert it to the police locker room.

This is a photo of the existing police locker room, which is completely undersized, does not meet ADA, and has a variety of other issues associated with it.

This is a photo of what it's hopefully going to look like.

It's going to be a little more spacious and meet all of our current health and ADA type codes.

This project is in the design phase right now.

We've been working with local architect VMDO to assist us with that design.

They have pushed through the design now.

The project is out to bid.

And actually we're anticipating the bid opening July 19th.

This is about a six month construction window.

It involves not only the creation of the new locker room in the Marcus Street garage, but then

The renovation of the existing locker room and that space will function as expanded office space for the general district court.

Those folks are bursting at the seams, so this solves a number of problems here with this one project.

It's about $400,000 total.

We've got a couple of small cap type projects.

Small cap again is $50,000 to $100,000 range.

I'll go through these relatively quickly here for you.

A couple of projects that we've recently completed, NDS security renovations.

If you've all been down the hall, and I'm sure you have, you know what we've been able to accomplish there.

So not only have we put up the new security window for the customer service counter, we've also expanded the conference room there.

Central Library, the McIntire Room.

For those who have been in the building, this is a photo of a work in progress.

This job just recently wrapped up.

This is a joint city-county project.

The city takes a leadership role since the building is located in the city proper, so we manage the effort.

The county pays for 50% of the funding associated with this.

This is about $95,000 worth of work.

We went in there, renovated all new finishes, all new lighting, new A.B.

system.

This is a photo of the work in progress and this is the finished product.

Doesn't look very good on this screen, but I would encourage you all to go out and have a look.

It's quite an elaborate space right now.

Community Attention.

This is another small-cap project, $88,000 in value.

We had ADA-related issues at the Community Attention home on East Jefferson, and we've got parking issues and access into the building.

This is a couple of photos here showing a work in progress in terms of providing ADA access into the building.

This is the completed ramp and ADA parking.

We also renovated a restroom to make it fully ADA compliant.

And that job is just about wrapped up except for some punch list work.

School projects.

These are the large cap school projects.

First one up is the CATEC bus loop parking lot.

This is also a joint city-county project where in this case the city manages the effort, my office manages the effort, and the county pays for half of the cost.

The goal here was to isolate and separate bus traffic from vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic.

and there's a sketch in the upper right here that shows you the approved plan.

We've gone through all the permitting.

The site is located in Albemarle County so they required permitting and we've gone through that.

We are now under construction.

Diggs Incorporated, a local company, was a low bid.

They're on site and underway and if you look real close you can see where the asphalt has been cut to allow for the new bus lanes to go in.

So this is a work in progress.

We anticipate substantial completion meaning

open to the public about the middle of August just in time for school.

So all things go smoothly here and weather holds for us.

We'll be able to get this done before school is back in session.

Johnson Building Envelope.

This is another one of those non-glamorous type projects, but a very necessary evil.

One of the most important things you can do to a building is keep water out of it.

And in addition to the roof, you've got to protect the full envelope, the sides of the building as well.

So we have a number of schools.

This is the first one up.

We probably have five or six schools that are queued up behind it where we're going to come back and do everything from replacing brick and repointing mortar to sealants to caulking to exterior painting.

Fairly significant cost associated with these projects.

This one came in way under budget because of the current bidding climate, so we were very pleased about that.

Current costs are about $235,000, and I want to say that our estimates were about $350,000, so very competitively priced.

The contractor has been vetted by my team.

They're out of the Raleigh area in North Carolina.

They're on site now doing work, and we anticipate this job extending into October just because of the magnitude of the work that needs to be done around the building,

We've worked very closely with the principals and the school admin staff.

They know what's coming.

We're going to do most of the invasive work this summer and finish it in September and October.

CHS athletic lockers.

This is a project that I'd say about three weeks ago was not on my radar, but the school board decided at the end of the school term to move ahead with a renovation plan for all the lockers in the athletic portion of the building at CHS.

Well, that equates to 985 lockers in eight separate locker rooms.

Pretty aggressive plan here.

About $160,000 worth of lockers and paint.

But my office was involved, and now we've gone through the design phase on a very fast track.

We have issued purchase orders for the lockers and the painting, and everything seems to be moving ahead.

So I've given you the schedule there.

We're not going to be able to hit completion before school starts just because of the lead time associated with the manufacturing of these lockers.

But we're going to work with the athletic director at CHS, and we are working with Rick, actually, to get these things installed.

And we're thinking September 16th would be probably the last date on the calendar that they'll see us in the school.

So a fairly aggressive program there.

And as you can see from the slide, there's no question that those locker rooms are certainly in need of some help.

CHS Artificial Turf Field.

It appears that funding is going to fall into place for this to happen.

I can't stand here tonight and tell you 100%, but we have direction from the school board to move ahead with the design and permitting phase.

Now, this portion of Charlottesville High School is actually located in Albemarle County, so Albemarle County gets to review the site plan and to review the E&S plan.

We have moved ahead and hired

The Timmins Group and VMDO, local engineer and architect, to assist us with that design process and that is now underway.

