City Council Meeting   6/4/2012

I want to start this evening with a very special recognition of a delegation visiting us from Afghanistan.

If they are in the audience, would you please stand?

Thank you for coming.

And they'll be with us for at least about an hour or so.

We have a fair number of announcements today, and some happy announcements, and I want to, as long as I can locate them, I'll be happy to read them.

First is Virginia Business Appreciation Week Recognition.

Good evening Mr. Mayor, Members of Council.

Today marks the first day of Virginia Business Appreciation Week.

This is an event that happens annually.

And this year, Mayor McDonald declared this the year of the entrepreneur.

So I thought it would be appropriate for us to have a few of our local entrepreneurs present today to help receive and be recognized as part of a business appreciation week.

So tonight we have Rob Mosry with Cardigan, which is a local

online mobile loyalty customer service program, which if you're not familiar with, you should learn more about it.

Rob launched his company here, he started his company here, and he's growing it here, and I thought he was a good representative to help receive this recognition.

Also tonight we have Nikki Hastings with Hemoshir.

Hemoshir is one of our life science companies that is

growing so rapidly.

They're starting to feel the pain of growing rapidly.

They're a second stage company that's really doing some unique things locally.

So I thought she would be a good representative.

And is Bayon Johnson here?

Bayon.

There you are.

Bayon is a new entrepreneur, started a business last year called Amazing Cleaning Services.

And he recently became a

a vendor with the city and is now going through the SWAM certification process to become SWAM certified.

Very good.

It is the same proclamation for all three, since I will read one time.

whereas the overall quality of life in Charlottesville community is directly and substantially related to continued vitality and success of private enterprise.

Whereas the number of businesses in the city of Charlottesville is a number of 3,600, together employing 36,000 people, preserving estimated total payroll of more than 1.2 billion a year.

who has well-bound these direct employment payrolls, these shorts of business generates

even more economic benefit, such as allied business purchasing, contracting, local tax revenues, charitable contributions, and educational enhancement for which the entire Cincinnati of Charlottesville community benefits.

It will therefore be resolved that I, Sir Tennyson Huja, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, hereby proclaim June 4-8,

Business Appreciation Week and join others in recognizing and expressing our deep appreciation to our city businesses and acknowledging their efforts towards achieving economic success silently on date 4th of June.

May I present this to three gentlemen if they'll come forward one at a time.

First of all, I want to thank these businesses and the diversity of businesses that have been organized.

Let me say something about our community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Happy Award, and I think credit goes to our Transit Department.

It relates to an award related to transit.

Outstanding Public Transportation Marketing Award, presented to CAT, Charlotte Saleria Transit.

And this is a very distinguished award, and we're really pleased to have this, and the credit goes to our staff, who I would like to present it to.

Is there somebody here to receive that?

Please come forward.

Congratulations and please give yourselves a round of applause.

While we are on business appreciation efforts, next I'd like to recognize National Flag Week.

It also goes along with celebration of downtown law at Wallace Pavilion, which is scheduled for

I'm trying to find the date.

June 14, Thursday June 14th at 6.30 at the Pavilion.

There will be a keynote speaker, Brigadier General Thomas Ayers, and a performance rehearsal band.

I hope you all take part in that and enjoy the music.

And if our Afghan ministers are here, they can come and join also.

Now let me read the proclamation.

whereas on June 14, 2012, Charlottesville observed the 235th anniversary birthday of the flag of the United States of America.

It has a rich history whereas the Continental Congress adopted the Star Stripe as the official flag of the Republic on June 14, 1777.

describing the flag, the Congress wrote, white signifies purity and innocence, red, hardiness and wear, blue signifies vigilance, perseverance and justice.

Those are the flag colors that you see here.

Whereas the flag day is first celebrated throughout the country in 1877.

who is to commemorate the adoption of our flag, the Congress, by joint resolution on August 3, 1941 to the June 14th of each year at the flag day.

The National Observers chosen all were there.

Whereas on June 14th, this year, as I mentioned earlier, then on flag day there will be a free concert by Westwood Bay and Charlottesville Pavilion.

Now, therefore, I sit here and say, which is the name of city of Charlottesville,

to hereby proclaim June 14, 2012 as Flag Day of the Week building to intense 2012 National Flag Week.

And here I direct the city of Charlottesville to display the flag of the United States in front of city hall during the week.

I also call upon the people of city of Charlottesville to observe National Flag Week at a time to honor America and celebrate our heritage in public gathering and activities.

I am witness thereof in honor of the flag and its profound meaning in the year of 250th celebration of Charlottesville.

I have therefore set my hand forth on this flag day.

Is somebody here to see the proclamation?

I'll address you while you're returning, but mayor, city councilors, city staff, thank you so much for taking the time out to recognize Flag Day as a national event and a local event.

And I just want to make sure that everyone understands that this is an event everyone is welcome to attend and we hope everyone will.

It's an event that will recognize the efforts of our armed forces, our other people in uniform, and their spouses and families.

And we're looking forward to a great event followed by the municipal band concert.

And as I am wont to do occasionally, we serve cake.

It is after all the flag's birthday.

I think you should.

Mr. Stroh, could you introduce our representative here, Sergeant Lambert?

Sergeant Richard Lambert from the U.S. Army is actually the other side of this from the business community, the public community.

I have one or two more but I'll ask other council people to know.

Oh, okay.

So I have an announcement about summer cooling assistance program.

Charlottesville, Virginia, beginning on June 15, City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Social Services are accepting applications for the cooling assistance program beginning June 15 through August 15.

Assistance will be provided to eligible households that meet income guidelines and have a vulnerable person in the home.

A vulnerable person would be someone who is over the age of 60, permanently disabled, or has a child under the age of 6 living in the home.

Applications are accepted online at commonhelp.virginia.gov and at your local social services department.

And in Charlottesville, that's 127th Street Northeast, and in the county, it's 1600 5th Street, Suite A.

I have another announcement.

I mentioned it last meeting, but a little bit more details have developed over time.

On June 21st, there will be an education information session on chloramines, and that will be held in the Albemarle County office building auditorium from 6 o'clock to 8 o'clock.

Questions will be taken directly from the floor.

That is a change, so people will be able to ask their questions directly from the floor.

The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has invited and had confirmed that Dr. Dwight Flamiya, a toxicologist for the Virginia Department of Health, will be in attendance, Dr. Mark Edwards, a civil engineering professor from Virginia Tech,

Ms. Susan Pickford from the Chloramine Information Center has been invited and accepted.

Mr. Robert Bocock from Integrated Resource Management Incorporated has been invited, but we have not heard yet whether or not he is accepted.

Dr. Ben Stanford from Hazen & Sawyer.

Mr. Jim Moore from the Virginia Department of Health, the Lexington Field Office, Mr. Steve Vaya from the American Water Works Association, Mr. Jerry Higgins, the Superintendent Manager with Blacksburg-Christiansburg PPI Water Authority.

May I ask a question?

Who's going to be responsible for the press releases and being sure that everybody knows?

First of all, I'd like to, on behalf of the city and city council, celebrate with the children of our community that Thursday is the last day of school, and congratulate all of our graduates who graduated on Saturday.

They've been in school for a long time, hopefully a lot of them will continue to be in school from now on.

for another four years or so, but that was very exciting this weekend.

Also, just wanted to announce that at the Henry Avenue Learning Center, you may have read in the newspaper, the students came together and created a new greenhouse and a library at the alternative school, so congratulations to them as well.

There's going to be a Venable Neighborhood Association gathering from 3 to 5 p.m. at Venable School on June 16th, which is next Saturday.

So that should be fun.

Anybody who lives in the Venable neighborhood, I hope will be there.

The City Council will be there.

And I think some other folks from city staff as well will be there.

So we'll see you there.

Also on June 16th, earlier in the day, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., is the city-wide Father's Day celebration.

It will be held at Friendship Court, which is between Garrett Avenue and Monticello.

It's going to be open.

I believe they're going to have a lot of activities for kids and for dads and moms, I suppose, can come as well.

So we're looking forward to seeing folks there, 11 to 3, on June 16th.

