City Council Meeting   5/8/2012

Council meeting to order for May 7th.

First, the Proclamation for National Public Works Week.

I hope there is somebody from Public Works Department here.

Ms. Mueller.

Whereas the public works provides our community an essential part of our citizens' everyday lives, whereas the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of the public works system and programs such as water, waste water, gas, street, highway, school,

and Public Building Maintenance, Transit and School People, Transportation, Environmental Awareness, Solid Waste, Collection and Recycling, Facility Development, Straw Water Management and Water Conservation.

You can see they do a lot of work.

whereas the safety, health and comfort of this community greatly relies on these facilities and services whereas the quality and effectiveness of these facilities as well as their planning, design and construction is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skills of public works employees and they have some very good employees.

Now, therefore, I, Satyendra Huja, Mayor of city of Charlottesville, do hereby proclaim the week of May 20th to 26th, 2012 as National Public Works Week in the city of Charlottesville and call upon all the citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with efforts involved in providing our services and recognize their contribution of public works employees, May 7th, 2012.

Obviously I'm not accepting this for myself, it's for the 300 employees in the department that make sure when you get up in the morning the water's running, your toilet flushes, when the snow is there we try to get it off, run the buses, run the school buses, take care of the municipal buildings.

Any of you who give you an example, if you saw the broken elevator in the Market Street garage, you saw the inconvenience that happens when our services stop.

We're one of those departments that people don't really notice what we do until it doesn't work or until it breaks.

But I sincerely appreciate, in the 26 years I've been here,

Council has been so incredibly supportive and I will tell you when I talk to my colleagues around the country, they don't have that same appreciation that their council does for infrastructure and the many things we do.

So, thank you.

Before you leave, there's another award.

It is for 2012 Marketing Best Practices Award for Public Awareness and Education for Charlottesville Gas.

Yes.

I want to say one thing about this.

This is a huge award.

We have one person, Renee Peterson, our marketing person.

If you count Flickr, she has a staff of two.

And Flickr has become, you know, it was created in Charlottesville, it was created in-house, and it's become a phenomenon all across the country.

And everybody looks at the things that we're doing with Flickr and the many public information things that we're doing.

And just to let you know, like we have a new one coming out,

All of our ads, all the people in the ads are city employees or their spouses or children or their dogs and we're doing this very low cost to meet the national requirements that we have to do for safety education and I think she has just been incredibly, incredibly successful and we're really proud of this because we are the smallest gas company that has ever won this award, national award.

Mayor Huja, I would like to read a proclamation in honor of National Tourism Week, which is May 5-13.

Whereas the travel and tourism industry in the city of Charlottesville continues to be vital to our economic stability and growth, and it contributes significantly to our city's cultural and social climate, and whereas the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interests of the Charlottesville community contributing to our employment, economic prosperity,

International Travel and Relations, Peace and Understanding and Goodwill, and whereas the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau is funded through the collection of the overnight hotel tax from city hotels, bed and breakfasts,

and Campgrounds and whereas the mission of the CACVB is to enhance the economic prosperity of the city by promoting, selling and marketing the destination and whereas the CACVB supports and promotes special events, signature festivals and a burgeoning entertainment scene that brings out of area visitors to enjoy the city of Charlottesville

and whereas in its most recent report the Virginia Tourism Corporation disclosed that for 2010, $174.8 million in direct visitor spending occurred in the city of Charlottesville and approximately 231 jobs in Charlottesville are directly

supported through the tourism and hospitality industry which includes lodging, food service, attractions, transportation, agritourism and the arts.

Payroll for these individuals was 37.4 million

and whereas the US Travel Association estimates that one out of every nine jobs in the US depends on travel and tourism and whereas the US Travel Association further estimates that each US household would pay $1,000 more in taxes

My apologies, Councilor Smith, that may have actually been a typo.

That's a heck of a payroll for 200 employees, but that's actually a little over 2,000.

I was really impressed.

Oh excellent, I'll have people lined up out the door looking for those jobs.

I just want to take a moment and thank you very much.

This resolution dates back to 1984.

We've had almost 30 years of recognition of National Tourism Week in the United States.

This resolution is accepted and very much appreciated on behalf of the thousands and thousands of men and women

that work in this industry across this country and in our communities.

I believe that we bring value to this community as you so noted.

We proudly sponsored this past two weeks ago the taste of Monticello wines.

We were the

One of the key sponsors for the TomTom Founders Day Festival on this coming weekend, May 12th.

We're also helping to sponsor with Blue Ridge Outdoors, the infamous string dusters concert that will be here this Saturday.

So again, I thank you very much.

Expect to hear some great things.

We're working with Payne Ross and Associates, working on a new marketing plan.

We'll have some more information and details about that in the future.

The next Proclamation is Bike Month, which is the month of May.

Whereas for more than a century, the bicycles have been an important part of our lives and the lives of many Americans.

whereas the bicycling is a relatively safe, clean, affordable mode of transportation and recreation, used by thousands of citizens and residents of all ages throughout the great Commonwealth.

Whereas the bicycle provides a unique vantage point for tourists, sightseers to explore Virginia's many natural and man-made attractions, including award-winning state parks, historic battlefields, urban architecture and college and universities.

Whereas our Commonwealth is the best of many bicycle events, including competitive races, sightseeing tours, charitable fundraisers, and other recreational rides which in total create a real economic impact on our community.

Charlottesville has been named as a bronze level, bicycle friendly community by the League of American Bicyclists.

And in an effort to improve upon this designation, we'll continue to recognize the importance of bicycling in urban and community planning and development.

where it is important for cyclists and motorists to take proper safety precautions while sharing our roads by being cautious and being alert.

Whereas Bike Month allows cycling enthusiasts to increase awareness of this sport and promote the benefit of bicycling through organized activities like Bike to Work Day and bike rodeos for children.

Now, therefore, I stand in St. Huja, Mayor of City of Charlottesville, Virginia, to hereby recognize May 2012 as Bike Month and call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

Sign, May 7th.

So here are two or three people who are very active in bicycling.

I just wanted to say that I was

We certainly appreciate the support of this city council in their bicycling initiatives that have come up in the city of Charlottesville and we'd like to thank Mayor Huja particularly

We'd also like to invite council and the community to our events coming up next week.

It's actually National Bike Week within National Bike Month and there are many activities.

They're all free and they are all put on by volunteer efforts.

They're not going to cost any taxpayer dollars.

Thanks to all the wonderful volunteers from Bike Charlottesville and ACT that we have working towards promoting cycling in our community.

More information at our website at bikesharlottesville.org.

Thank you for coming.

Mr. Huja, I'm very pleased to announce that this week is National Nurses Week 2012.

National Nurses Week is celebrated annually from May 6th which is also known as National Nurses Day through May 12th, the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of Modern Nursing.

and in honor of the many residents of our community who work in this field including three former city councilors, Holly Edwards, Nancy O'Brien and Charles Barber.

We wanted to spend a moment to honor the nurses who do so much for all of us.

So thank you to all the nurses.

We all need them.

We all need them, absolutely.

Sure, give them a round of applause for the nurses.

I also want to announce an event.

This is regarding our Sister City program.

On Saturday, May 19th, at the home of Roger Voicenay in Woollen Mills, there's a big party to raise money for projects between Charlottesville and our Sister City of Winneba in Ghana.

It's called Dance for Winneba.

Music by the Seoul Transit Authority.

A lot of really good food and refreshments.

And all the money, again, goes to support projects

in Winneba, or between Winneba and Charlottesville.

It's seven o'clock, Saturday, May 19th.

For more information, you can go to Dance4Winneba, W-I-N-N-E-B-A dot eventbrite, E-V-E-N-T-B-R-I-T-E dot com, or just Google Dance4Winneba.

Let me add that Councilman Norris is very correct.

Please remind him of the date again one more time.

I actually did just want to mention to the folks out here and listening on TV that because I don't think everybody realizes that in May our water rates actually go up for a seasonal, we have a seasonal tiered system.

And come May, your water rates will go up, gosh, it's about 30%.

And it's a way to encourage conservation.

Of course, conservation's not really going to work if you don't know about it.

So it's all the more reason to conserve water in the summer when, of course, our water demands go up.

And I believe that the initial part of the water that you use is not going up.

It's just the additional part.

Over a certain amount goes up.

And it's really so that people, if they use a lot of water to water their gardens, end up paying more of a premium.

But for basic water use, for most families, it doesn't go up much.

OK.

Are there any other announcements you have?

Any other announcements?

I have a couple.

One is that we are winners.

Charlottesville was declared one of the winners of the National Water Conservation Contest.

We had a mayor's challenge.

It was the National Conference of Mayors, I believe, that Mr. Huja joined and challenged with the other mayors whose community could have the most people sign online and pledge to conserve water in very specific ways.

and we were one of 12 winners and I believe that we were one of the winners for the city of our size, which is how the 12 were for different categories.

We won in our category, so congratulations to everyone who signed up.

The residents are encouraged to continue to conserve water.

You can go to www.charlottesville.org slash water conservation for more information regarding conservation tips, $100 toilet rebates,

and Creating Water Wise Landscape, Building a Rain Barrel and Getting a Free Indoor Conservation Kit.

And I also have a couple of announcements for events coming up.

One is something that is very exciting to me.

It's one of the, it's what's really the first exhibition for a exhibition hall that hasn't even been opened yet.

The Jefferson School African American Heritage Center is holding its first exhibition and as you may know, it's still under construction.

So they're having their exhibition at the McGuffey Art Center.

It's called From Backyard Clotheslines to Museum Walls.

It opened on May 1st, it'll be going through the whole month of May, well through May 29th, from 5.30 to 7.30, oh no I'm sorry, at the McGuffey Center all the time.

And I'm just going to read a little bit about the exhibition.

In the summer of 1967, Earl Gordon, Frank Walker, and Gerald Mitchell mounted an exhibition of paintings and drawings in the Mitchell backyard.

Inspired by folk artist Francis Brand, the boys, raised in families where art appreciation was the norm, received their first taste of what it meant to be professional artists.

Their images, pinned to clotheslines, stretched across the yard, earned them just over $23.

Upon graduation from high school, these young men went on to study art, travel the world, and in the case of Mitchell and Walker, they returned to Charlottesville to work as artists.

In the African American community, they were enigmas as few of their contemporaries chose such non-traditional paths.

From backyard clotheslines to museum walls, considers work produced by Mitchell and Walker over the course of the last 20 years.

Seemingly polar opposites in technique and temperament, one a lyrical abstractionist, the other a realist.

Their works are related in their ontological examinations and their desire to expose the heroism in what appears at first blush to be ordinary lives.

These are really cool pictures that these two young men have done, well not horribly young, but

It's it's a really exciting exhibit.

So I urge you all to go to the McGuffey Center and see it I also have there were a couple of TomTom events that someone put up here for me to announce and one of them is May 12th.

That's Saturday which is the infamous string duster son of Bill Sarah white and the pearls at the pavilion downtown and It is at

It doesn't say what time it is.

I would assume it's in the early evening.

And the other is Field Day, which is at the Ix building and in the yard of it.

Mother's Day celebration on Sunday, May 13th from 2 till 7 p.m.

There's going to be children's games, Field Day fun, public art, crafts and vendors, street food, and all sorts of good stuff.

So come on out.

Well, I only have one announcement, but I'm really very pleased and honored to announce that we finally have made our appointments to the PLACE Design Task Force.

PLACE stands for Placemaking, Livability, and Community Engagement.