Surveying has been complete and we've done some soils analysis.

That has been complete.

We anticipate submitting to Albemarle County.

on July 8th.

And this is another one of those where if everything falls into place, there's the potential that we might have the field completed in time for maybe one or two games at the end of the season.

Can't make any promises because there are a number of hurdles yet, but we're certainly pushing as hard as we can.

So it's possible that we could hit end of October.

I've indicated mid-November here just to be on the safe side, but we're pushing hard.

So this is a photo of the current field.

I took it about a week or so ago.

And I also went out and took a photo of the Albemarle County field.

This is out at Albemarle High School.

They recently installed an artificial turf field.

The county now has three of these fields.

And that's a recent shot of the completed project.

So as far as funding goes, I guess I should touch on that.

The city has contributed $100,000 to the cause.

The schools have contributed $130,000.

And the balance of the project is coming from private donations.

And we're anticipating about the total project costs $863,000.

I guess this was supposed to be interactive, but I'm just going to keep going, I suppose, right?

Okay.

CCS facilities reconfiguration, Buford and Walker, I know that City Council has had at least one if not two or three discussions with the school board about the consolidation of our schools.

The school board has given us the direction to move ahead with early programming for a 6-8 middle school on the Buford campus and we have completed the programming for that.

We're working with VMDO again out of Charlottesville to assist us with that.

We're also looking at Walker, and I've indicated the scope for Walker because there seems to be some confusion about what happens to Walker when we move the 5th grade back to the elementaries and the 6th grade over to Buford which will become 678.

Well, Walker would have a preschool learning center up to potentially 30 classrooms

It will also accommodate consolidated central offices, one and two.

One is on Derry Road, adjacent to Walker, currently.

And central office two is in the lower level of the high school.

Very inefficient, obviously.

That would bring them both together in the Walker campus.

We would bring the adult learning center onto the Walker campus.

There would be an opportunity for a school board meeting space, which they currently don't have.

They currently use the high school media center.

and the Alternative Learning Center would be located at Dairy Road and by that I mean the current location of central office one.

Is that confusing?

Anyway, it's up on the board and it's in your packet.

That's the overall scope.

Now, what we've been tasked with is to go through preliminary design for both Buford and Walker, and I've engaged a firm called Downey & Scott to do independent third-party cost estimations so that when we get into the CIP process, this coming, this would be August, September, October for me anyway,

So we'll have some more reliable costs.

We're going to provide a pallet, if you would, a menu of options so that if you look at Buford, for example, we could do Buford any number of ways.

And we have a few options where we could do this or that.

And we have costs associated with those.

So you can see exactly what those impacts are.

Same kind of thing for Walker.

So the task is to come back with options, yes.

and just quickly some small CAT projects on the school side over at the Performing Arts Center on the high school campus.

This is a project that received, I want to say, there it is, $260,000 worth of stimulus funding and the project calls for replacement of all the performance lighting

in the Performing Arts Center.

What's in there currently is original equipment, so all of this needed to be custom designed, custom manufactured.

We're now under construction finally.

This has been a long road for us here, but it's going to be a great project, and there are some other scope-related items here, but primarily lighting upgrades at Martin Luther King Performing Arts Center.

Venable Interior and Restroom Renovations.

Great photo, I know.

Non-glamorous project, but it's one of those necessary evils.

Again, this is original equipment here in terms of the condition of some of these restrooms at Venable.

This is our opportunity to go in and to renovate basically 95% of the restrooms in the building and make them ADA compliant as well.

So fairly significant project.

The project is now under construction and we anticipate completion in time for school in the middle of August or so.

CHS Roofing Repairs, another non-glamorous type project.

You can tell they're projects I get stuck with, huh?

But this is another one of those where we've got about $200,000 worth of work to basically prolong the life of that roof by about six to eight to nine years.

It's really not clear exactly what we're going to get out of it, but we hope to get another six to eight to nine years out of this roof.

If we had to put a new roof on the high school today, we're estimating somewhere between 1.7 and 2.1 million.

So there's real value in trying to extend the life of that existing roof and that's what this project is all about.

That work is underway.

It was very competitively priced.

A lot of interest in the region and this project will be done before school starts.

And you can see some of the problems we're having up there.

and I think this is the last one, CHS Site Lighting.

A lot of focus on CHS this summer.

This project looks at all the exterior lighting around the full campus and the focus has been security.

It's also been about energy and performance and the ability to control lighting around the campus.

But I think security is the primary focus.

This would involve a three phase project.

We're going to move ahead with phase one this summer.

A fairly significant cost overall.

It's almost a million dollars worth of improvements lighting-wise around the perimeter.

It gives us the opportunity for CCTV as well from a security perspective.

And we're looking at about $330,000 worth of work.

That includes design as well as construction.

Bid's open at the end of this week, so we'll see how that lands.

There seems to be great interest in this project right now, so we're hoping it's competitively priced.

And that is it.

I would say no.

We're not talking about adding insulation or anything along those lines.

The second is just a curiosity question.

I'm sure it's been discussed at the school board, but it just brought up the question.

Well we've been working with the athletic director and he is talking to other schools in the region.