And also on

The same day, well actually Friday evening and Saturday, so it's going to be a big weekend, on June 15th and 16th is the Juneteenth celebration at the community college.

The celebration begins Thursday, June 14th with the glorious March to Liberty from Virginia to Texas, a lecture by Harry Jones.

And if you haven't heard Harry Jones, he's assistant director and curator of the African American Civil War Memorial Freedom Foundation and Museum.

He is incredible.

He brings the Civil War and the role of especially African American soldiers in the Civil War to life in a really exciting and entertaining and dramatic way.

He's as much actor as historian, although he's certainly a real historian.

So I would encourage folks to come.

They'll be first pouring out of the libations for the ancestors at 5.30 and then the lecture begins at 6.

The following day on Saturday, activities are planned in and around the Dickinson Building from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

There'll be a virtual tour of Monticello's Mulberry Row, a performance by the African Lighthouse Baptist Temple Choir, Civil War era children's games with Denise Benedetto, historical reenactments including Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass,

and a bunch of other things.

So I hope that everybody can come out to all of those things this weekend.

Yes?

Madam Vice Mayor, I just wanted to make one small correction.

You know, I thought that they weren't all in the, thank you so much.

The Venable Neighborhood Association is this Saturday the 9th.

The others are the following Saturday.

Thank you.

I was worrying how I was going to pull off that day myself.

Before I go to other council people, I just wanted to take a moment to recognize the appreciation for our 12th and 15th anniversary committee for arranging the Festival of History last weekend.

It was an amazing set of lectures and programs.

It was very good.

You may not believe that I ran into the first mayor of Charlottesville in Lee Park.

I have proof of that, if you go to the bank, you can go to the website and see a picture of who is who.

And speaking of the 250th, I'm going to interrupt briefly because I did have one more.

I had gone out of order so I would end with it and then I never came back.

We actually, the unveiling, as part of the 250th History Week celebration, we had an opening of the time capsule that was buried in 1962, 50 years ago,

and in that time capsule was a letter from the mayor, Mayor Scribner of 1962 to today's mayor, who at the time was out of town.

So I was there to receive it.

As it turned out, it got a little wet in the intervening 50 years.

But we do have the text of it and now we have the real mayor here.

And so we have the son of Mayor Scribner, Will Scribner, with us today.

He was 14 at the original bearing of the time capsule.

Well, I'll speak since no one else was taking you up on that.

I'm Will Scribner and I was privileged to be at the site for the burial of the capsule in 1962 and I'm here on behalf of a half dozen children and young teenagers who are also there with me.

It is my privilege to present this to you, a letter from my father which reads in part

May we urge you to ever support the ideals of liberty and democracy as set forth by this area's greatest citizen, Thomas Jefferson, and further urge you to make this city the best place in our land in which to live.

And it ends by saying, finally we salute you and offer our thanks to you for the services you are rendering to the citizens of Charlottesville, many of whom are our children.

And I would add, children's children and children's children's children.

My wife and I left Richmond today under dark skies and a pelting rain, but as we crested the hill at the Fork Union exit, the clouds parted and the sun shone over Charlottesville, which is how I remember it from those many years ago.

May I hand you this, sir?

Mr. Mayor, we are going to bury another time capsule on December 23rd and it will hopefully be a bit more watertight but I do need to say that we should not be critical of the people who buried it in 1962 because the technologies that are available today were not available 50 years ago and they made one tiny little mistake that led to the self-destruction of everything.

Yes, I just have one and I would like to just reiterate everybody's praise for the Virginia Festival of History.

It was a fantastic event and we look forward to it being an annual event every year.

I just have one letter, this is a good segue into public comment.

It's from some first graders at Clark Elementary and they had written us this letter

and then sent it again, so I think it is time that we read it.

It was written on April 20th.

Dear City Council, thank you for the new dog poop signs at Clark Elementary School.

It's got great pictures too, but not a poop.

We surveyed our whole school.

We asked if they've seen dog poop on Clark's school property this year.

Most of the whole school said yes.

We have seen dog poop after we put up signs.

Yesterday we saw dog poop by the flagpole.

People are stepping in the poop.

It is disgusting.

It is siccing people out.

Almost everyone at Clark School wants our property clean.

We need our property shiny clean.

We need people to pick up after their dogs.

More people said they never want dogs at Clark School than any other choice.

More than a fourth of Clark wants dogs to come only on weekends.

There are two answers that have the same amount.

The answers are

all the time and only in summer.

If they keep on pooping, we want better signs.

We need signs.

We want the signs to say, no dogs allowed.

Take your dogs to the dog run at Reeves Park.

There could be a map to Reeves Park on the sign.

Reeves Park has a lot of space, so we think that people could go to Reeves Park.

We could build a dog park there, a playground for dogs.

A sign can say, this is where your dog can go.

I'm almost done.

The sign needs to be lower.

If the signs were three feet tall, then people will look at the signs.

We think they will see the sign.

Please make a new sign.

Thank you for helping us with the signs.

Thank you for solving the dog poop problem at Clark Elementary School.

Sincerely, and it's signed by about 10 of first graders at Clark.

So thank you Clark students, and I would actually like at some point that we could talk about dogs on our school grounds.

Because I do think it's a problem, and it's very well said.

Are there any more announcements before we go to the next item?

If not... Next item on the agenda is matters by the public.

and the return speakers who can speak, please raise your comments to three words.

If somebody else has said what has already been said, please just say ditto so we can get a chance to other people to speak.

Mayor Huja and members of City Council and my name is Paul Long.

I live at 1410 Grady Avenue here in the city.

At the last council meeting there were a couple of items discussed how 1,800 residents of the city had their utilities turned off at least some point during the year and that 25% of the population in the city lives in poverty.

and I'm sure the city council is working diligently to decrease that percentage and is probably working on vocational training programs and other programs to get people to work in this city and the surrounding Albemarle County.

A very important part of that component is getting people to the jobs.

and people who are entering entry-level jobs are not in a position necessarily to own an automobile and there are jobs that people cannot get to simply because they have no way of getting there.

I think it's urgent that the city expand and improve the public transit service that we have in this city

and the Commonwealth of Virginia is spending at least 165 million dollars on the Western Bypass and has spent millions on the Meadow Creek Parkway and I believe that millions of these dollars are being spent on expanding highways throughout the Commonwealth should be diverted to public transit authorities throughout the area including the City of Charlottesville and we had a meeting this past Saturday of a newly formed Association of Public Transit Riders in Charlottesville

and one of the things that we are going to do is set a list of priorities and what we would like to see accomplished.

Part of that is having evening service of many of the buses that stop running at 6.30, full service on Sundays and full service on legal holidays.

And since I believe 4th of July falls on a Wednesday this year, I'm hoping that we will have full service on the 4th of July.

But I would also like to mention that Charlottesville, I've lived here for 14 years.

Charlottesville is not the Adela college town that may have been 50 or 75 years ago.

We are now a world-class city.

We have an expanding urban population that includes Albemarle County.

and if you go to Rio Road and 29 and many of our highways, there's getting so congested that we need an alternate public transit system and I'm mentioning that because a good public transportation system is not just for people who are on the lower economic scale and cannot afford to drive.

We had two members, people who attended our organizational meeting.

Both of them are very much participants in the cultural and artistic events that happened downtown.

And the lady who accepted the position of secretary, hopefully she'll be attending council meetings in the future, so that frequently she has to leave the Paramount Theater and other cultural venues earlier simply to catch the last bus out.

I'm mentioning that because if we had an extensive public transportation survey,

service in the evening on Sundays and on legal holidays that would entice additional people to come to the downtown mall and invest their money going to cultural events, the Paramount Theater and the cinema.

Hi, I think you all know I'm here to speak about Citizens United.

I was privileged enough to be here earlier.

I got to see Mr. Mayor's presentation to the Afghan delegation.

And it was really interesting to me to see the interest that they showed in democracy.

and I thought to myself, you know, if only we could get that amount of interest from our kids, from, you know, the people out on the street, you know, our own citizens.

You know, to segue that, the Citizens United Resolution that we've brought before you, I'm really proud of it.

I think it is a local issue.

I think it is the priority behind all of the other priorities that makes our democracy functioning.

Without it, our government couldn't function.