Eight people that I'm going to name are very, very qualified and represent the city very well.

Richard Price, Pete O'Shea, Beth Meyer, Claudette Grant, Andrea Douglas, Mark Watson, Rachel Lloyd, and the Council was kind enough to appoint me, Kathy Galvin, and the Planning Commission will then appoint their own representative.

So this is very exciting.

And thank you to these people and to everybody who had applied.

Is that a motion, Ms. Galvin?

I'll second that motion.

Okay, thank you.

First of all, I wanted to welcome all of you who are here today.

I realize there are many topics to discuss, and our rules are that we have about half an hour or 12 speakers.

You have three minutes each to speak.

We would like you to respect that time frame, and if you run out of time after that, at the end of the meeting, again, you'll have time to speak.

So the first person

Good evening, my name is Chris Winter.

I live at 3611 Stony Point Road.

I have been drawn to the debate on marijuana tolerance in our community because of my personal experience on both sides of this issue.

I am currently writing a book on the subject using my own knowledge gained over the past 21 years of healing from cannabis addiction.

Proponents of marijuana legalization, or in this case passive and weak attitudes towards enforcement, have my empathy due to my active addiction to pot for over 17 years before 1991.

Though today I resolutely stand with the opponents of marijuana legalization because my life without cannabis has been affirmed and greatly improved over these past 21 years.

of total abstinence from all drugs.

I wish to stress your obligation as elected civic leaders charged with promoting the common good that to pass this unwise and absurd resolution would certainly confuse and obscure the need for us to stand firm against all influences that threaten our families and our civility in general.

In my opinion, now is one of those times to stand.

I'm going to try to find out where I'm at here.

The hardest hit by this disabling drug addiction are the children of at-risk households.

My background and upbringing fall into this latter category.

I immediately became an addict to pot when I found out how well it helped me run from the pain of my childhood.

I was 12 years old.

Do you as leaders of our community wish to enable destructive and misleading behavior that will most certainly derail the future of our young and old people as my life was derailed?

From my own life experience with cannabis and without cannabis, I can assure you, as few others can, will you promote

You will promote and foster more misery and degradation in the lives of at-risk families if you vote yes for this deceit.

My path in life was one of deceit and misery until I accepted my addiction to marijuana.

Through little years of self-realization, acceptance, and much prayer, I gratefully and humbly admitted the harm I caused my life and the lives of others around me.

This self-realization and interchange could never have taken place while getting high.

I have found this cycle of addiction is too powerful to permit a life based in rigorous honesty, which is one of the three traits needed to overcome addiction, the other two being open-mindedness and willingness.

Living life on adult terms was impossible for me, as I ran from mature responsibility through daily pot use.

I emphasize these points to you because the proponents seek to minimize the causes and effects of marijuana addiction for their own selfish purposes.

I know this because I was one of them myself.

I was never interested in my community's good, only in my own want to get and stay high.

Thank you all for this opportunity.

To say that this drug, POT, is harmless and non-addictive is a sure sign of the self-centered deception I once lived.

I behaved the very same way and said the same things when confronted with my drug problem by family members and loved ones.

Denial is a common trait to all addicts as it is rooted in the self-deception that I lived with on a daily basis.

Lying to myself that I had no problem at all smoking pot as my life fell apart over and over.

When I finally stopped lying to myself on February 10, 1991, I was able to receive the help I needed to heal from my addiction.

If you promote this deception on our community, you will be joining and promoting the misery I once courted to the depth of utter despair.

The pain and complications of my childhood stayed with me and were magnified as long as I had pot to run from negative realities that held me back.

Only when its negative influence was totally removed could I heal and pursue true happiness and joy.

I tell all of you on this council with truth on my side, this despair I talk of did not come from any other drug other than pot.

When I first stopped getting high, I began to do the right things because I had to in order to heal.

Now I do the right things because I want to.

In order to live in a free society that hates tyranny, I have to care about my liberty and the liberty of my fellow citizens.

In order to do this, we are instructed to basically be good people, be educated, and be involved in government.

None of these traits were on my Christmas list when I was an addict.

I wanted better connections, better drugs, and more money to buy drugs with.

That was it.

No concern for my fellow man or my form of government.

None of it entered into my efforts at living.

Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about tyrants usurping our freedoms by dulling our sensibilities for liberty, our aspirations toward goodness, our concern for the public good, and most of all, our civic duties founded in a strong sense of individual sovereignty.

His writing on the subject of our democracy are still considered genius in political science 200 years after his groundbreaking book, Democracy in America.

My take on this topic from his perspective is that loss of freedoms would be accomplished through social tolerance of behavior detrimental to morality and virtue.

He understood the social and political degradation to our constitutional republic if the people were to become self-centered and self-serving.

This is an accurate and precise description of me when I use pot on a daily basis to run from the negative aspects of my upbringing.

My message to all on this council is clear.

If you want our public to gradually and insidiously surrender their desire for personal sovereignty and interest in self-government, then by all means, pass this deception you call a resolution.

But if you wish to buttress our republic with the kind of human traits it is starved for, such as self-honesty, trust, courage, then send this resolution and those that support it packing.

Anna Freshwater, F-R-E-S-H-W-A-T-E-R

To be as strong of people as freedom, we have to remove obstacles which inhibit human potential.

I see the desire on our council when you support local youth programs in Charlottesville.

How can you offer one hand in support of youth while literally back handing them with this absurd suggestion?

Only when I stopped the active addiction to marijuana did I ever succeed in any endeavor in my life.

Pot steals away initiative, self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-worth.

How, you ask, through self-centeredness and self-deception.

I could never allow myself to do good things or reach for my best abilities while I was aware on a deep level that I was lying to myself.

My self-centeredness consistently kept me from reaching out to anyone.

No, to pass this resolution would to be a mark of shame on the history of Charlottesville.

From a recovering drug addict fortunate enough to stand here free of this drug and who wishes no one to fall into the trap of addiction, think of Charlottesville and not of yourselves.

In the countries of Europe that have legalized marijuana, the age of first use has been declining steadily.

This can be expected in our community.

So is it acceptable to you that six and seven year olds be soon using pot for the first time?

At this time, I wish to share research from the Council from Europe.

This behavioral science gives insight into the evidence that marijuana legalization or even lax attitudes towards the same correlates to early first use among children.

I quote, in conclusion, I stress my identification with drug addicts in our community and hope that they find the freedom and peace associated with overcoming as many complications of addiction as possible.

While you as a governing body consider closely your duty to protect and to promote the public good, I may suggest to you focus your efforts on drug prevention, enforcement of state and federal drug laws, and above all, encourage drug addicts to stop using drugs.

Please do not abandon them with such naive and destructive resolution.

As a father and grateful member of a society, I humbly demand that you support our police department in sending a mature, caring, responsible message to our community.

Illegal drug use, whether casual or habitual, is not positive influence in Charlottesville.

Connie Perrin from Cedar Grove Road My name is Connie Perrin, I'm in Rutgersville, Virginia and I have some studies that were done on the use of marijuana.

There's a pediatric study

that suggests that legal sanctions may influence the initial decision to use drugs and that this influence diminishes as drug use by individuals progresses.

I'd like to repeat that.

The study suggests that legal sanctions may influence the initial decision to use drugs and that this influence diminishes any drug use by individuals

as drug use by individuals progresses.

If so, it's the youngest adolescents, those who have not yet tried marijuana or are in the experimentation phase who would be affected most by changes in marijuana laws.

Age at first use is in turn a risk factor for problem use in the future.

Parental use of marijuana in the last year is associated with their adolescence use during the same period.

Some advocates for the legalization of marijuana argue that it is safer than alcohol.

They suggest that increased use of marijuana by young people

might have a positive effect if some adolescents switched from alcohol to marijuana, a substitution effect.

This theory cannot be supported by recent studies on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use that incorporated the price of marijuana into the analysis.

These studies include that an increase in use of marijuana by adolescents would result in an increased use of alcohol.

For example, that the two drugs are economic complements.

The most widely scrutinized large-scale change in the legal status of marijuana occurred in the Netherlands.

Dutch policy regarding decriminalization is very complex.

Use of illegal drugs per se is not punishable by law, but possession for use is.

Drug dealing also is considered a felony.

Theoretically, one can be imprisoned for up to one month for possession of five grams or less of cannabis, and promotion of marijuana through advertisements is forbidden also.

From 1984 to 1996, the period during which Dutch prosecution of marijuana related offenses became virtually non-existent, marijuana was increased consistently and substantially until 1992, while decreasing or remaining stable in other countries.

Among 18 to 20 year olds, the proportion who reported ever having used marijuana increased from 15 to 44%, and the proportion who reported using it within the previous 30 days

increased from 8.5 to 18.5%.

Use among adolescents in the United States decreased steadily from 1979 to 1992.

In Norway, which also forbids the sale of marijuana, use remained constant until 1992 and then increased.

Use remained steady or decreased in Spain, Stockholm, Hamburg, and Denmark during this period.

Thank you.

Good evening, Councillors.

My name is Carol Thorpe.

I reside on Oak Tree Lane, Charlottesville, and I speak this evening on my own behalf.

I come to Council tonight to ask you to refrain from adopting the resolution regarding marijuana.

My reason for addressing you has nothing to do with whether marijuana use is a good or a bad thing, or whether or not it should be legalized.

My concern is to ensure that council refrain from using our fine local police department as a tool to promote political agendas that you support or to fight those that you do not.

I see no reason for you to issue such a resolution about the enforcement priority of existing marijuana laws as supported by research done and presented to you by city staff.

And I'm referring to the notes that were attached online to your agenda this evening, I presume you've read them.

But in summary, your staff determined that in the calendar year 2011 in Charlottesville,

Possession of marijuana was charged 113 times, connected with a total of 5,040 arrests.

By my rough math, that's less than 2.5%.

They go on to say it is believed that the great majority of those charges are typically subordinate to another criminal charge, such as the discovery of marijuana, would be a result of a search incident to arrest relative to some other primary offense.

Within your staff's conclusion they say, knowing this means the totality of their statement, staff believes it is unnecessary to include a directive from council to deprioritize the enforcement of personal marijuana use.

In my personal opinion, your staff is correct.

As demonstrated by their own report,

Chief Longo is an outstanding police commander and more than capable of prioritizing the amount of attention each criminal act should receive without the interjections of city council.

We have a seasoned professional at the helm of local law enforcement and I suggest that you let him alone to do his job.

So why then would you see a need to adopt such a resolution except to appease certain members of your constituency in hope of making political gain?

I find this situation reminiscent of the disastrous behavior of the previous incarnation of council during the Occupy Charlottesville encampment of Lee Park last October.

Among many missteps by council,

One was based on what City Manager Maurice Jones called, quote, the will of council when he issued a directive of non-enforcement to Chief Longo to restrain him from upholding the park curfew for two nights until a permit could be obtained.

Whether the majority political orientation of our governing body is Democrat or Republican, progressive or conservative,

I see a great danger in that body using the police department in any manner to promote its political agenda or to fight the opposite side.

Mayor Huja and members of the City Council, my name is Paul Long and I was greatly tempted to change topics.

When I did write down, I was going to speak on public transportation, so I will.

I reside at 1410 Grady Avenue here in Charlottesville and two and a half years ago, City Council proposed the creation of a public transportation authority along with Albemarle County, which is an idea that I thought was a good idea.

My only addendum would be to have included the surrounding counties

and invite them to participate as well.