It looks like we would play primarily away games, but he's 100% behind the artificial turf field and they're willing to do whatever to make this happen.

I actually had a conversation with Rick last week about this because I was intrigued by that as well and he said that they actually just did this with William Monroe High School.

And the other question is also just like unto it, for practices and things, are they going to make sure that kids have transportation to alternative sites for practicing?

I don't know the answer to that.

I haven't gotten into that detail with her.

And my other question is just generally on projects like this, one of the folks who came in public comment at the beginning brought up the question that I thought I would just sort of transfer now to you about the efforts that are made.

to get them employed or to get them to bid on projects?

Well, both.

Well, I guess there are a couple of things there.

One, we have worked with the Economic Development Division here in terms of trying to encourage workers to hire locally.

And there has been some money that has been provided to allow certain types of subcontractors to bring in trade help.

There have been issues, for example, with getting qualified masons.

So in terms of workforce development, we have done some of that.

We did that on the Smith Aquatic Center.

I would say it was relatively successful.

And my understanding is, last I heard, there were two of those individuals who were still employed by that mason.

But we're typically, overall, we're typically in a low bid environment.

99% of our jobs are design, bid, build, meaning we're going to take the lowest qualified bidder.

And so we don't have a lot of purview there in terms of ensuring that they're local.

And because of the economy, we are seeing projects very competitively priced.

I guess that's good for the city, but what happens is firms are coming from outside the region and from outside the state and bidding on our projects.

You know, it's relatively straightforward for a qualified GC to get a Virginia Class A contractor's license.

They can meet our insurance requirements and we would be challenged to not do business with them.

So, it's tough.

Just to follow up on the first question dealing with energy conservation.

Well, we haven't designed them yet.

I would say yes.

Everything that we do, we've been tasked with meeting minimum LEED standards.

And actually, I think we're going to exceed that in all of our projects.

So I don't see this any different, Huja, but we haven't designed it.

We've just done preliminary programming.

I think the answer is yes.

But Johnson, for instance, the building we've already invested in to bring it up to Energy Star

So there's been some improvements made already.

On the maintenance side, now I'm just presenting the projects that my division handles.

Certainly there are other projects out there.

Lance Stewart heads up facilities maintenance and you heard Lance talk about energy management and whatnot.

So the answer is absolutely yes as far as energy perspective.

But sometimes you have to do the more mundane fixes to buildings to keep them tight.

I have a question that's only marginally relevant to what you're talking about tonight, but I've got a complaint from a parent about the air conditioning being out at Crow Pool for several days in a row, and obviously it's a very oppressive environment in there with no air conditioning.

At Crow?

At Crow.

I don't.

I don't work with the maintenance folks that directly.

I'd be happy to pass that on.

No, no, no, Crow Pool.

And I was a little worried because we had said we'd keep Crow open just, you know, on a shoestring budget.

Right.

Given the fact that the YMCA is not open yet.

I haven't heard about the issue.

I'll be happy to follow up, so I'll do that in the morning.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments for Mr. Mollica?

This is very helpful to have this kind of overview, because I know that we sort of approve all this stuff when it's just numbers, but it's nice to see what it actually looks like.

Great.

One piece of other business, I was sitting in the dark the other night when my power was out after one of the storms and people tend to call or email the mayor when they don't have electricity.

We have these smart phones now so unfortunately I can check email as I'm sitting in the dark.

It's happened enough times now to where I think there's some legitimate questions that people are asking about why is our power system

Why does it seem to be so fragile that we may have so many outages?

I know there's an article in the paper last I believe last week about some residents in parts of the county that were asking the same question and so I think

I'd like to figure out a way that we can engage with our friends at Dominion.

This is not about trying to bash anybody or bashing Dominion by any means, just trying to get a better sense from Dominion what factors contribute to the power outages that we have, what steps would need to be taken, some of which I'm sure would not be very popular.

or I'm sure some of them would have pretty significant price tags associated, but what steps might be taken to strengthen our power system here so that we have fewer outages.

So I don't know, Mr. Jones, I hate to put you on the spot, but maybe you and staff can kind of kick around some ideas, maybe talk to Scott over at Dominion and think about a way that we can

We can certainly do that and maybe what we can do is invite Mr. Reed or someone else from Dominion Power to come present the council.

That'd be great.

And just talk a little bit about our system, the way it's set up, and why we do have outages and we have severe weather.

I would imagine that one of the reasons is because obviously we have a lot of our power lines are overhead and it is very very expensive to underground utilities.

Somewhere in the range of $80,000 to $100,000 per pole to underground utilities.

I think the last major project that we spent a lot of time and effort doing that

was with the Court Square project, and that cost us a significant amount of money, but we received a lot of federal funding for that project as well, so that helped.

So that will certainly be part of that discussion, but are there other issues that are out there that contribute to power outages we certainly can raise and have a discussion about?

That'd be great.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

We'll now open our meeting to one more round of matters by the public.

We have two members of the public here.

Anybody would like to speak during matters by the public?

Harvey, anything you want to add?

Meeting's adjourned.