We're also starting a locally funded campaign pledge that will probably start next year.

I'd like to point out the difference between moral leadership and political leadership.

And this is a very key thing.

Moral leaders have an engagement behind all of their actions and all of their priorities that is empowering other people and enfranchising other people.

and political leadership doesn't do that.

So I'm really proud of most of you, the ones of you that we've met with.

I really do believe that you are more leaders and I look forward to seeing you empower the rest of the citizenry.

Thank you.

It will also help if you can reduce the clapping because it just takes more time and has only one less person to speak.

If you can avoid it.

I am here tonight representing the board of the North Downtown Residents Association.

A good many residents of North Downtown are Martha Jefferson Hospital and use the Martha Jefferson Hospital and its affiliated doctors for their medical needs.

That hospital and most of its doctors have recently moved away from us across the river on to Pan Tops.

The only link, the only lifeline we have to those providing our medical needs is Free Bridge.

This bridge and the intersections near it are fast becoming clogged.

Just imagine the additional traffic when Free Bridge is more condos and stores are built on pan tops and the Meadow Creek Parkway is completed.

Free Bridge will have to be renamed Clogged Bridge.

There is simply going to have to be a second bridge across the Rivanna River in the near future with an eastern connector to get to it.

On October 1, 2007, the City Council allowed the Meadow Creek Parkway to be built by granting an easement to VDOT.

However, there were attached conditions to that grant.

In a letter to VDOT and the Albemarle supervisors, the Council said that their approval of the Meadow Creek Parkway was, quote, contingent upon receipt of a commitment within six months

from Albemarle County to develop a new regional transportation network plan."

And as part of the plan, the county and VDOT were, quote, to demonstrate a firm commitment to an eastern connector, end quote.

In addition to this letter, the council's resolution granting the easement included the following clause.

quote, be it further resolved that this resolution is enacted with the expectation that Albemarle County will commit to continued development of an alignment and funding scenarios for an Eastern Connector, end quote.

Now following the October 07 council meeting, a special study group and MPO did work on finding an alignment or a corridor for the Eastern Connector and they came up with four possibilities.

but they were unable to agree on one to recommend.

The search ended, just ended without a murmur.

No city official and no counselor followed through to see that the solemn commitment made in October 1, 2007 was honored.

And now, one of those possible corridors, one of the most promising ones, is about to be built upon by a developer, the Lachlan Hill Project,

The purpose of identifying a corridor back in 07 was to avoid just this kind of preemption of a route for Eastern Connector.

If other possible corridors are used for other developments, there may be no corridor left.

No second bridge, no Eastern Connector ever.

Just, I have this

I would urge council to establish a task force to identify a corridor to the Eastern Connector and give them at most one year to do it.

They would explore all possibilities including new ones that have been proposed since 2007.

In the meantime, only that portion of the Luckland Hill development that is not blocked the Eastern Connector should be approved at this time.

Good evening.

I'm Nancy Carpenter.

I'm an Albemarle County resident.

First of all, I want to say thank you to the ladies that are here from the delegation.

They give to me a face of what bravery really is in this world.

And I want to ask the City Council tonight to join with hundreds of other municipalities

to approve the resolution before you.

This resolution calls for a constitutional amendment that negates the effects of the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United versus the FEC.

Specifically that money does not equal free speech and corporations are not people.

I ask you as stewards of Jefferson's legacy to join with the following municipal organizations who have already adopted resolutions.

The states of Hawaii, who adopted one almost two years ago, New Mexico, Vermont, Flagstaff, Arizona, Berkeley, California, Marin County, California, Los Angeles, California, Boulder, Colorado, Pueblo, Colorado,

Hartford, Connecticut, Orlando, Florida, Tampa Bay, Florida, Portland, Maine, Bangor, Maine, Greenbelt, Maryland, Prince George's County, Maryland, Brewster, Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, Wooster, Massachusetts, Duluth, Minnesota, Jackson, Mississippi, Missoula, Montana,

Bedford Township, New Hampshire, Buffalo, New York, Allegheny, New York, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, 64 towns this past March in Vermont, which led to the passage in the state.

Seattle, Washington, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jefferson County, West Virginia, 22 state attorneys general who have filed a brief in support of the state of Montana who has a case pending before the Supreme Court now.

This list is by no means complete as citizens through this country are standing up and saying we are calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to unequivocally state that inalienable rights belong to human beings only and that money is not a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment and can be regulated in political campaigns.

This should be, must be your legacy to your descendants.

I am also the product of a constitutional amendment in reality.

It was less than a hundred years ago that women in this country got the right to participate in elections.

So my grandmother was already a young married mother.

and here I am 100 years later, a product of women who locally were willing to go to jail, to be brutalized, to have the right to have their voices heard.

So I think that this is a grassroots movement.

We're moving it from the bottom up.

I'm a product of a movement almost 100 years ago.

I am also the product 40 years ago when our Congress decided that as 18-year-olds, we were smart enough.

to make choices for who are going to be our leaders in our country.

So I hope that we have a great outcome and we will move this forward on a national level.

Good evening, my name is John Cruikshank.

I live at 324 Parkway Street and I'm speaking today as a representative of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club.

Sierra Club members around the nation are very concerned about the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case.

allowing corporations extraordinary power over our political process is a direct threat to America's natural environment and the health of our citizens.

About two years ago, the Virginia chapter proposed a resolution on this case which was adopted by our Council of Club Leaders and the Sierra Club Board of Directors.

and that was adopted in April 2011.

I'm just going to read a portion of that to you and I'll give you a copy for your review.

The Sierra Club believes that the Citizens United decision, if not checked by congressional action,

will continue to decrease the dedication of members of Congress and the state legislatures to the long-term best interests of the nation and the states by increasing their obligations to powerful corporate and commercial interests.

shift political power away from voters to corporations and moneyed interests reduce the quality and diversity of candidates for public office by increasing the already distorting role of money in elections and decrease the public trust in the power of voting and public interest lobbying.

The Sierra Club encourages the Congress to take action and, among other things, actions that will lead to the overturning of the holding in the Citizens United.

also in support of the resolution opposing the Citizens United decision which took the limits off corporate election spending there is a lawsuit in federal court in DC where young people are suing the government for warming the globe and ruining the planet they'll have to live on and the National Association of Manufacturers and other polluting industries have stepped in as voluntary joint defendants to argue the case for the government and their case is in part it's not the court's place it's Congress's place

and the response from the plaintiffs is essentially what Congress.

It is bought, it is paid for, it is as unresponsive as the British Parliament to which the government of Virginia used to send resolutions.

Majority opinion is routinely ignored in Washington DC on taxation, on spending, on priorities, on ending our wars, on

Every major issue including, of course, clean elections.

The polls are overwhelming.

Huge majorities back throwing out this decision.

A case is coming shortly before the Supreme Court that will present that opportunity.

Those 22 attorney generals of the states around the country are busy.

They have jobs they thought this was important to speak on.

Over 250 localities thought this was important to speak on.

I'd like to ask the people in this room

If you think Congress and states and cities should be allowed to limit or ban corporate and private spending on elections, please stand up.

If you appreciate your city council representing us when Richmond and Washington fail to do so, please stand up.

To our friends from Afghanistan, to a nation our government has

betrayed and mistreated for decades.

If you believe that the model for your nation should not be corruption but democracy, please feel free to join us in standing up.

If you think that taxation without representation is still a bad idea, stand up.

Hi, my name is Tim Davis.

I'm here to support the proposal calling for an amendment to the Constitution which states that corporations are not people and money is not the same thing as what I'm doing right here.

I'd like also to address the objection Councilor Galvin raised in the last session to having this proposal appear on tonight's agenda due to her concern that this would take away from critically important issues such as unemployment, poverty, and transportation.

I agree these issues demand your unfettered attention, and if this measure were to delay their progress, I am certain that every one of you would join Galvin in asking it be put off.

Personally, I prefer talking about what we could do about these concerns rather than this one.

but we can't get around it because there's a correlation between local unemployment, poverty and transportation and what's going on in Washington and Richmond.

As more of our politicians enact policies favoring large private industries at the expense of their electorate, these exact problems may be impossible to solve in the future.