I believe that public transportation here in the Charlottesville area needs a complete upheaval.

We need expanded service throughout Albemarle County as well as the surrounding counties and our roads have become more congested with auto traffic congestion on Wire Road, Route 29 and other outlets.

At times it is almost becoming

Charlottesville is becoming a major urban area and I don't believe that Charlottesville's traffic congestion will ever get as bad as it exists in Philadelphia or New York City or Chicago, but I've lived in Charlottesville for 14 years and it's getting worse.

And I don't drive, and I've tried crossing Rio Road many times in the course of doing things.

You're literally taking your life in your hand doing that.

And pedestrians, one pedestrian did get killed.

Many pedestrians are getting hit.

And the most viable solution to getting more orders off the roads

is having a very vibrant, efficient, and frequent public transportation system in existence.

This coming Saturday at 10 o'clock I'm leading a rally in front of City Hall calling for City Council to address this issue.

And I realize that you have a variety of items on the plate, but I think of challenging areas to continue to grow

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of council.

My name is Naomi Roberts, 111140 Sinclair Avenue extended.

I'm here tonight to speak on speak about marijuana.

The papers, the papers say that three of the five of you favor resolution proposed by drug user and

That's what marijuana is.

It's a drug.

Anything that alters your mind is a drug and the decision should be up to the police to use their duty to enforce state and federal law in the city of Charlottesville, not a resolution from council to declare marijuana offenses be the low law enforcement priority in the city.

What about driving on an influence?

influence and the high that this drug gives you.

What's there to say if it's a low priority that more youth will not be involved?

Charlottesville will become the city of potheads and

will bring more drug lords to the city.

It is not city council's job to decide on such a social life-altering behavior.

This resolution will enable people like those living next door to me and others all over the city to get in on the action and it will be hard to get police to pay attention to it when we citizens have a complaint because the police will be diverted elsewhere.

In all my years in living in this city, I have never seen such decisions council has approved.

I know how it affects the neighborhoods as I personally have experienced the trafficking next door to me for over a year before they were evicted by their landlord.

It was hard for the police to get anything on them because they require pictures of people coming and going and it made our life hell.

There were as many as 65 different vehicles frequenting that place, not just once, but over and over.

And it had gotten to the point where we neighbors were afraid to go out after dark.

I also have had suspicious activity all last year when some ruling relatives moved back in with their relatives and cars coming and going all hours, both night and day.

And this is a property owner, incidentally.

This is not a matter for city council.

It's a police matter.

Thank you very much.

My name is Barbara Cruikshank.

I live at 324 Parkway in Charlottesville and I'm here to speak against the use of chloramine disinfectants in our water supply.

Chloramine leaches lead from pipes.

It's extremely corrosive.

We've heard what happened in the District of Columbia when chloramine was added to the water supply there.

The children had very high lead levels in their blood.

I just returned from an Autism Research Institute conference in New Jersey and the consensus among the researchers and the scientists

was that environmental chemicals are a major factor in the development of autism.

We've had a 1200% increase in autism rates in the last two decades.

We have one in 88 children in this country with autism, one in 54 boys.

Dr. Philip Landrigan, the director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York

convened a panel of scientists and they recently have published a list of the 10 most toxic chemicals that are suspected to cause autism.

And lead is number one on the list.

If chloramines are used in our local water supply, we can expect to see increases in blood lead levels in the children.

We may also see increased rates of autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

It is wrong and folly to counter the corrosive effects of this chemical with other chemicals.

This makes no sense.

Once again,

The infants and the children are going to bear the brunt of this chemical, of the chemical additions into our water supply and we cannot allow that to continue to happen.

Good evening, my name is Laurie Delhanty, I live at 645 Evergreen Avenue and I'm here to continue the conversation on chloramine.

First of all, I would love to thank Ms. Galvin for

offering a forum for us to actually come out and come together and speak and educate the public and I am very grateful that she's actually come forward and is allowing us to do that.

But anyway, in continuing my conversation, there are so many negative issues on chloramine that have been omitted by the Rivanna Water Authority.

We can go over the acute health concerns, it's an ineffective biocide.

long-term health concerns, environmental damage, the problems with infrastructure, it's so corrosive that it leaches lead from pipes, it eats rubber, it eats elastomer fittings, it pits pipes, it passes on all of the costs of mitigation on to the water customer just so the Rivanna Water Authority can have the cheapest way out as far as disinfecting the water.

and all this information is backed by science.

But the really, really puzzling thing is that the RWSA claims that the change to chloramine were actually dictated by the EPA because of extreme changes in the regulations by EPA and I am still so totally confused by that because they never really clearly specified what actually changed and when we went looking at the rules,

It turns out almost nothing's changed.

The stringency of the regulation of the disinfectant byproducts has not changed.

It's still 80 parts per billion for THMs and 60 parts per billion for HAAs.

That has not changed at all.

The location of the water collection points at the monitoring stations, that hasn't changed.

The regularity in which the water collection is being, the timing of the water collection, that hasn't changed at all.

What's actually changed, however, is the way that the data is averaged.

And that's actually a good thing because it gives us a red flag and a heads up that a problem spot may be occurring.

and so it's really sort of a minimal change and we haven't really been out of compliance.

If you look at the data for the last 13 years, we're not really in danger of getting huge fines or anything so I think this forum will be very, very informative in trying to pinpoint exactly what it is Tom Fredericks is actually talking about because we're still really confused.

But anyway, I would like to thank Kathy Galvin for having this forum

Thank you.

Lena Marie.

Hello, my name is Lena Marie.

I live at 808 Alta Vista Avenue in the city of Charlottesville.

I'm here to talk about the marijuana resolution.

I want to say that I was a cigarette smoker for 20 years.

It took me eight years to quit and I know what an addiction is.

I have health problems and I have had doctors prescribe addictive medications to me without bothering to tell me about it.

So I'm familiar with what an addiction is and through legal substances.

and I've smoked marijuana on and off for decades.

I've gone years without smoking.

I go months without smoking.

It's not an addictive drug.

That said, I'd like to talk about

The difference between dangerous drugs, not legal or illegal, dangerous drugs.

Addictive drugs are dangerous.

Highly concentrated drugs are dangerous because they have major side effects associated with them.

Those are problems.

Marijuana does not fit into that category and should not be lumped with those substances.

It's unfair.

and it sends a message to people that they're, if you want to talk about sending mixed messages or being unclear, that's unclear.

When you put dangerous substances in with natural substances that have medicinal effects to them, that's where the confusion comes in.

I have friends who have had cancer and they shouldn't be

Marijuana is used medicinally to treat some of the side effects so that they can eat without becoming sick.

And it adds another stress to them to have to deal with whether it's legal or not, who they're getting it from.

Are they risking their freedom in order to get a medicine?

Good evening, my name is Jeffrey Fogel, I reside at 215 Scrooge Street here in the city.

The war on drugs has been a massive and colossal failure, something that has not been mentioned by the people here who were opposed to the resolution tonight.

It has not only been a failure in terms of its effectiveness in reducing drug use, it has been a devastating impact on the communities that it has harmed, devastating impact on people.

Now the staff has provided you with information on the limited number of people who are charged each year with marijuana possession, but they have failed to provide you with information about the racial breakdown of that.

and I wonder why.

We certainly should be sensitive to this question at this juncture, that over 50% of the people who are being charged with possession of marijuana are African-American and that's contributing to the racial disparities in our criminal justice system.

Now I'm not here representing the coalition that I have represented before, but what I'm saying is entirely consistent with the proposition that has been put forth by the coalition that drug usage belongs in the public health sector, not in the criminal law sector.

and when we look at the message that's been sent today and has been sent for 40 years, it's a message of hypocrisy as people sit around drinking as they talk about whether or not we should have marijuana laws or not.

It is a message of ridiculousness in terms of the amount of money we're being spending on this proposition.

It is an outrage that people are dying on the streets not only of America but of Mexico and elsewhere, Latin America and Central America only because we have laws against marijuana.

The laws against marijuana, like the laws against drugs, create crime.

Now, it may be counterintuitive, but I'm here to propose to you that you pass an ordinance prohibiting the possession of marijuana.

And I'm here to suggest that to you, and I have a memo that I want to distribute, that the City of Charlottesville can prohibit marijuana in its ordinances and make sure that nobody goes to jail for possession of marijuana.

Now I'm sure you will have Mr. Brown review this, as he should, but I would hope that you would also read it as well.

This is not rocket science, it's only the law.

And it's not that complicated, and I think people can read this now and understand it.

Obviously don't expect anybody to take action tonight.

It would be premature to do so, but I would encourage you to take a look at this.

And it essentially says that Charlottesville can pass an ordinance prohibiting the possession of marijuana as the state statute, but providing that it be a class 4 misdemeanor, which would not allow a jail sentence to be imposed.

I've heard a lot of people talk about this question of whether or not drug usage should be decided by the police department.

I don't think so.

I don't think we elected the police department to make policy or law in our community.

And you know what?

I'm not sure the police department does either.

And let me quote from their 2011 annual report.

The community it serves determines the role of the police.

That's an accurate statement.

And so for the police department to come here and tell you in any respects, leave us alone, we should make the determination of what should be the policy, it's wrong.

and it's hypocritical of them to say that after having put this forward.

My name is Larry Chipman and I reside in Batesville, although actually I spend a tremendous amount of time in town.

You know, really this is not an issue of legalization.

The proposal is not about legalization.

It is about reprioritizing how we approach this issue.

And I think what Jeff has just presented you

actually will address that in some very specific ways.

So what I would suggest that you do is look at what he has offered, examine it, and perhaps

move on with regard to that in terms of an outline about how we might possibly re-prioritize how we approach this issue here in our community and that is well within your latitude as counselors within our community and well within the parameters of state law.

Larry Scott,

My name is Larry Scott.

I live at 1232 Holmes Avenue.

I'm here today to

To just express some interest in two or three different things.

Being a homeowner for myself, I'm a very proud Habitat homeowner, and I take very strong pride in being a homeowner.

If I was renting, I wouldn't be

I don't have that much pride, but having my own place, I mean, I'm very, very blessed and I have a lot of pride and honor in my place.

Two, I don't think that income should have a burn on what neighborhood you live in or how you be in school.

My daughter went to Clark, went to Berlin-Maran, and then she goes to Charlottesville Catholic, and she's been on the honor roll in each school.

Also I'm here to, I guess to represent the folks that's trying to get a home through Habitat and is at where I was at before and trying to get where I'm at now.

And I know the feeling and I know what they go through hoping that they're able to get this place and once they get it the feeling that they have by getting it.

You know, it's hard when you have an income and you're being judged by your income.

It hurts inside knowing that money dictates the type of person that people sometimes think you might be.

and if you go in my neighborhood today, I have one of the best homes in the school system.

My daughter's one of the smartest kids and of course you sound like I'm bragging on her, but it's the truth.

And I'm here for the folks too that want this dream to come true and it's almost impossible that they feel that it will happen because of that income.

and everything like that.

And I notice a lot of people feel the same way that I do about owning your own home.

I'm a better citizen in Charlottesville.

I walk around very proudly.

And when I speak on Habitat, I'm not talking about the staff.

I'm talking about you guys, you guys out here.

Because to me, Habitat is the whole community coming together for one common cause.

One thing, a home can make a change, not just for the families, but for the whole community.

And there's a lot of people out here too, I think, feel the same way I do.

And if you support this, I'd like for you to stand up.

And you know, this is a dream, I don't know how much time I got, but this was a dream that I tucked away a long, long time because I knew that it was impossible for me to have a home.