Regarding the needy in this community, our tax money is already being diverted from important programs such as women, infants and children providing pre-natal care and support to mothers and the Head Start preschool program giving needy children a chance to succeed in school.

One popular budget supported in this upcoming election would slash these programs

and even more and other government support for the disadvantaged including Medicaid.

And last year, Congress cut the Federal Highway Public Transportation funds by 34% at a time when we needed added infrastructure and the jobs that come with it.

At the same time, two-thirds of the top 300 Fortune 500 companies are paying no taxes and the average rate for big corporations is almost a third of that of smaller companies.

these budget and tax plans come directly from big business groups supporting our candidates and Citizen United has opened the door wide to this auction house of elections where the players involved walked away with everything our votes are becoming meaningless the majority of politicians at the federal and state level are beholden to those who got them elected and big money does get you elected from 2000 to 2010 one of the most

the one with the most money won 88% of the time in congressional context but here at our local city council some of us believe that we still have a voice that the policies that come out of here are generally reflect the will of the people so this is why we come to you

Over 250 localities have either passed this measure or are in the process of doing so.

Five states have joined as well.

33 more and we could have an amendment bypassing our Congress.

So if you are concerned about these issues that you're working on here tonight and want to help ensure the viable solutions that you create continue to be viable, you should spend a little effort it takes to pass this resolution.

And how much time are we talking about?

30 minutes?

An hour?

With a critical mass

With a critical mass of communities like ours stepping up to the plate, this could be a national reality.

How could we reasonably pass up this opportunity?

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I'm John Faults.

I live at 1503 Rugby Road.

Back in 2000, I campaigned for the city council to be up there where you are, and my campaign major thrust was that we need an eastern connector instead of the Meadow Creek Parkway.

Well, city council approved the Meadow Creek Parkway, but with conditions.

David Rapace was telling you about those.

We had an eastern connector study group.

I was a representative of the public.

There was no city involvement or very minimal city involvement.

You didn't push to get that.

Well, we got one more chance to try and get an Eastern Connector.

One more chance to get traffic around the city.

TJPDC and their traffic estimations think this would take from 16 to 30,000 vehicles per day.

around the city instead of going through it.

We've got one more chance to establish a transit connector between Fashion Square Mall and Pantops instead of having everything radially out from the city.

We could do this along a corridor south of Penn Park and through the old sewerage plant.

But it must be done in conjunction with Laughlin Hills.

Development.

Curiously enough, I'm a developer.

I built a residential area in the county.

Developers don't like being jerked around, and we can't jerk them around.

But it's fairly early in the game, and we can try and make it a win-win situation for both of us.

Transit can make their low-income part of the PUD much more viable.

Paul Long was talking about the importance of transit.

A direct connection to Pantops can make the other houses much more valuable.

We've actually talked with Frank Stoner and he is sympathetic, but he's not going to come out all in.

This is really an important thing for the city council, more particularly for the city planners, to be looking at and actively engaged in.

You know what?

I'd love it if my campaign promise came true, even though I wasn't elected.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I know I'm in the minority tonight, but I'm speaking anyway.

My name is Naomi Roberts.

I live at 1140 St. Clair Avenue.

It seems to me that all City Council can do lately is waste time and energy at taxpayer expense, passing resolutions, and I'm sure some of the people that are speaking tonight aren't even

residents of the city of Charlottesville.

These activists want to bring down our country, our constitution, our criminal justice system, and council falls right in with them by passing the no war on Iran resolution, the marijuana resolution, and now tonight a resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. constitution because of their disagreement in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the first amendment that prohibits federal government from restricting independent political advertising paid for by corporations or labor units.

Why, may I ask, are you continuing to listen to these activists who care nothing for us and for the local needs of our citizens of Charlottesville?

We voted for you to represent us and our needs, and yet you put these

My interest first and foremost while other important matters on the agenda tonight are put on the back burner, I'm sick of hearing them rant and rave about their wants to cancel and I'm sick of council not taking care of the city's legitimate priorities instead and these resolutions are not city priorities.

Look at what's on the agenda tonight and past agendas that

that were legitimate, not the two passed resolutions and one proposed tonight.

There's the importance of the Meadowbrook parkway, utility increases and even health benefits for you members to be paid by the city, yet you elect to put this proposed resolution beforehand.

May I remind you that it took five years of my fighting for the extensive traffic problem on my hydraulic road to get lines

on one side only of the street and cars still zooming by in the passing lane attempting to make a left turn from Mickey Drive still impossible due to the traffic blocking the east lanes.

And it only takes these activists a few times to rant and rave and cancel kisses up to them.

You need to be responsive to local needs, not state, federal or foreign.

There's education, employment, traffic, zoning, housing, water and many other issues locally that need your attention rather than what the left want.

I want to commend Councilor Galvin.

She certainly does her homework on issues of concern and I think she cares about the city's needs.

I also appreciate hers and you, Mr. Mayor, your votes on the marijuana, the no votes on marijuana resolution.

But the rest of you, if you can't listen to us, then you need to step down and let someone else take your place who really cares about the city issues and the taxpayers who pay your salary.

Kirk Bowers Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council members.

I have to say it's very refreshing to have a local government that will listen to the people.

I'm from the county and we are not as fortunate.

Tonight, I am talking and speaking on behalf of the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice and our over 1,100 members.

I'm going to exclude Dede and Dave from this conversation, if I might.

Our topic for discussion this evening is chloramine, and as you may know, I'm a professional engineer, have a little experience in this area.

But we object, we have serious concerns about the chloramine based upon the health concerns primarily, the safety, the health, the drinking of possibly water that could cause cancer in people.

Let me tell you a story about my neighborhood of Key West.

Over the last 25 years, seven people have died around me, immediately around me.

Five of those people died of pancreatic cancer.

Twelve years ago, it was found that our water was polluted with a petroleum derivative.

Some of the people had been drinking this water for over 20 years.

Just a small amount.

We believe they died from drinking this water.

We don't want you all to make the same mistake.

It's not worth the risk in cost savings.

Please take that under consideration.

On a personal note, the Eastern Bypass, if it goes through my neighborhood of Key West, there will be a horrendous fight, and I can assure you of that.

It's not directed at anybody here.

Also, one other item, if I might, on your history reenactment last weekend.

I notice there's a lot of military reenactors.

But I think Charlottesville is a lot more involved with the culture here than military history.

I'd like to see a little more of the entire spectrum of history, if you might say.

And thank you so much.

Good evening, Mayor Huja, council members, thank you.

My name is Todd Niemeyer.

I live at 106 Chisholm Place here in the city.

First of all, I apologize for my dirty appearance.

I just came out of the field harvesting garlic with a bunch of kids.

And that kind of relates to what I'm talking to you guys about tonight.

I'm here to urge City Council to reconsider the cut to cooperative extensions funding.

And the reason that strikes home for me is because I do some garden work here in town.

You may have seen our gardens behind Friendship Court and Sixth Street neighborhoods and also in West Street.

I work with a lot of kids and some of those kids we've also been working with as part of the 4-H program, which is supported entirely by the cooperative extension.

And some of our kids have been involved in that for over, let's see, going on four years now.

And we're really excited this year because we get to send kids who have gone through camp several times, 4-H camp, and are ready to become counselors.

And this is going to be the first time that a 4-H counselor, a teen counselor, has come from some of these neighborhoods.

And that's really exciting.

So I really want to urge you to reconsider that cut in funding.

If City Council cuts that, I believe it's a $7,355 amount that they were depending on, that leads to an additional loss of $119,491 in matching state and county funds.

This also means a loss of two full-time positions, one being the 4-H agent who just started, and we love to have our Robbie's here,

here in support of this as well, and our, let me remember this, I'm new to some of this, our new Master Garden Coordinator, who we just met a couple of days ago.

Both of those positions impact us because, well, for one, we really appreciate our 4-H agent who allows us to get our kids involved.

and the Master Gardener Program has also been really beneficial to us as we have Master Gardener volunteers come and participate in the garden and help kids learn about gardening.

So we really urge you to support 4-H and I would encourage people in the audience to stand if you also would like council to reconsider the cooperative extension funding.

That's all I have to say.

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

I want to start out by thanking your Director of Public Works, Judy Mueller, and I believe perhaps City Manager Jones contributed, for getting the public notice of utility rate changes to show both the current rates and the proposed rates.

You'd think it would have been a simple thing, but Ms. Mueller has told me that it wasn't so easy to get Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to go along with it.

I wasn't in town for the last council meeting at which utility rates were discussed, but I've watched the video, and like Councilor Smith, I have questions that weren't answered.

Every citizen should have questions about this complicated rate and fee structure that drains money from their pockets every time they turn on the tap, and yes, we all want water, flush the toilet, yes, we all want to be able to do that, or use gas for heating and cooking.

I also share council's concern about cutoffs and wonder just how much of the city's

High utility rates contribute to financial stress of our low-income residents.

So today I'm asking council to appoint a task force with citizen representatives to take a closer look at why Charlottesville rates are so high.

Some of them, at least I know are water rates, are among the highest in the Commonwealth.

Several questions easily come to my mind.

What are all these confusing fees?

What is payment in lieu of taxes?

What is covered by the facility fee?

Why is more than $2 million spent on collection and assessment, and what does that cover anyway?

What is the effect of the growing annual contribution you make to stabilize the rates?

Are incomes from utilities used for purposes other than related to utilities?

Is the number of cutoffs unusual or typical for a city of our size?

And what's happened to the income collected from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority rate increase approved in 2003 to pay for water supply increases?

And why isn't that portion of Rivanna's water rate reduced now that it is planning a $3 million bond issue to pay for the Ragged Mountain Dam?

and is it a valid concern that our rate structure is regressive and may be unfair to our more vulnerable low-income residents?

Please appoint a task force to examine these and other questions that haven't been clearly answered and to report those answers in a way that is readily understood by our citizens and our rate payers.

Please act on this quickly so a report can be prepared before the next rate increase next year.

Now it's time for comments by councilors on public comments and I would encourage you again not to all have to speak everything if you don't want to.

Somebody already has said.

Restrain yourself if you can.

We've got a long agenda ahead.

I'll leap in because I'm going to be short.

I just wanted to respond to Mr. Long.

Mr. Jones and I went this week to the Virginia First Cities meeting and there the director of transit and train transportation, the non-highway person with the Department of Transportation for the state was there and I did get a chance to talk to her about the ways that the state

disincentivizes financially localities from being able to put in more transit at the expense of roads, and that the way that the financing now is set, it's easier to build roads than it is to build transit.

And she seemed surprised by that, and so I was glad at least to have that little bit, but I agree that that is something we need to continue to really push.

There was one other thing I just wanted to mention.

Yes, I just want to appreciate again Mr. Foltz, Mr. Repass and Mr. Long for talking about the transportation issues.

I look forward to further conversations about these issues and we have the chair of the MPO right here and we can continue that as well.

I want to thank you all for coming.

I would really very much like to see this idea of a task force.

I think it's fascinating and I think that's a really great idea to investigate not only

some of the really complicated issues as Ms. Quinn said that do go into the water rates and the sewer rates and the gas rates.

But also to further investigate this really rather shocking number we heard last meeting about the number of cutoffs annually last year which really approached possibly 10% of our households.

So I think we need to dig down.

It could be that it's not that bad.

I hope it isn't.

But all I've heard are possibilities, and I think we really need to get a hold on this really shocking number.

We also heard, of course, from social services.

That's extremely dangerous for children and families.

This is one of the reasons

that children get taken out of families is when their households lose their, you know, get evicted.

I'd also actually just, we're going to, you know, talk about Citizens United.

I really look forward to that.

Thank you all for coming.

And Ms. Roberts, I say actually I appreciate you coming up, but many of the reasons that you brought forward are some of the reasons that I support this, but we will talk about this.

and I really wanted to, and I think Eastern Connector too, I'd actually like to talk about when we talk about the interchange because it's relevant to some of the issues that will come up.

And Todd, thank you for coming, wherever you are, because I'm a big, big supporter of Extension and again we'll talk about it but way at the end of the meeting and I think not, it's kind of hard for a lot of people to grasp the extent

that extension really reaches into our community.

And I will speak to that at the time, but I think Todd's presence here really illustrated just really the importance of it.

I agree about Farmer Todd.

Good remarks on his part.

I am also intrigued by the request or suggestion from Ms. Quinn.

I guess I just want a little bit more clarity about is this just a data gathering effort or would this be actually a group that's charge is making recommendations.

I would like to see us follow up on that because there are a lot of questions that I think need to get addressed.

and the Eastern Connector when it became clear after that task force that really the only viable option was to have it cut through at least some portion of Penn Park I think there were a lot of us who said let's not add insult to injury by making up for

the impact on McIntire Park by then turning around and impacting Penn Park.

And so I was not, I did not shed a tear at the subsequent council action to remove the eastern connector as sort of

as a quid pro quo for building the Meadow Creek Parkway.

But having said that, if there are new ideas that have come forward, I understand there's some new thinking that's been going on about a route for the connector and or a location for another crossing.

I would not want to put it in woolen mills just for the record.

But if there are other ways to go about handling that,

Any other comments?

Staff, any comments?

I understand myself today.

I don't have to say anything.

Item A, minutes for May 21st.

Item B, appropriation March primary reimbursement, $16,000, second of two readings.

Item C, a resolution 1719, hydraulic road specialties permit first of one reading.

Item C, an ordinance conservation open space easement on Jefferson Park Circle land, second of two readings.

Item E, an ordinance restrictive covenant on Azalea Parkland, second of two readings.

Item F, an ordinance designed for life Seville, second of two readings.

Adam Gee in Ordinance, Homeowner Tax Relief Grant 2012, first of two readings.

Yes, and actually I'd like to take this opportunity before we vote to recognize Bill and Elena Speidel, I think they're both here, who have worked so hard on this Jefferson Park Circle park easement.

It's been years, really literally years, and thank parks as well who have been, and Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water.

Conservation District.

There's lots of representatives here.

I know it looks like a little thing here, but it's a really very big thing.

Any other comments or discussion, motion?

If not, let's vote.

Second item on the agenda is citizen-centered resolutions.

Can I read it as soon as I can find it?

I'm going to read it off Dave's computer.

Blow it up.

Okay.

A suggested resolution put to Charlottesville, Virginia City Council regarding corporate influence in the democratic process in amending the U.S. Constitution.

Whereas we the people adopted and ratified the United States Constitution to protect the free speech and other rights of people, not corporations, and whereas corporations are not people but instead are entities created by the law of states and nations,

and whereas for the past three decades a divided United States Supreme Court has erroneously transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate the people's laws and whereas Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission, relying on prior decisions, interpreted the First Amendment of the Constitution

to afford corporations the same free speech protections as natural persons and whereas Citizens United overturned long-standing precedent prohibiting corporations from spending corporate general treasury funds in our elections and whereas Citizens United unleashed a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure

Todos in United States history, and whereas Citizens United purports to invalidate state laws and even state constitutional provisions separating corporate money from elections, and whereas Citizens United presents a serious and direct threat to our Republican democracy, and whereas Article 5 of the United States Constitution

empowers and obligates the people and states of the United States of America to use the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and republican self-government and whereas hundreds of municipalities across the nation are joining together to call for an amendment to the United States Constitution to establish that political speech and spending by corporate entities

to influence a political process must be regulated and made subservient to the people's interest in authentic democracy and self-governance and whereas the people of the United States previously have used the constitutional amendment process to correct decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that are deemed to be egregious

and wrongly decided and which go to the heart of our democracy and self-government.

I actually have, you know, I work as an editor for a living and there were two whereases that I found were very redundant and so although I am fully in support of the principle of this resolution, I would like to suggest that we take out the ninth whereas

the one that begins, whereas Article 5 of the United States Constitution.

The same sentiment is expressed in the 11th, whereas if we change the wording slightly to say, whereas the people of the United States may use the constitutional amendment process outlined in Article 5 of the United States Constitution to correct decisions via Supreme Court.

I think that just makes it a little smoother without going back on itself.

There was also one other spot that there was just

There was a typo where citizens is plural in the final all capital section.