But thanks to Habitat for giving me this opportunity, not only do I, I'm a proud man, but I broke the system, I broke the cycle.

My mother rented, my grandmother rented,

Now my daughter know what it is to own something and to be proud of it, not to say, well, we have to rent and just be satisfied with that.

We're a very proud family because we have a home and we have a lot of good pride.

This is the end of the public comment period at this time.

Again, at the end of the meeting, there will be another opportunity for people to speak for three minutes each.

I have a very short comment.

I'll start.

I would like to thank Mr. Scott for coming here tonight and saying what you said, because I have heard people compare low-income housing with crime.

I've heard people compare Habitat housing with problems.

And I think that it's really important that we understand that people who are in, that we're talking about, and I assume that you're talking partly about the Elliott Avenue development,

that this is a place where people can own homes and can get a handle on really moving up that ladder.

Wherever they come from, they were good people too, so it's not just a matter of home ownership makes you a good person.

I think that it's a real, I find it very distressing that people have compared

Low income folks and folks looking for affordable housing and folks looking for habitat housing as problems.

Yes.

The issue about marijuana, we will be dealing with that later on tonight and I do want to thank everybody for coming out to speak on both sides of the issues.

That is what we're all about in this democracy and it's very nice to hear that kind of debate ringing in these council chambers.

So thank you for both sides to come out.

for coming out tonight.

And for Ms. Delahanty, I thank you for your comments about me.

The whole council was in favor of an information session.

I brought it to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.

And I do feel strongly that we need to have, again, as I just said, we need alternative view and having peer-reviewed science to back up the alternative view about chloramine in an information

such as that I think will be extremely fruitful for everyone to hear.

So I know that for various reasons we did not have probably the extensiveness of a public debate opportunity at the time when those first decisions were made, but now we will be doing that.

So again, thank you for your information and patience.

and again with regards to Mr. Scott, is he gone already?

I do appreciate his comments and I think at the same time we all understand the opportunities that can be brought about by ensuring a diversity of income levels

And the last thing about transportation, Mr. Long,

I cannot wait until council starts really discussing its priorities that it outlined in February and transportation is one of them.

It was music to my ears to hear you talk about transportation tonight.

And again, it's something that's very near and dear to all of our hearts.

We know that it's important.

It's important for the economy.

It's important for individuals to get to their jobs, to get to their doctor's appointments.

And it goes hand in glove with also our interest in bike-ped infrastructure improvements.

I actually don't have anything to add.

And thank you all for coming out.

Actually, the speakers to the marijuana resolution actually pretty well represent what we've been hearing, too.

Both sides, both well said.

We just wanted to honor everybody's, that your voice has been heard and we will be discussing it later on.

And I'm looking forward, I think our chloramine public discussion is in June.

We don't have a date yet though.

We don't have a date.

But do keep posted, it will be in June.

I have a few comments.

First of all, again, I want to thank everybody who have come here to speak and express their viewpoints.

And as I mentioned many times, this probably is my most favorite part of the city council meeting, when people have a chance to speak.

As to specific comments, I want to support Mr. Long's and his ideas of transit, and I will also look forward to a major overhaul, and I've been talking about this for four years.

I'm hoping that one of these days will come to be

I also second the comments of Ms. Galvin that we will have discussion of chloramine and I think before any decision is made we will look at the issues carefully before we decide.

Any other comments by any other members of the council?

Item A, minutes for April 16th and May 3rd.

Item B, an appropriation, Police Department special events overtime and miscellaneous revenue, $72,876, second of two readings.

Item C, appropriation, Albemarle County reimbursement, CATEC fire protection assessment, $900, first of one reading.

Item D, resolution 2211, hydraulic road SUP for laboratory and research testing, first of one reading.

Item E, Resolution, Fry's Springs Beach Club Sale, Property, first of one reading.

Item F, Resolution, Reallocation of Funds, Market Street Garage, Mallside Elevator Repair, $26,000, first of one reading.

Item G, Resolution, City Contribution for TomTom Founders Festival, Community Day at X Event, $5,000, first of one reading.

Item H, a resolution, definition of adult daycare zoning initiation, first of one reading.

Item I, the ordinance on sale of Elliott Avenue properties when pulled by Ms. Smith.

Will you please close the door if you don't mind?

We'll discuss these items when the end of the meeting.

Is there any other comments on the consent agenda?

We are moving those to the end of the meeting.

All those in favor, say aye.

OK. We have three public hearing items today.

We have one more nomination to make for city board.

Second.

All those in favor?

Thank you.

Our first public hearing is in home program.

Good evening.

The consolidated plan sets forth goals to support our community development needs over a five year period for low and moderate income individuals in the city and counties that make up the planning district.

The action plan, which is before you this evening, is a document that serves as the city's application for CDBG funding as well as the planning district's application for home funding.

On March 13th, the budget came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and the budget for CDBG was approved by council at the April 2nd meeting following an additional public hearing.

The home budget was removed from the April 2nd agenda due to the need to change project information and thereby address associated procedures.

That has been completed and the home budget is before you this evening as part of the request.

Both the Housing Advisory Committee as well as the Housing Directors Council have reviewed and commented on the document and we've had a 30-day public comment period that just ended and we've integrated comments as necessary into the action plan.

Staff recommends approval of the 2012-2013 action plan of the consolidated plan and also recommends approval of the home project and approval of the appropriation.

I actually do have one.

Yes, but can I ask you about either one of them?

Either one is fine, yes.

So I'm on item IX, item 9, the anti-poverty strategy of the plan itself.

Okay.

And that's on page 39 Thank you

And I don't really, it just, it gives a very little bit of what the anti-poverty strategy is.

And I would just ask that by next year that we flesh that out a little more and really talk about what we're doing as an anti-poverty strategy.

Because I have a feeling that that paragraph, the first paragraph has probably been there for a long time.

The second part is a little bit about section three.

So it's more of an extra thing.

And my question is, I guess, is that possible?

Yes, we'll actually be working on the consolidated plan next year, which is the larger document.

So that's a wonderful comment to note at this point.

Any other questions before we open public hearing?

If not, we'll open the public hearing.

Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this topic?

Good evening, I'm Nancy Carpenter and I live in the Scottsville Magister District of Albemarle County.

I really read this and I appreciate all the manpower hours it took to bring all this information together, but I do notice a central theme throughout this document talking about affordable housing.

affordable housing initiatives throughout all the consortium counties and the city of Charlottesville.

I really think that with our economy in transition, we really should, I urge you, and we really should promote, adopt, and enforce what I call a living wage policy as being a critical component

to local economic development as well as access to affordable housing in this county and in all the surrounding counties that this plan covers.

I don't understand what is so radical about the idea about a living wage.

I don't think the idea that workers should make enough from their labor to support themselves and their family as being that far off the charts

And sometimes I would like to see it taken a step further and say that any businesses that get benefit from public monies, which means my tax dollars and everybody's tax dollars here in this room, that they should be required to provide decent family supporting wages as part of the tax benefits that they get for coming into an area.

And it just seems like at every juncture of this report, the living wage is an unspoken component, a critical component in making these local initiatives successful in the next five years and also in the immediate upcoming fiscal year.

I think that everything that I have read on the subject of affordable housing seems to marry with the idea of a living wage as a way to uplift people into affordable housing.

I believe that it's time regionally really to incorporate a family sustaining wage and a living wage with housing initiatives and I think anything less

at this point in time is going to keep another generation impoverished and only give them limited options.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

I think everyone else would like to speak on this topic.

If not, I close the public hearing.

The county does not?

OK. All right.

Well, I'll chime in.

This was being my first year with this.

It was a lot to take in.

It's got a lot of information in it.

It was really great to

read about all of the different statistics, etc., etc.

What struck me was the way it's formatted would make a really easy way to have kind of an accountability

That will be a fun document that you will receive in a few months.

Great, great.

Thank you.

I was also really sort of impressed having seen a lot of these statistics here, there and everywhere.

It's really great to see them all in one place.

But I was noting that of the 17,000 households in Charlottesville, almost 10,000 are renters, and of those 3,500 are renters.

make below $15,000 a year.

I mean, it's such an incredibly high number.

But what really struck me too was that of those 3500 households making less than 15,000 a year, only 392 of them are in public housing.

I mean, that's a lot of other

Oh no, you're representing the information fairly, definitely, but it's census based and as we've probably talked about in the past many times, the census numbers take into account

Take into account the students differently than one would hope.

I know our better housing statistics are part of the housing report that the city has done.

This HUD report that goes forward unfortunately has to be done in a certain way, prescribed by HUD, and that's why you'll note that there's different sections that are repeated multiple times and there's things that are over and over and over kind of thing.

Anyway, and thank you, and it probably is an exaggerated number, but it's probably also shocking.

that there's so many people who are not, you know, sort of encapsulated in this, you know, in one place and I know from the schools, when I was on the school board, that it's really kind of easy to kind of

to think that you can go one place and capture the children in need when in fact the majority of the kids are really more diffused in the community.

And I think we need to remember that because we very often do, you know, go to public housing to offer programs and, you know, etcetera, etcetera.

and we just need to recognize that the problem is much more extensive problem being just reaching people who need our help.

I just wanted to make that point.

But it also I think speaks to when we're talking about affordable housing and talking about particularly in light of public housing that there is a lot of housing out there that people

who are making less than $15,000 are living in.

And I really appreciate the attention to bringing substandard housing up.

And what struck me too is that because it's regional, when we're talking about just fixing houses or making them energy efficient, there's other counties that are talking about bringing indoor plumbing into housing.

Are there other comments from other members of the council?

If not, is there a motion?

We need two motions.

I'll make a motion that we approve appropriation of funds for the home FY 2012-2013 of $95,182.

Is there a motion?

Second.

Actually, can I just make one other comment because I wanted to acknowledge Ms. Carpenter's comments and I absolutely agree with you.

This happens to be about housing, but living wage is a big part of the discussion as is utilities.

because there are a lot of different factors in our monthly bills that make it difficult to live in this community.

And we will be talking about utilities later, perhaps even next meeting, as the utility rates are brought up.

Are there other comments?

If not, let's vote in motion.

Mr. Mayor, it looks like the appropriation fund is just first reading.

Any comments or questions by members of the Council?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

Okay, thank you Ms. Chrisley.

Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council.

For our two new counselors who weren't here when we did this before, just a moment of background, 608 Ridge Street is a home that we acquired through a drug blight program several years ago and we rehabbed it to a energy efficient retrofit.

The upstairs is leased for three years to LEAP.

They're using it for their offices and to do programming in.

Their intent, our intent is at the end of that three years that the home will be put on the market for sale.

When we rehabbed it, we completely redid the basement and created a basement apartment and the intent there was to lease it to make a little income while we were keeping LEAP in the house.

We did it because it will make that either an affordable unit for somebody that the new homeowner wants to rent it to or

they can use it any way they see fit but it's been leased this past year, the first year to a visiting professor from China and he is gone and so it's available again.

It's a little unique and we want to be careful how we rent it because of the use upstairs, the fact that they share an electric meter and a water meter and so getting a tenant who also will put up with sometimes 15 to 20 people upstairs and the activity of LEAP is important.

Heather Higgins is

As we've identified as a tenant, she's willing to pay the rent.

We don't want to put anybody that wants the long term.

We want people that will be ready to go when we get ready to sell it.

And Ms. Higgins is in the process of getting ready to build a house, so a one year arrangement for her works perfectly.