I was a little uncomfortable with the word erroneously in the third one, but I could live with it.

But if I were tweaking, I would take it out.

And by the people of Charlottesville, Virginia, I don't know that we really can say because we are really by the Council of Charlottesville, Virginia.

So with those corrections, I would be delighted to vote for this.

I would be comfortable with those corrections.

And let me just, since I've got the mic, I'll just say that the reason that I am supportive of this is for the, as Ms. Smith mentioned to Ms. Roberts, I think that it is because I think it's a local issue, because I think that

If corporations, large corporations, which are not headquartered in Charlottesville, have such a huge impact on the politics of our community, then it makes it very difficult for us to do things that are for our own good.

And I think that if we're talking about spending, again, 30 to 40 minutes discussing this, it doesn't take away from what else we do.

I mean, you know that we'll just go 30 or 40 minutes later.

We all of us are, we all work for the amount of work that comes to us.

to suggest that this takes away our attention to other things.

I don't find it does for myself.

I can't speak for every counselor.

But I think that to not pay attention to things like this pretends that we make our local decisions in a vacuum, and we don't.

Our local decisions are in the context of state policy, of federal policy, of international

environment that we work in.

And I think that cities across the country, not only on issues like this, but it is what cities do.

It's what cities have done since before this country was founded when we were still colonies.

We would petition to the government, to the king, to ask for things that we felt would make our job as local folks better and easier to do and be able to represent our own interests better.

And so for me, this is definitely one of those things.

And so

I, too, I support it.

You know, I think it's interesting that we heard several times during, before actually public comments, when the unearthing of the time capsule, we heard about freedom and liberty and Jefferson's ideals, and during the comments about Flag Day, again, it's, you know, this really is about freedom and liberty.

and about keeping our local government local.

And I do think this Citizens United is a local threat.

Outside money coming into our government will only dilute the voices of those of you who come forward.

I would like to move that we pass, accept, this resolution as amended.

In the spirit of freedom and the preservation of minority rights, I clearly feel like I need to read the statement on behalf of another opinion that may very well be a minority opinion in the city.

It certainly is a minority opinion in this room.

But I do think that there is a very much an alternative view of how we proceed.

And again, just in light that this is a democracy and we all appreciate freedom, I would like to read the statement.

Now, I too am personally troubled by the consequences of the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission.

Nonetheless, I believe City Council has got to stay focused on taking actions that will have the most positive, tangible impact on the citizens of Charlottesville.

We do not have a role in amending the Constitution or appointing the U.S. Supreme Court justices.

However, since I assumed office five months ago, the Council has been pressed into expressing opinions on matters under the purview of the President, the United States Congress, and now the Supreme Court.

Personally, I think the pattern is disturbing, and other members of this community have expressed the same to me as well.

Will we be dealing with our national policies toward Chinese dissidents in July, or weighing in on the implication of Greece pulling out of the Eurozone in August?

Will we be passing a resolution on the Volcker Rule come September?

I am concerned that any outside interest group feels that it has the right, the authority, the influence to manipulate to use a local elected body to present its national agenda where it wants to go.

Equally troubling to me is that this item is being discussed tonight before local issues and after being introduced to council for the first time just two short weeks ago in this chamber.

Meanwhile, as an example, it will be five months from the time the council established, quote, ending poverty through gainful work as a council priority to when council will discuss that priority in a work session.

It will probably be at least August or September before tangible policies and procedures are put in place to affect material change.

This is in spite of the fact that I know we all feel a sense of urgency on these issues.

But why do we feel urgency?

Because we're number one among Virginia's 39 cities in per capita expenses in social services and welfare, and the unemployment rate among people 18 to 30 years of age is three times higher than our city's average.

We also have serious transportation issues to address and no strategy in place to avoid a budget deficit next year.

These urgent complex local issues take time to resolve and demand Council's and staff's undivided attention.

On that point, again, I think we can all agree.

I agree with Mr. Norris that Council's priorities should be indistinguishable from people's priorities, and I do believe that our priorities are just that.

However, devoting time and attention and that of staff's

to a national agenda that does not have direct, useful or positive consequences for our citizens, in my view, ignores the role different levels and branches of government play in our society and runs the risk of undermining our council's credibility and making us look ineffectual.

On that point, though, I know we all disagree.

So to conclude, since our last council meeting in May, I have carefully read the wording of the resolution.

I do appreciate Councilwoman Szakos' amendments, but still, in light of council's clear vision statement and its priorities,

I still feel very much compelled to disagree with that resolution.

I have also heard from many city residents who have expressed frustration about our lack of focus on the local issues over which we do have some control.

A Supreme Court decision is not one of them.

Consequently, although I am personally troubled by the Citizens United versus FEC, I believe its resolution belongs in the hands of our U.S.

Senators and Congressmen.

I would just note for the record that every single locality in Virginia, every single city and every single county, every year, including our own for decades, adopts a legislative agenda where we petition our state government to do certain things to benefit our citizens.

We also routinely communicate with our federal elected officials regarding national issues.

and I think most localities are wise to pay attention to what's happening on the national level as it benefits the citizens of those localities.

So there's nothing really unusual about the idea of a city like Charlottesville discussing an issue that's outside of our borders that affects our society on a statewide level or on a national level.

We certainly are not the United States Congress, we're not the United States State Department, we're not the United Nations, but we are electing to represent the best interests of our community.

And when there are issues and when there are threats that we see outside of our borders that are affecting our citizens, that have the ability to affect our citizens,

I don't think it's unmerited or unusual or unwise for us to occasionally spend a few minutes to speak out on those threats.

But I do, I mean, it's absolutely correct that we should and we do spend the vast, vast majority of our time, as anybody who's been to our meetings and our work sessions knows, we spend the vast, vast majority of our time talking about things like water, which we spend thousands of hours talking about.

talking about transportation, talking about the budget, talking about schools, talking about roads, talking about housing, talking about any number of local utility rates, local bread and butter issues.

Those are our top priority and I don't have any objection to us spending half an hour every few months talking about

an issue, particularly an issue like this which really does go to the heart of our democracy and the health of our democracy.

Let me make a few comments, I will be brief.

First of all, I agree with the sense of the resolution.

I think it is a concern to our community, to our residents in this community.

It affects us directly.

Secondly, I don't believe that we have more local issues if we hope to be working on them.

You gave me basically a compliment.

So without saying too much, I do support the resolution and I think it is a legitimate role of city council to discuss things which affect our citizens.

With that, there is no discussion on resolution.

There has been a motion and a second, am I right?

Next item is published hearing, dealing with termination proceedings for Colorado School.

Good evening.

We are presenting tonight an update on the Route 250 interchange at McIntire Road project and its right-of-way activities including properties to be acquired by the filing of a certificate for condemnation and easements to be conveyed to utility companies.

These actions will occur through four separate public hearings scheduled tonight and they are listed as items three, four, five and six on the agenda.

To start, I'll review the significant milestones accomplished to date since the project started in November 2005 with the first council-appointed steering committee meeting.

Next, in March 2006, we held our first citizen information meeting.

November of 2007, we held an environmental public hearing.

August of 2008, council selects the preferred alternative urban diamond grade separated interchange in lieu of a two-lane roundabout.

November 2009, we held a design public hearing.

December 2009, Council approves the project's major design features.

May of 2010, we've executed a memorandum of agreement between signatories including the City of Charlottesville, Virginia Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Association, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and two consulting parties, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency, MACA, and the Dogwood Memorial Committee.

September of 2010, the Federal Highway issues the finding of no significant impact for the project.

In May of 2011, we are authorized by the Federal Highway to start full take proceedings in the right-of-way acquisition.

September of 2011, Council approves the Rivanna water and sewer easement to comply with the Department of Environmental Quality mandate to replace the Shanks Branch interceptor.

In January of this year the Federal Highway authorized funding the acquisition of partial right-of-way acquisition and staff has been working closely with public and private utility companies and other community stakeholders to further refine the design and delineate the absolute minimal right-of-way needed for construction.

I'd like to take just a brief moment also to offer some highlights of the project that I think will interest you and the public.