And so we are here to recommend that we lease this to Heather Higgins and continue the $600 a month and do that for a signing year's lease.

Are there any questions for the staff before we go public hearing?

If not, we open the public hearing for this topic.

Anybody who wishes to speak from the audience?

Okay, I close the public hearing.

Any discussion?

If not, all those in support say aye.

a process that resulted from our moving forward to construct the Olensburg Road improvements.

One of the property owners that we approached about an easement along Olensburg Road raised the issue of this unopened street called Laurel Street.

It's a really interesting and confusing and unique situation.

Laurel Street, if you look at the map that's on the wall here,

Laurel Street I've outlined in red.

It's really not appropriate to call it Laurel Street.

It's a right-of-way that was planted.

Originally, it was planted down off the map, just below the map, and then there was an effort made or a plat that, or action by council actually, to close the old Laurel Street, and then it was replatted in this location.

The, Mr. Tolton, the owner on the bottom side of it, asked that as part of the settlement for the old Lynchburg right-of-way, that we close this and allow him

the right to use it.

The interesting thing is he probably has that right now.

This is a deeded but dedicated or, excuse me, platted but never accepted right away by the city.

And so, as our attorney's office has explained to me,

Mr. Tolton and the property on the other side own the property.

We have the right, if we ever wanted to accept it, we could use it as a street.

We have no need for it.

It's an awful location if you ever wanted to put a street in there from a site distance standpoint.

It does have gravel on it, actually on Mr. Tolton's side, and it has been used by people that live in the neighborhood to get access to Lynchburg Road.

Mr. Edwards, our city engineer, has talked to Mr. Tolton who he says has agreed to provide an easement to maintain that access in the future and so we think that's a very appropriate thing to keep an ability for people to walk through there.

So what you have before you tonight is an ordinance that would vacate, close this street and basically eliminate any city interest to

to the street.

And so we recommend it doesn't serve any public purpose, other than the occasional person using it for pedestrian access.

I have a question.

When you say, just looking at it, it looks like at this point it's open, a car can get through there, although there's often something blocking it.

We'll be back to you very soon.

So any questions from staff before public hearing?

If not, I'll open public hearing.

Anybody who would like to speak to this?

Good evening.

Jean Chase, 223 Old Lynchburg Road.

Hallelujah for closing.

Laurel Street, alias Laurel Road, alias the dirt road that runs from Old Lynchburg Road to Monte Vista.

It is something that has not brought forth any sense of safety.

either to foot traffic or vehicle traffic.

And when you even talk about bicycle traffic, I would caution anybody who takes their bicycle down that pathway out onto Old Lynchburg Road at the blind curve that has absolutely nil sight line.

So I would caution somebody relative to using that for that reason.

I understand why you're emphasizing bicycle paths and so forth, but the sight line is absolutely awful.

being on the Old Lynchburg Road project to finally get safety along there for our pedestrian traveling people with the sidewalk and with the drainage that we've needed since the early 1970s and this particular roadway has had in storms the debris being washed down through there onto Old Lynchburg Road into the drain path that has been horrendously

just a horrible thing to deal with and we've dealt with it for over 30 some years.

So thank you, thank you, thank you.

I hope you will close this and I hope that this will also help our project to move forward in such a way that we can say hallelujah to that one too.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this topic?

Scott Bandy.

I'd like to concur with Ms. Chase.

I just want to add a note.

Excellent point concerning drainage and I would like to note especially if that's

Thank you.

I guess to follow up on the detailing, and now we have the information too, and now looking, it is quite a hairpin turn there.

Absolutely, and there will be a bike lane through there and the new sidewalk.

Right.

I'm almost positive it is on that side.

I think the sidewalk is on this side in that location, I believe.

Right, they'll be on the sidewalk and hopefully they won't choose to run across right there.

They can get up to a safe place.

Any other questions and comments?

So moved.

Okay, we'll wait for the next meeting.

Thank you.

So, you're done with this item right now.

Item number five.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

You have before you a resolution and an alternative resolution pertaining to the use of marijuana and whether to ask the state government to revisit sentencing guidelines that result in jail time for personal use of marijuana to eliminate the presumption of the intent to distribute marijuana without evidence and to consider legislation that would decriminalize, legalize or regulate marijuana.

Proponents of the resolution believe that the time has come for careful consideration of these changes and they believe a significant amount of time, energy and money is used to arrest and prosecute marijuana users not only in the state but also here in Charlottesville.

And they believe that funding could be better used on other issues in our state and in our city.

We'll touch on those issues in just a moment with Chief Longo.

You've also heard from members of the public both in favor of and against this resolution, not only in these chambers over the course of the last month or so and this evening, but also via email.

You've received a lot of email from traffic over the course of the last week or so.

from folks who are both in favor and against these resolutions that you're considering before you this evening.

They've raised concerns.

Dr. Lillian Peek of the Health Department sent an email raising concerns about the effect of long-term marijuana use on children and adults.

Dave Chapman from the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office has raised those concerns as well with youth via email and in favor of the resolution you've heard from

Mr. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute who spoke in favor of the decriminalization aspect of this but then also deprioritization.

So as we mentioned before, one of the reasons cited for approving the resolution this evening is the effect that marijuana enforcement has on the police department.

There's an assumption

Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Mr. Brown, good evening.

Thank you again for the opportunity to shed some light from a law enforcement perspective on this issue that you have in front of me.

Let me say first and foremost, you've heard enough advocacy.

I'm not here to advocate a position.

I'm here to give you information to help you make a more informed decision and as Mr. Fogel pointed out, my job is to balance the rule of law with the need to perform a legitimate law enforcement function and in the midst of that balance is the community's expectation as to how we go about our work.

I'm not going to disagree that in many places in this country a lot of money is spent on the war on drugs.

But right now we're talking about one small piece of that and that's the possession of marijuana.

And I gave you some data that I think would more than suggest the fact that we don't expend a lot of time, energy, or resources on enforcement of that law.

Now whether or not that's a conscious decision is the reality of the data.

Our records management system is old, it's antiquated, and while it cannot tell you specific individual arrests, it can tell you how many charges are placed over a period of time.

And in 2011, as the documentation would suggest to you, 5,040 criminal charges were placed, only 113 of them were for possession of marijuana.

Just about to get to that.

Again, that antiquated records management system that will be replaced in the years to come, I hope, can't tell me that without looking at each individual case.

Experience would suggest to me that most of those are likely secondary charges, meaning

you're arrested for driving while under the influence or some other primary charge, we search you, incidental arrest, marijuana is discovered, and the marijuana charge is placed.

When possession of marijuana is the primary charge, typically it's enforced by citation, not custodial arrest, which means there's no time for the officer to be out of service, there's no time to spend at the complex visiting with the magistrate, they issue the citation much like they do a traffic citation,

and they're on their way.

And then the person comes to appear in general district court somewhere down the road and as Mr. Chapman would say if he were here, and I certainly can't speak for him, the vast majority of those cases don't see jail time.

There are other alternatives in this community that people are afforded drug court for example.

Tom Bonheimer and our Community Criminal Justice Planner is here to talk about some data to the extent you have questions.

Ross Carew from Offender Aid and Restoration is here to talk about their clients that have been exposed to these charges, the marijuana subpopulation.

So statistically, I don't think we have an argument here that it's taxing the resources of law enforcement.

There's one thing I will bring to your attention and I'll simply ask you to consider, and I won't only ask you to consider it as a police chief, I'll ask you to consider it as a parent of a 12 and 14 year old in our school divisions.

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America published a report that was released just last week.

It had some dramatic statistics about the increase in drug use, marijuana use specifically, among young people.

The preceding month before this study came out, the numbers went up over 80% over a three-year period.

And I want to read to you very briefly, and then I'll sit down and let others talk, what the president of the partnership had to say about the report.

These findings are deeply disturbing as the increases we're seeing in heavy regular marijuana use among high school students can spell real trouble for these teens later on.

Heavy use of marijuana, particularly beginning in adolescence, brings the risk of serious problems and our data show it is linked with alcohol and other drugs as well.

Kids who begin using drugs or alcohol as teenagers are more likely to struggle with substance use disorders when compared to those who start using after their teenage years.

Now, I'm not a subject matter expert in this area, but I am a parent.

and I am concerned that this data may in fact speak to the very things the president of the organization speaks to in his comments.

So I would ask you to consider that and to talk to others that are more skilled in that area than I am before you make a decision.

And so if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

As I said, Tom and Ross are here to talk about some of the data that's in the report as well.

Good evening.

I'm Tom Von Hammert.

I work for you.

I work as the criminal justice planner and I also work as the coordinator for CIT, Crisis Intervention Team.

I do have a quick question.

I called Region 10, the CSB, which provides the treatment for the drug court clients.

And what I listened to from Linda Hamilton, who's the outreach director for substance abuse and mental health, was saying that

The clients that are dealing with addictions are probably one of the high risk for re-offense but it's also one of the issues of what's called a-motivational as in that they would rather deal with other drugs and not dealing with the addiction of marijuana itself.

So it's easier sometimes for them to give up the use of other illegal substances or even alcohol but for the use of marijuana

I have a question.

I got some data from the jail, which is not at all official, and also dealing with how you track what people are charged with and what they're in jail for.

But they were looking at

people who had marijuana either possession or possession with an intent to distribute so larger quantities of possession as their primary charge and so presumably there's some likelihood that other charges were lesser charges which seemed to be one way of getting at it not so much a statistically significant way but a reasonable way to look at it.

Sure.

And you know in kind of a cursory looking over it found maybe 20, 21

folks in a year from Charlottesville who were actually in jail on these charges.

And one of the things that I found particularly disturbing was that of those folks who were in jail, they were four times as likely to be African American as white.

And so that really kind of makes me wonder how is it decided who goes to jail and how are we enforcing this when we talk about that it's already not a huge sender of people to jail,

It seems that when people are sent to jail, there's an incredible racial disparity, way more than the jail population itself.

No, you asked the right question and I agree with Mr. Fogel.

I think that a lot more research has to be done within the data systems and unfortunately we work with the antiquated system and we can't compare one system with the other systems in the criminal justice system and that's part of my work with evidence-based decision-making model is to take a look at those issues so we can answer those types of questions.

You know, is it a race issue or is it other complicated factors whether it could be poverty, it could be

Well this was all among the people who had marijuana as their primary charge.

So we have to take a look at the total numbers and how it's all combined together.

So you're right, but the information or the data to support that one way or the other is not there at this time.

The only thing I was going to add, and you are asking the right questions, and as I was alluding to with respect to our records management system, we're in the process of letting an RFP to identify, as the region that is, to identify someone to help craft an RFP to get a new system, and one of the things we're going to be looking to

is to, what are the questions we need to ask of that system?

For example, I want to be able to break out primary versus secondary charges.

I want to be able to know arrests, not specific, the number of arrests but not just specific charges.

I want to be able to look at race and gender and ethnicity and other factors as well when we pull out data and begin making decisions from that data.

Again, the right question is that we're not in a position to be able to answer it with any clarity based on the data that we have.

It's just as frustrating to us as it is to you and the rest of the community, particularly on such an important issue such as disproportionate minority representation.

Good evening.

I'm Ross Crewe.

I'm the assistant director at OAR.

and what typically happens in a possession of marijuana case, the client is given two different options when they go to court.

They're offered what's called a deferred judgment in which they have a six month suspension of their license, they have to come to our program, they have to go to ASAP for drug education.

When they come to our office, they're under supervision and they have to do urine screens.

So,

The other option is that they be found guilty of the offense and generally what happens is they're given a 30-day suspended sentence.

That's typically what happens.

Now when we looked at data in two different ways, we looked at it across the state with all of our sister agencies and found that the possession of marijuana caseload was approximately 20% of the statewide caseload.

We also did some recidivism work and we also did some risk assessment work in looking at the risk assessment

work, we determined that folks that have been convicted of or given that deferred judgment of possession of marijuana were second only to domestic violence in terms of risk for general recidivism.

We also looked at recidivism here in Charlotte for OAR and found that, excuse me,

We looked at our entire population and then we looked at three different subpopulations of ours, domestic violence, underage alcohol, and possession of marijuana.

We found that the possession of marijuana population had a reconviction rate after three years of 42% and a three year reconviction rate of substance abuse related offenses at 25%.

Are we talking about somebody who you find a joint?

I mean there's got to be a big spectrum here of

There's legal classifications based on how much you have.

If you have over X amount, I'm sure the chief can talk to you about what that X amount is, it can be graduated penalties.

Or charges, excuse me, felony versus misdemeanor.

And those misdemeanor offenses

They have those two choices of guilty or you have to go to drug court?

What will happen is they'll come to our program, OAR, for probation supervision for a six month period of time.

They'll also go to ASAP in which they'll have a drug education class.

Even for a tiny bit of marijuana?

Yes ma'am.

I have a question of Chief Longo.

In terms of just, maybe you have data, maybe you just have experience, and I trust both of them.

Certainly distribution of any drugs typically results in other criminal behaviors.

Sometimes that criminal behavior is violent.

Simple possession of marijuana, I don't know that I necessarily have enough data in which to determine whether there's a greater likelihood that that person would be involved in other types of crime.

Right and I think you told us this and maybe you could repeat it for since I can't remember and for the audience if that's 113

Without looking at each of those 113 cases specifically, it would be difficult for me to be able to make that determination.

Personally, I think this sort of speaks to one of the problems is that there is a big difference between just having a little recreational

Well, I think those thoughts would be relevant if in fact the discussion was about whether we're decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana, but that's not the discussion before us tonight.

Right, but I think at the same time, the reason it's come up is that people's lives are really seriously impacted

for a very small amount of a drug that a lot of people do imbibing every once in a while.

So I think that's really kind of where we're trying to get to, not people who are distributing, not people who are driving under the influence, and certainly not talking about children.

But I think that actually does speak to one of the issues, is that is the penalty

I'm certainly not trying to provide direction to counsel by the following comment, but it sounds to me like some information that you might need to look at and gather before making a decision is information regarding prosecution and sentencing so that you have a firm idea of just how many of these 113 people are actually

About 21.

That are simple possession charges because you have mentioned possession with intent to distribute and possession.

Yes, but not distribution.

Yes, ma'am.

Chief, a question for you.

As you know, there's two versions of the resolution that are before council tonight.

They're largely identical and I think both properly focus on the need to change state law and change state sentencing guidelines, etc., which is really, as you say, that's really where the attention should be.

But they do differ somewhat in terms of the kind of statement we make about local enforcement.

In one version,

essentially says that we believe it should be a low priority and so does the police department because they're not currently treating it as a terribly high priority.

I'm paraphrasing the language.

I don't think there's anything about the resolution that handcuffs law enforcement in doing our job and carrying out our lawful duties and responsibilities.

The message that is sent is really of what's most concern to me, and I spoke to that particularly with our young people.

I don't want to ever send the message that this is okay.

It's not that big of a deal.

It's just marijuana.

because I think that that has adverse consequences with respect to kids.

Having said that, and again, I don't know that the numbers are necessarily a conscious deprioritization of a possession of marijuana arrests.

It just happens to be our energy is focused on much more serious things, particularly violent crime in our community.

I have comments, but no questions.

So you have to wait till after the meeting, OK?

OK.

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Let's move to discussion.

Thank you.

Any comments from the city council members?

I don't have a whole lot to say, I guess.

I actually am.

Generally supportive of decriminalization not because I support use of marijuana or because I don't think it's addictive because I think in some people it's addictive and in some people it's not Just like alcohol some people can recreationally drink alcohol and some people can't And cigarettes as well although I can't imagine not becoming addicted to cigarettes but I think that

The decriminalization has more to do with regulation and with control than it does with saying it's OK.

But I do have a little concern about this resolution.

So the last paragraph of it I don't have any problem with, which is asking the state to revisit that at a state level.

My concern is that, absent decriminalization, we don't have control.

We don't have ways of sort of

Regulating and checking for quality and all of the things that you have when you have legalization.

And so I came in here today, and I'm still kind of here, a proponent or at least an advocate for decriminalization, but I'm not sure that the local level

resolution absent decriminalization really gets at what I want, which is a continued, you know, keeping people from using marijuana for the most part.

You know, I think that, you know, if people choose to get drunk on a weekend, that's their business, but I don't drink, and I don't really think it's a healthy thing to do.

I don't think that society should be saying, hey, you know, it's just alcohol.

It's just, you know, go ahead and drink, and then if you drive, well, yeah, you could kill somebody.

I just, I guess that I'm really torn on this because I think that I worry that with too much of the sort of like wink wink and we're not really going to enforce it, we end up with a possibility for more racial disparity.

I think we end up with people kind of who are in more public settings ending up caught more, probably students caught less.

And I hope you bear with me because this has been a cause of some heartburn and sleepless nights as well.

For the record, I am the mother of two sons, one who's 20, almost to be 21, and one who's 16.

So I'm very aware of what our children are seeing and facing day to day.

So I'm looking at what the charge is at hand, which is discussing this resolution about deprioritizing marijuana.

So when I look at that, I look at the resolution language, and I find quite honestly a lot of the claims misleading.

And I'm going to be going down point by point.

There's the whereas that Virginia made 19,000 related arrests in 2009 and that the taxpayers are burdened annually and that the cost of the resultant prosecutions, supervisions and incarcerations are a real burden and however we've just heard

Then in Charlottesville, only 2.2% of local charges in Charlottesville are related to marijuana possession.

So that's the 115 out of 5,000.

That's 2.2%.

So this is, in fact, in practice, subordinate to other criminal charges.

The possession of marijuana is typically then dealt with by an issuance of a Virginia uniform summons as opposed to a custodial arrest.

So again, it is not this burden that was projected in this resolution.

Secondly, the resolution talks about how scientific and medical studies have repeatedly found that any effect marijuana has on users and those around them is significantly more benign than alcohol.

It also says that adverse effects of marijuana are greatly overshadowed by the adverse effects of current Virginia marijuana laws and penalties.

So those are pretty big statements to make.

They haven't been substantiated.

And I look at what Dr.

Peek has offered us by way of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the science of drug abuse and addiction, and it talks about that there is definite evidence that links marijuana use and schizophrenia.

Again, I ask that there be respect shown in the chambers.

It has also been shown, this is from Dr. Lillian Peek.

She is our director of public health services.

It increases heart rate, 4.8 fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour of smoking.

It contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke.

That means that the lungs, when they're given to prolonged exposure, are more harmed by this use.

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke pot have more health problems and miss more days of work than non-smokers.

It relates to increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover.

We've also heard from Chief Longo that the evidence of decriminalization of legalizing marijuana may well have an impact on both mental and public health resources.

So again, from a mental public health resource, there are serious, serious concerns with this chemical.

It is a chemical being ingested that affects the mind.

and it affects young minds in particular.

From the criminal justice perspective, I looked at Jeff Gould, the drug court administrator.

The drug court clients and the National Association of Drug Courts is in opposition to decriminalization.

Chief Longo has already stated that the Charlottesville Police Department has done exactly what this resolution is requesting and by way of deprioritizing.

It uses its funds for other higher priority crimes in the city.

From our Commonwealth's Attorney, Dave Chapman, he cites the February 2006 report, the mental health risks of adolescent cannabis use.

It has adverse health effects on children.

And just recently there was an article in the Washington Post about the, I guess it's called fake pot, that is also an herb that is coated with THC that is legal in DC and it has increased, its use has been increasing among young people very rapidly.

and then again from studies cited by Dr.

Peek, the effect on the developing adolescent mind cannot be ignored.

So I do have to think very seriously that when our district health director and our commonwealth's attorney have clearly demonstrated via peer-reviewed studies that there are harmful mental and physical health effects of prolonged marijuana use on youth, this does directly refute several of the conditions laid out in the resolution.

Our Police Chief and our Commonwealth's Attorney have demonstrated that marijuana use is already receiving secondary emphasis as a law enforcement priority.

Again, this directly refutes a fundamental premise of this resolution.

So what's the purpose of this resolution?

Given that its fundamental premises seem flawed to me, its purpose can only be symbolic.

That means the council is being used as a bully pulpit to promote a particular message to the community.

And I can't help but ask, what is that message?

That marijuana use is benign and that our laws which are based on false premises should be ignored?

What does this say to our middle school and high schoolers?

That marijuana use is benign and that our laws which are based on false premises should be ignored?

What position will that put our police, teachers, principals, and yes, parents who are desperately trying to keep our youth motivated and focused on achievement so that they can find good careers and trades?

What does that say to their prospective employers?

So I honestly cannot think that this bully pulpit can be used to send such mixed messages to our children.

So what should the message be to our children?

Find out what you need to do as a career as an adult, what you love to do, develop your talents, learn, know the feeling of failure and success, go to college, become a skilled craftsman, run a business.

So what should the council's job be?

To facilitate those opportunities, to reduce that 18% unemployment between

ages 18 to 30 of our population.

When people feel that they have a reason for being and that they have a destiny, then there's no need to self-medicate.

There's no need to get involved with something that you're going to regret that you got involved with later on.

And again, the addiction rate among the 13, 14-year-olds, it's so much higher when the kids get involved with it.

And this message that we could potentially be sending with this resolution

is quite startling to me, to our youth.

I actually for many of the same reasons I do support the resolution because I believe, it's ironic that we hear a lot of statistics about all these people using marijuana when it's illegal.

It's sort of found on every corner, on every street corner.

It's in the black market.

If it actually were legal and it was regulated

Then we would have much more control.

You could argue at least we would have much more control about where, you know, how kids would have access to it.

At this point, we don't.

We have no control because it's on the black market.

I have sympathies with what Ms. Roberts said, but that's because it's illegal.

that you've got people going in and out of the house.

If it was legal, you wouldn't see that with the distribution of marijuana.

I do believe that it's largely because it's legal that we're having a lot of these problems.

Not that we won't not have them, because we do with alcohol and we do with tobacco.

Those are also both addictive

drugs, if you will.

It's not that you get rid of all your problems, but you just have so much more control over how they're distributed.

And so I think the resolution doesn't, obviously we don't have the power to decriminalize marijuana, but I think it does send the message actually in support of those who can

work to decriminalize marijuana that we along with quite frankly the majority of Americans feel this is its time.

We have lost this war on drugs.

We've lost it.

And the longer we continue to pretend that we can

fight it while it's illegal.

The more money, the more deaths, the more worldwide because every time somebody smokes that stuff, they're supporting the illegal marketing and black market in this drug.

I wanted to read a quote.

Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately, that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem and that the war on drugs has not and cannot be won.

Instead of punishing users who do no harm to others, governments should end criminalization of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organized crime syndicates, and offer health and treatment services for drug users in need.

We need drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime, lead to better health, and promote economic and social development.