Per council's direction, we've added a 10-foot-wide shared-use path along the east side of McIntire Road.

impacts to surrounding historic properties, McIntire Park, Rock Hill Landscape, Covenant School, the Charlottesville Albemarle Historic Courthouse District are being successfully mitigated through the memorandum of agreement that we've mentioned.

We are providing photo documentation, written documentation, interpretive signing, a landscape plan, and a

Rockhill Landscape Treatment Plan.

We've designed the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial to improve access as well as facilitate how it is used.

We're adding over one and a half miles, approximately 4,900 linear feet of sidewalk and shared use path and approximately 3,400 linear feet of bike lanes into the interchange project.

All signalized intersections have been included to include pedestrian countdown and walk buttons to enhance pedestrian facilities.

The trailhead parking has been added for shared use between park patrons and the Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad members.

We've included Opticon system for the emergency vehicles and upgraded their access for optimal performance onto McIntire Road.

Per Council's direction as well, Harris Street and McIntire Road intersection has been redesigned to provide

enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access, well actually to provide bicycle and pedestrian access as there is none currently.

And lastly the steps necessary to get us through construction are to complete our right-of-way negotiation phase, obtain federal highway authorization to begin the construction phase,

bid the project and award the construction contract.

The advertisement date is tentatively August of this fall, 2012.

The project would be advertised in August.

It would be awarded approximately October.

Construction would likely start around the first of the year, January 2013, and we expect that it's going to run about

just over, I think it's two years and eight months, so we're saying two and a half years, two years and eight months, maintaining traffic throughout construction.

So as background for our negotiations,

Congress's Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, otherwise known as the Uniform Act, it ensures that all impacted owners are treated fairly, equitably and respectfully.

It requires that all displaced occupants as well as owners be compensated for market value of the property rights taken and reimbursed for associated expenses.

The process includes such measures as reviewing the procedures step by step with any impacted owner or displaced occupant, conducting real property appraisals along with an independent review of the appraisals, making a bona fide fair market value based offer to the property owner allowing sufficient time for negotiations, providing relocation assistance to applicable displaced occupants, clearing objections of title for purchase right of way and conducting settlement procedures.

There are two public hearings to acquire the necessary right of way, the first being Covenant School.

We are pleased to report that we have reached a tentative agreement with Covenant School and are asking Council to conduct the public hearing but defer any consideration involving condemnation of the Covenant School property at tonight's meeting.

If the negotiation is finalized, it will not be necessary to ask Council to consider this matter on a later agenda.

The second hearing involves acquiring property from Middle Mountain LLC.

And regrettably, we do not believe a timely compromise can be found through further negotiations.

Middle Mountain LLC, the property in question is vacant land located in the southwest quadrant of the Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road and is accessible by Hillcrest Road.

These properties were purchased in 2006, significantly above the assessed values.

We are acquiring approximately half of the combined acreage of the three contiguous lots.

The appraised value and final offer is $247,122 and staff is requesting that council approve the resolution

authorizing the filing of a certificate of take on Middle Mountain LLC whereby an amount equal to the appraised value is escrowed with the court and may be claimed in part or whole by the property owner without jeopardizing their claim to receive a subsequent negotiated settlement or award at a condemnation trial.

Once the city has filed a certificate of take, it may take legal possession of the necessary right of way and easements while maintaining the project's construction schedule.

and then finally the two public hearings involving the first of two readings are separate ordinances for conveying easements to both Dominion Virginia Power and CenturyLink.

The project requires the relocation of both utilities to new overhead and underground locations on city property.

These easements are located on city property in McIntire Park along the Route 250 bypass and along the east and west sides of McIntire Road.

Other utility companies such as Comcast may also use these easements based on agreements they have with Dominion Virginia Power and CenturyLink.

So poles and conduit are shared and impacts to surrounding properties have been minimized.

By two separate public hearings, Council is being asked to convey the easements to Virginia Power and CenturyLink as outlined in the attached ordinances.

Any questions for Virginia Public Hearing?

Okay, I'll open the first public hearing on Government School Property.

Anybody who wishes to speak?

Is there any sign-up sheet?

Good evening.

I'm Peter Kleeman.

I live at 407 Hedge Street in the city.

I find it difficult to respond to these one at a time.

They are so integrated.

The takings and the grantings of easements on the properties or the takings of rights, they're all really one big bundle and they run across these consecutively on the ground.

I have some issues about the whole structure of the easements and the takings.

First of all, I don't like the idea of the eminent domain taking, and I think many in our community, including myself, were holding out that this property would not need to be taken up until Tuesday afternoon.

So if the owners of this property were sharing our opinion,

that this property would not need to be taken, I think that negotiating in good faith would go a little bit further than the Monday following the opportunity for one to realize this may actually happen.

So I would encourage council not to have to act today, but that they could continue negotiating with those landowners about what the fair price might be.

Also, in reading through the easement documents themselves, in one of them, the one that's with

who was at CenturyLink.

There's a statement in there that states that the grantor, which would be the city, certifies that they are the owners of the property for which the easement is going to pass through.

But the way I see the plats,

easement is not on the land that's part of the take so in fact the city is taking an easement from the individual property owner and then selling that easement for a dollar or granting the easement to some user for a dollar however that works we never know what a sale is but the

but appears to be inconsistent with what the action that's proposed.

So it appears that the city, which would be the same convention that's used typically by VDOT, is to acquire the whole land that would include the easement as well as other

need for the road, drainage, whatever, and then distribute those easements from its own property.

That would comply with the text of the city, who is it called, CenturyLink agreement, at least the way I read that somewhat complicated to read document.

So it appears to me that there are several problems that the

I think that the third problem that I'd like to address directly is on the easement arrangement, there's no indication of restrictions on kinds of structures that the utilities could place on there.

We hear every time we discuss

the issue of the interchange that this is going to be a gateway into the city.

Yet I guess we could have relatively large towers built on the property in the easement that would carry electronic signals back and forth.

We could have any number of structures, but there's no limitation on what that could be.

or whether this will be under the- Let me interrupt for a second.

We are hearing public hearing on government school and not easement.

Well, I believe these are all related to that very topic because those easements are across that land.

Thank you.

Mayor Huja, members of the council, my name is Daniel Bluestone, 501 Park Hill in the city.

I think that there are a few questions that you should ask your staff before making these votes.

I think that the federal earmark for this project, which I believe was $27 million, is not sufficient to pay for this interchange.

and I'd like to know where the council thinks they will get the money to pay for this interchange.

And at what point will the council, and I know there's some people on the council that feel ambivalent or think that maybe we need an at-grade interchange, that they're very different views here, but if the city has to come up with $5 million more, would you say, no, we need to redesign this?

If you need $10 million more, would you say, no, we need to redesign this?

If you need $15 million more than is available in the federal earmark, would you say, wait a minute, we need to redesign this interchange?

And I think until you know how much this is going to cost,

and how much the city has already paid to RK&K, the consultant on the interchange and how much of that is coming out of the earmark.

It's very difficult for you to race ahead then and ask to either condemn land or to purchase land because I think at the end of the day at some point

the council may very well say, ouch, we're not willing to pay that much more to make this interchange happen in the configuration that it is.

And we've seen this for a long time.

In fact, if you read Anthony Caro's book, The Power Broker, about Robert Moses building highways,

around the New York metropolitan region, one of the things he did is he'd begin building the highway over here and then do another piece over here and go to the legislature and say, the only way to make this road work is for you to now give us the money to fill it in.

And I think that's precisely what's going on here tonight.

If you go along with just saying, oh sure, start buying this land and then they're going to come and say, guess what?

We don't have enough money to build this interchange.

You need to come up with the five, the ten, the fifteen million dollars more to make that happen.

And I think that you should minimize the risk to the city and the city's taxpayers

by not plunging in before you know what this is going to cost.

And the plain fact of the matter is we don't know what this is going to cost and we don't even have our eyes or our hands on the money that it is going to cost to do this.

And as you know, I actually think the interchange, now that it seems that the way is cleared for this,

I think that we ought to do a simple flyover bridge over Route 250 because members of the narrow majority of the council gave up McIntire Park in order to get people downtown.

Let's get them downtown instead of spending 5, 10, 15 million dollars more to get them to Pantops.