Now, people have said, you know,

Some of the opponents of this resolution have tried to malign it by dragging some individuals past history through the mud as a way of discrediting this message.

But let me tell you who issued that quote that I just read.

It was former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, who served Ronald Reagan in the White House, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the former presidents of Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia,

United Kingdom business mogul Richard Branson and the current Prime Minister of Greece.

All right, this isn't a bunch of potheads sitting around a table coming up with some radical language.

This was a 19-member commission.

It was called the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which I think pointed out what a lot of which, you know, pointed out our

communicated a perspective which now it seems the majority of Americans support, which is that we have been headed the wrong direction when it comes to drug policy.

And actually treating it the way that we do is actually making the problem worse.

And I don't think any of us up here are champions for marijuana.

Let me just say that.

I've never once partaken and I never intend to partake in it.

Let me tell you a little story.

A number of years ago, my uncle was dying of cancer.

His body was riddled with tumors.

And in his last weeks, he could not find comfort from any of the medications that he had available to him.

And he asked my grandmother, his mother, if she could find somebody that could get him some marijuana to help him deal with the pain that he was

She was a little worried, obviously, about trying to score some dope for her dying son, because she didn't want to end up going to jail.

But she did it for him, and thank God that he did have access to one drug in the last days of his life that did help him relieve his pain.

and I'm just wondering how many folks in this room, I mean what do you think the appropriate punishment should have been particularly for those who feel like we're on the right track in terms of how we deal with drugs?

What would be the appropriate punishment for my grandmother and my uncle?

I mean should they have...

I mean, is that a 10-year, it's a rhetorical question, is it a 10-year jail sentence, is it a 5-year, is it a, I mean what's the appropriate punishment?

Alright, maybe I shouldn't have voted.

My point is, is that, in my opinion, the appropriate punishment was no punishment.

and yet the society that we're in right now, even though 80% of Americans think that marijuana should be legalized for medicinal purposes and now 50% believe it should be legalized in general, we still treat it as an offense which can ruin people's lives.

And I think one of the speakers earlier made a very important distinction and I think it was the woman in green and I'm blanking on your name right now,

when you said that we have to distinguish between dangerous drugs and non-dangerous drugs.

The fact is that marijuana, again, I don't encourage people to use it, but the fact is that it's a much less dangerous drug than alcohol.

And in my opinion, sometimes we have to take sort of the 30,000-foot view and think just objectively, just think objectively.

You know, if we had the opportunity

to start from scratch and come up with a drug policy that was consistent and that really did achieve the objective of regulating the dangerous drugs or outlawing the dangerous drugs and regulating the less dangerous drugs.

I think we'd come up with a much more sensible policy when it comes to marijuana.

This resolution, either versions of this resolution, do not make marijuana legal in the city of Charlottesville.

And I want to be very clear about that.

And we're not being asked to make marijuana legal in the city of Charlottesville.

We're being asked to make a statement about

whether or not arresting people or prosecuting people or persecuting people for small-scale personal use of marijuana should be a priority and it's clearly not a priority as it is now and I have no problem with us going on record as in support of that notion that there are much higher priorities.

Just last week

President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama said these words.

I can't nullify congressional law.

I can't ask, and this has to do with medicinal marijuana, I can't ask the Justice Department to say, ignore completely a federal law that's on the books.

What I can say is, use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.

As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.

That's essentially what this resolution is asking us to do.

It's the very same notion that to use, to properly prioritize our resources

I think the focus really needs to be, our primary focus needs to be on changing the law.

But in the meantime, I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to say as an elected body that there are higher priorities and that we're on the wrong direction when it comes to the war on drugs.

We are considering tonight, as Councilman Norris said, we may want to enforce some priority in whether it is legal or not illegal.

This resolution deals with priority issue for our police department.

You received a great deal of information in the last few weeks.

Many experts on both sides, and I appreciate that information.

I have read everything I have gotten so far.

I would focus on at least three experts on this issue, which are local experts, which is the police department, commonwealth's attorney, and our health department.

I think you already heard what Chief Longo has said, that those charged with possession of marijuana are at medium to high risk for re-offending, are at high risk for being convicted of other charges, have a lower probation success rate.

That is his viewpoint.

The Commonwealth Attorney also has said, especially for youths,

marijuana in early years can result in substance addiction, life problems, as well as criminal behaviors.

Our health department, as Kathy just mentioned, pointed out that long-term use can result in addiction, especially for youths.

It is associated with anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia.

High doses can produce acute psychosis.

Marijuana smoke contains carcinogenics 50 to 70% more than tobacco.

It has increased heart rate and heart attack problems.

These are three viewpoints, at least local viewpoints, which I think one ought not to ignore.

More importantly, what kind of message are you trying to send to our citizens, to our children?

Not just the fact that marijuana is harmful, but also is it the fact that your time is conveyed to them?

Is it okay to smoke marijuana?

Is that the message you're trying to convey by this kind of resolution?

It seems to me that's what you're implying.

Are you trying to say enforce and follow only the laws which you like and disregard others?

That's what you're trying to say in my mind.

I think it is a passing of the resolution showing our priority will detract from the community health, safety and welfare of our citizens.

I would like to say that I feel like we have three counselors who support the final paragraph of this asking the state

General Assembly and Governor to revisit the Sentencing Guidelines that merit jail terms for simple possession, do away with rules that support post to intent to distribute without evidence, and give due consideration of sponsored state bills that would decriminalize, legalize, or regulate marijuana like alcohol.

And I would be comfortable with a resolution that was that.

I'm also intrigued by Mr. Fogel's proposal.

I don't think that it's something we've had given any due diligence to and could vote on tonight, but would think that that might be something that I would want to at least look at.

I've just kind of glanced through it to see if that's something that I would be more comfortable with.

But I really do feel that in the absence of

Decriminalization, especially the whereases I have a problem with.

But even the first paragraph of the, now therefore let it be resolved, that as long as it does continue to be illegal and the only way to get it is from drug dealers and there is no control or way of regulating its quality or

Any of the things that we would have if we did have decriminalization.

I'd just like to read a paragraph, maybe two, from a letter we got today from someone.

I thought it was such a good letter, and I'm going to start in the middle, but she writes, as a single mother and a business owner who has worked in the field of education for over 35 years, I fully support this resolution when it comes to the message that

When it comes to the message that passing this resolution could send our children, I think it is more important to focus on what are we teaching our children by continuing to participate in a failed war against drugs because the statistics show that we are also failing to keep them off drugs.

It is important to impart to our youth there are many times in life when maturity and a sense of responsibility should be acquired before engaging in certain activities, driving,

voting, serving in the military, and the use of alcohol and tobacco are just a few examples.

And she goes on to talk about truthful conversations with our children so that they can make the best possible choices for their futures.

And, you know, I think it's a really good point, it goes on, it's a lovely piece, really about

I found that letter also very compelling.

Is there a motion on the floor?

Well, I would support a motion that we just do the final paragraph.

Do you need whereases for a resolution?

I don't think you do.

If we feel that decriminalization is something that we can agree is something that we would like the General Assembly to support or to revisit, that part I feel very comfortable with.

We tried it once.

And I think that the people who wanted it to be made illegal were concerned about the fact that people were drinking and abandoning their children, people were drinking and getting involved in fights, that it was very bad for them.

And it's true.

It is.

So I appreciate your willingness to support that last paragraph because I think at the end of the day that's really the most important, practically speaking, the most important piece of the resolution.

I do want to put in one more plug.

If nothing else, at least to honor and recognize the fact that, I mean, recognize and honor what we've already heard from our police department, which is it's

You know, enforcement of the marijuana laws is actually not currently a high priority for the Charlottesville Police Department.

And, you know, there was some alternative language suggested as a second part of the resolution that essentially just says we support the current policy.

You don't want all those whereases.

Because I agree with Council Galvin.

Some of the whereases are problematic.

And I think that you don't really need these particular whereases to support that final paragraph.

May I ask a question of Mr.

Von Hamer?

Do you mind if...

Since this is becoming a situation, and we've talked about this before with regards to the legislative liaison with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and how David Blount in that capacity serves as the person that would look at this, gather information from the members of the Commission region, and they form their issues.

It's just a package, a legislative package, a request to look into.

It's not a resolution that is projecting a symbolic message.

It is just a package to look into more research about this issue or that issue.

Can I just ask for clarification that most of that legislative packet is made up from resolutions that we do.

Well, maybe, but it's interesting, that's not how it's been presented to me, so that's news to me, so that's interesting.

Because then, if this was simply a question of doing research where we did look at the implications of mental health and the implications upon youth behaviors, where we did look seriously at other communities and countries,

including other states that are now backpedaling on a lot of their legislation, amending their decriminalization laws.

If we could do research that looked seriously at all of the ramifications

The City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, you're one of seven national sites that received an award for being your criminal justice system based on evidence.

And we're the only locality east of the Mississippi that received that award.

The reason why we got that award was based on doing the work on all perspectives, both from the criminal justice system, from the mental health systems, from substance abuse.

And when you're talking about marijuana, there's a whole component of that that you're looking at.

I mean, you can look at municipal use.

Absolutely support that.

My wife works as a hospice social worker and so I understand the need for pain medication for that and that's an absolute priority that's needed in that factor.

There's also the factors that you're dealing with the drug awards.

on a national basis which we're not talking about in this resolution.

So, yes, you know, my suggestion would be to take, follow up with your history that you've done whether when you developed a drug court or when you developed a CIT project that you took

almost a year on either one of those on just doing the research and the evidence before you made that decision.

So I would follow that same guideline that has gotten you that national status already of doing the research from looking on how it affects

from all different perspectives because whether you're talking about municipal use which has a completely different THC level compared to what might be out on the street compared to somebody that grows it for their own use, those are completely different animals in the system.

So you're absolutely right.

There's a tremendous amount of research that needs to be done when you're looking at that, whether you're looking at a global level or looking at just what's happening here in Charlottesville.

And you can add all those different perspectives, whether it's the racial issues or the issues that you brought up about

One of the things that I appreciated about the language of this last paragraph is that it doesn't say that we demand that the Virginia General Assembly and the Governor of Virginia decriminalize marijuana.

It says that we ask that they revisit sentencing guidelines, do it with rules that suppose intent without evidence, give due consideration to sponsored state bills that would decriminalize legal and regulate.

Well, at a state level.

But I'm not sure that we need to do all of that research before we ask the state to do that research.

I'd second that.

I would just like to point out that you actually made a very good point, which is where I think regulation would be really critically important, and that is that we're not, this marijuana over here isn't the same as this marijuana over here, it isn't the same as this marijuana over here in terms of THC, and that is where legalization would be.

I would still want to insist that we qualify that

and make it absolutely clear that we are not condoning, sanctioning, telegraphing in any way that marijuana use is not harmless.

And I cannot even make this statement or agree to this statement without some qualifier.

And at the same time, I'm beginning to feel like this isn't

a local ordinance.

We are spending a lot of time talking about state and federal law.

If this is something that the state would already be looking at researching, we would benefit from and contribute to fine, as long as it's not additional staff time on our part.

This is not something we should be spending local time doing.

I'm not in a position where I can even say that we would do away with rules of any kind.

I'm in agreement, and I've always been, the very first statement when this issue came up would be to look at the sentencing guidelines for jail terms, for simple possession.

Yeah, we need more time on that.

But what instead we've been getting is this

What quite frankly feels like a polemic to me.

That does exactly what you said a few minutes ago you didn't want to do, which is this restate existing policy.

Would you vote against it no matter what?

I need more time to look at Mr. Fogel's.

I am concerned about the way we do our sentencing and jail time.

Yes, but this has gotten all too wrapped up with

Okay.

Yes.

Any more discussion or motion?

Motion passes.

OK. We have two other items left from the consent agenda.

We would like to discuss those.

We appreciate all of you who have come to speak on this issue and have interest in it.

We have two more items.

First is a resolution, item number G, city contribution to Tom Tom founders, festival community care day, an exit for $5,000 for screening.

At the last council meeting, I believe it was you, Ms. Smith, that answered the question whether there was any problem with the proposed recipient being an LLC, and I answered there wasn't.

And there's not.

I mean, there are plenty of LLCs that are eligible to receive money from the city.

The crucial distinction is between for-profit and nonprofit charitable uses.

There's statutory authority to make donations to charitable nonprofit entities.

and we had this discussion I think at a work session about the female perspective back during the budget discussions.

You don't have to be a 501c3 organization under the IRS regulations, but that's usually a pretty good indicia that you are in fact charitable within the meaning of this particular statute that authorizes this type of contributions.

The Tom Foundation or Festival, I don't recall the exact name, is not a nonprofit charitable organization.

I don't think there is any enabling legislation that lets you give them

funds, and I'm sorry we didn't catch that last time.

It's my understanding, and I have not been intimately involved in this, but it's my understanding that the recipient of the resolution is hiring the TomTom Festival or Foundation to put on one or more of these events, and they are a five

So what is the relationship between Dream Field Foundation and the Tom Tom Founders Festival such that legitimizes us giving, passing the money through them?

I think Dream Field was the beneficiary of funds at the McGuffey April 13th event.

They got the proceeds from the beer sales and they are charitable.

I think they have some local connections and I've wondered if they

I don't know.

Just for this, and were they hired at the point that we couldn't give $5,000 to the Tom Pop- you know, the whole thing just seems pretty underhanded to me, that it's a way for the city council to give taxpayer dollars to a for-profit corporation by going, you know,

you know, just like passing through a 501c3.

It just doesn't smell right to me.

I guess to me, looking at this, what this particular money is being used for and what a 501c3 is for, is for

educational purposes and kind of community engagement and the things that this is funding are not for-profit activities for TomTom.

They're not part of their for-profit piece of what they're doing.

When I've looked at

What we're being asked to fund as a discrete piece, it seems very appropriate for nonprofit funding.

It doesn't feel sneaky to me because this is a community, something they're giving back to the community.

It's just that this is a festival that has set up a

has given money to this same foundation.

Tom Tom passed money to Dream Field and now we're going to give Dream Field to pass money to Tom Tom.

It just doesn't seem legitimate to me.

I'm sorry, and I would worry a little bit about the legality of it.

I'm sorry, I would.

Perhaps that's because I don't understand what their arrangement is, but I know what their arrangement was before and

Why weren't we asked to give to Dream Field in the first place?

Dream Field has not been mentioned on the website in terms of this day.

So I just question whether this wasn't, again, a mechanism to pass money to a for-profit.

And I don't think that's what our fiscal responsibility to taxpayers I take very seriously.

I just think this is... On their website, the Dream Field Foundation is listed as one of their key partners.

Dream Field is our non-profit partner and is presenting TomTom's community days and concerts.

It's just the role reversal here of Dream Field then giving money to the TomTom Festival that I'm questioning.

Well, if it would help, again, your ability to make donations, which is what this is, you're not purchasing a service, but you're making a donation, is limited to non-profit charitable organizations.

And it's not any non-profit charitable organization.

The statute lists the different types of functions or endeavors you can fund.

This, and I'll read, is what I thought was the closest from the statute to what would authorize this payment.

It authorized gifts or donations of property, real or personal or money, to any nonprofit association or organization furnishing services to beautify and maintain communities and or to prevent neighborhood deterioration.

That's not really even the question I had as to whether I think we probably perfectly

allowable to give it to Dreamfield, but is that really who we're giving it to?

I'm wondering, you know, the city will often market city programs or services by paying money to advertise, you know, whether this might be, maybe we should approach this in that regard in terms of this is a

We're paying money or sponsoring an event much as we would sponsor some other activity where there isn't a requirement of a 501c3.

There are two different situations there where the city expends funds itself to promote something and on the one hand and the other

the city handing over a check or money to an organization that's carrying on some function.

And we have already contributed to this through the visitor's bureau.

That wasn't our money.

We didn't give the money to the visitor's bureau that went to this.

And I'll point out the visitor's bureau is not under the same restrictions that the city is.

Is there a motion on the floor?

Is there a motion?

Yes, somebody needs to do that.

I so move.

Okay.

The second is a resolution.

Motion.

I'll second.

Okay, so can I back up?

I thought this was a point of clarification.

The prior resolution that you adopted authorized the payment to a for-profit entity and you cannot do that in my opinion.

And I just want for the record to say that I'm not agreeing with giving the money to TomTom, not because I believe that there's any deceit or fraud going on.

I do believe we still need, as a council, a process to determine how we distribute our discretionary funds.

That is why I'm not voting for this.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

I'll vote on the motion.

Okay, motion passes.

And again, I guess it was my doing to take this off the consent agenda because I do think we need to talk about some misinformation that we, or possibly, maybe not, but information about whether this land is part of Oakwood Cemetery.

I asked that question last meeting and was told that it certainly didn't appear to be, but we've gotten information since then that I find pretty clearly that it was bought to expand Oakwood Cemetery.

I think that's an important distinction.

Maurice, you've already got one of these, huh?

Craig, we need one of you.

The first thing that's before you is a map that just shows the tax parcels that are part of this discussion.

And the references to Debut 118-191 and Debut 198-161 are the parcels that we're talking about here.

One of those, if you turn to the next page, there's a deed from 1944.

That deed is what purchased, I think my map I have on the wall behind you may help you see this.

That's what was purchased in 1944.

It's property that now is split by Elliot Avenue.

When it was purchased, I'm not sure if Elliot was there or not at the time, but the

In 1937 when the plat was made, it was not there.

The deed to this was 1944.

That is 118-191, yes.

If you look at the map on the very first page here, you can see the development, the subdivisions on the south side of Elliott.

That property has now been divided up and is, a later map in here will show you how that was done.

But the first deed is 1944.

If you turn about three pages, you go to the 1957 deed.

I think that these were clearly, as you've been told, they were bought.

City Council said they were, and what was really interesting, it was property at Oakwood Cemetery.

I think the inference is very clear that there was bought with maybe some thought to expanding Oakwood Cemetery, but it doesn't specifically say that.

There's a newspaper article that does, but it doesn't say it.

The deeds do not mention the cemetery at all.

Can I ask a question?

So the 1944

Part of that is used for Oakwood Cemetery, right?

Am I right?

No.

Neither the 44 or 57 are used for cemetery at this point.

They are on the west side of the road that runs through there between the cemetery.

But neither one of them are, neither one of the deeds reference cemetery.

So there's no restriction.

They actually both say that they're not encumbered in any way.

The parcels, the purchase prices were $1,100 for each of them.

Roughly, I don't have the exact amounts here.

But I did go and visit with our assessor's office and say, can you go back in time and see if that was a market value for the properties at that time.

And what they indicated was

on the best records that they have, they would believe that that was a market value.

The oldest record they have is a 70, early 70s valuation and it's $2400 for the six-acre parcel.

Right, right.

So it looks to have been an arm's length type of transaction at that time paying market value.

The next drawing you have in here, if you look at the top of it, it says book 776 page 777 is the one that's got some subdivision of it.

This is the property that's part of the 1944 parcel on the south side of Elliott, but this just is an indication, this is a 1999 platte when that property was subdivided that part of it was attached to what is now Burnett Commons and part of it was

No, the Burnett Woods, Burnett Commons, a portion was on the Burnett Nursery property, which we did not own.

Roughly the driveway entrance and four of the lots ended up becoming part of Burnett, or our property, part of Burnett Commons, yes.

That's 1999.

The next maps you have are a series of maps taken out of various city plans.

The first one is a 1985 land use, future land use map.

and it shows that the boundaries don't exactly follow and again it's very difficult to tell because in that day and age when we did land use plans we didn't use property lines to draw lines, they were approximated.

It appears that it sort of follows the lines of this property but it's not exact and along with the lines of the Oakwood Cemetery property

So it's, because I looked at this map and I had a really hard time figuring out what it was referring to.

So you're saying that the light blue area

That is correct.

It does not specifically say it's used for the cemetery.

The next one is the 1995 map.

which has a little different configuration but again as we've gotten into in several legal discussions down through the years these lines don't follow property lines either it shows public or semi-public and again that doesn't have a doesn't mean it was a cemetery if you look at the definition of public or semi-public it could be any land that the city had so it was designated in the future land use plan that way but it was designated as public or semi-public

1996-98.

This one shows that these are shown as R3 multifamily.

Now that's, again, that's the cemetery and the adjacent property, but they were programmed as multifamily zoning at the time.

One of the reasons for that, and I'll get to it in a minute, is we don't have any zoning designation that has

Institutional or public.

We just had most of our properties that are publicly owned are included in an R1, R2, R3 designation.

Skipping to the next drawing is the 2001 land use document, the 2025 plan.

And here we see a clear separation of these properties where the pieces that were purchased in 44 and 57 are shown as multi-family in the future land use plan

and the Oakwood properties are shown as public and semi-public.

So at some point in time there was a thought process in the land use plan to change the mapping of them from something that was public, semi-public to a multi-family.

I'm trying to move through my notes here.

Some other things that we've found is that

These properties, and we can't pin down when, but at some point the city started landfilling on both the north and the south side.

employees in both Parks and Public Works who've been here over 30 years said it was during you know when they came here they were being one of them said it was being used one of them thought that they started about the time he got here but no matter what it's been 20 to 30 years that we've been landfilling on both of those of those properties we've again we've not found and the question that was mentioned right before I started we've not found any evidence of

We don't know who made that, but what I'm saying is there's not been a plating or something to lay out a cemetery development there.

Again, I don't dispute the fact that Council's intention may have been in 1944 to buy this for cemetery use.

I don't dispute that.

I'm not sure that's a name.

But I don't dispute the fact that council may have bought that, may have intended that at the time when they bought it.

But it's one of these same meetings, if you recall, they also banned parking on the north side of West Main Street.

So things changed through the years and I think that's what we found is that there was a change in thought if there ever had been the thought there.

Again, the landfilling process started.

Somebody made a conscious decision to put landfill materials.

We also found that in 2001 there was a discussion by Planning Commission who was looking at an overlay district for all cemeteries and specifically discussed Oakwood and this property and said to exclude this property from that overlay if it had been done.

They didn't follow through and do that but they did discuss that opportunity and said that they didn't feel it was appropriate for this site.

That was also during the time we see the land use plan that calls for this to be multi-family.

In 2009, staff came to the council and said we'd had some interest in development, did you want to pursue it?

We discussed the issue of do we need cemetery land, did we want cemetery land at the time?

also the option was looked at as this land maybe for additional soccer fields and council said no let's move forward with development at the time.

One of the issues is that even if we wanted to use a site for a cemetery we would be faced with the same sorts of development called site cost that a developer is going to so we know those or believe those in excess of half a million dollars to a million and maybe even higher that both of the proposers talked about when they submitted

and the same work would have to be done to get the site ready if it were to be used as a cemetery.