A simple, elegant bridge over 250

would cost a lot less than what we're now being asked to pay for to get people to pantops and to put downtown at a competitive disadvantage.

I think that's a huge mistake for you to start voting on these things that are on the agenda tonight without knowing the simple facts of how much is this going to cost us.

Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak on government school?

It was a public hearing.

Discussion by the council members.

Can we comment on the public comment at this point?

Actually, I would ask Ms. Tucker to come up and address two questions.

Let's go backwards.

and how the two relate to each other.

budget and I don't have the exact amount that's been spent on design.

I want to say five million.

Does that come out of the federal earmark?

But are they part of the 27 million federal earmark?

Yes.

That's correct.

And part of the Federal Highway Authorization that I mentioned is them doing the checks they need to do in order for us to move forward.

They are

making sure that we are crossing, dotting our I's, crossing our T's, that we are remaining on budget, that there isn't scope creep and that is why we get our, their permission each of those three phases in moving forward.

So you're saying, you're not sure, as you stand here, how much money is left in the federal earmark.

Yes, and we do have that balance.

I just don't have that dollar right here, but I would say...

Minus the 5 million, we still have 24.

And is there a scenario if, as unlikely as it might be, if the bids come in higher, what would happen?

I suppose that would be an option.

And the other question that came up was about this difference between takes and easements for the utilities versus the interchange.

Is there, I don't even know how to ask this, but are some of these strictly for utilities and others strictly for the interchange or are they

The ordinances to convey easements to the Dominion Power and then an ordinance to convey easements to CenturyLink have to do with utilities, some of which are currently located on public right-of-way but are not in easements as many

utilities all over town are not informal easements.

So it's a practice not only by these utilities but Rivanna and even our own utilities department that when things are adjusted or placed new that they make sure that they are protected as an investment by easements.

Right.

Other questions on this condemnation coming into school?

I'll just note that I'm delighted that we seem to be reaching a good, positive settlement in that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next public hearing is on Middle Mountain LLC.

I'll open the public hearing for that.

Limiting my focus, I'm Peter Kleeman, I live at 407 Head Street in the city.

Limiting my focus to this one action, it appears that the negotiating process has been moving somewhat successfully along and now there is only one property that has not reached a final decision or a compromise price.

And I would encourage the city not to take an action right now to

Condemn that land and property and to perhaps find a way to negotiate and perhaps there's a way now that they are the one agent out there who would be looking to

have their land taken that perhaps you could make some kind of an offer that would be reasonable.

I would much prefer as a citizen of the city to have a negotiated settlement than having the city say we're coming to take your land.

Now the issue is price and when I see the way the

The condemnation process works.

There's been an offer made above the condemnation price.

But as I see it, when the condemnation is, the order is taken, you only feel obliged to pay the assessed value and not the price above that that has already been offered.

It's like a retrenchment of that offer.

I don't know whether that sounds like that's in bad faith.

It sounds that way to me.

It would seem to me that a more reasonable offer would be to have a condemnation if you felt obliged to do that.

That would be the price that you have already been willing to pay for that property.

But I actually believe that in this case you would need to acquire more property so that you could acquire

the land so that you could make the certification as the city saying that you own the land on which you are going to grant an easement and without that additional land I think that you would be in violation of that easement.

Good evening, Councillors.

My name is Alex Hancock.

I'm a resident of the city 2712 Eaton Road.

And since Mr. Kleeman put it so eloquently, I just want to say ditto.

Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak?

OK, publishing is closed.

This is for discussion in front of the City Council.

I guess I would just ask just for clarification the question on page, it's on page 99 of our packet here so it's the communication system easement page two is what I'm looking at it says grantor warrants that grantor is the owner of the property and easement tract and will defend title to the property and easement tract against the claims of any and all persons and that grantor has full authority to grant this easement according to its terms.

That is

Now, as part of the condemnation process, what the law allows is if you are doing a road project and need to relocate utilities,

You can condemn easements for those utilities when you condemn the right of way that you need for the road project.

And that's what's being proposed with regards to one outstanding property that we're dealing with tonight.

Would this be an appropriate time to ask a question about the interchange itself?

As our material said, this was our opportunity to ask questions and for the public to get a glimpse about what's coming.

I have a question about the traffic study, whether one was done on the situation whereby cars are coming off Park Street going west on 250.

the intersection between those cars coming off Park Street onto 250 and cars on 250 crossing over sort of in front of them to get onto the Meadow Creek Parkway or McIntyre Park extend, whatever you call it.

That appears to be a very short distance and

That's what we call a weave analysis and it was a big issue in getting plans approved by the Federal Highway, well both VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration and we do have specific analyses that are dedicated to showing that that will work.

So we have done very

Well, it involves the length of the transition areas between both Park Street interchange and the new interchange, the speed limit between the two, site distance, the ability to

So it wouldn't stop, you're saying it'll queue up on the parks, I mean it already does, queue up on the Park Street exit.

Well, our analysis in the modeling has to

make sure it shows us and make sure that that stacking back onto the mainline doesn't occur.

Park Street Interchange, it's calling for a signalized intersection at, well it would work as all one intersection, both ramps.

but that's to help alleviate the full build-out year of this project as well as existing conditions on Park Street.

Right, and the lights will be on, you're saying there's two lights, it will also be as you get off 250 onto Park Street?

Yes.

Well, and that would be the reason for the traffic signalization to help alleviate that.

it monitors traffic and gives everyone a turn with priority given to making sure those ramps don't back into the main line.

I think I sort of have a hard time imagining that but so now in the traffic analysis done for the one community our joint one plan one community in their transportation maps the

Part of Park Street that will be exiting onto, you know, coming, you know, coming into town on Park Street, that our stretch, our city stretch, which is at an F level of service, now never gets above an F, even with the Meadow Creek Parkway.

So is that, was that part of the traffic hazard study of those, because those cars are going to be coming,

Yes, that was taken into consideration in a greater analysis of the traffic on this interchange.

It went as far as Free Bridge and Hydraulic Road.

So do you worry at all about people coming on Park Street, not being able to get off on 250 and going and cutting through like Northwood and the north downtown area there?

Is that part of a study to look at possible ways that it will backfire?

Is another way of what you're saying, there's a cut through problem?

No, I'm thinking of going through, across 250 and where, if you're going to try to cut through to get.

Oh, going down onto Michael?

Is this North Avenue to River Road?

My concern is that the level of service on Park Street never ever gets better according to the analysis.

It's not before it's built, not after it's built, not in 2040.

Well, right now I do know that Park Street as a two-lane road carries 20 some thousand cars per day and just from a highway standpoint routinely you look at providing a four-lane divided roadway when you get to eight to ten thousand cars per day.

In addition to that,

Park Street is a residential street.

Churches and crosswalks and so when you look at all of that you can understand why it's a level of service F and there's not much hope even with a good majority of the traffic pulled off onto a new facility that it increase its level of service.

I don't know those exact numbers but

We have no plans to improve Park Street.

I do think the new facility with its multi-modal access will help solve some of that problem and I do think it will solve a cut-through problem that we know in fact exists through the Locust neighborhood, North Avenue to

When the Eastern Connector was being considered, did that impact the traffic on Park Street coming into the city?

Did that divert some of...

I think the big concern is people either coming on the new McIntyre Parkway or Park Street and going to Pantops, or vice versa, or reverse.

Well, I don't know.

Jeanette maybe could speak to that Eastern Connector study.

There's certainly a lot of movement going north and east and we're trying to improve some of that with this.

However, as City Council has always directed us is that we're not trying to fix this whole community's transportation in this one area.

Minimize, make it small, improve the safety, improve operations, improve function.

of this particular spot, we weren't trying to solve the Eastern Connector.

Eastern Connector, that would help improve some of the function on park, et cetera.

But as Councilor Norris has mentioned, the better functioning, better working Eastern Connector, the closer it is to the city.

Any other questions or comments?

If not, is there a motion?

So moved.

Yes.

Okay, motion passes.

Next item is number five, convenience of easement for Dominion, Virginia.

I'll open the public hearing for that.

Good evening.

I'm Peter Kleeman.

I live at 407 Head Street.

I was struggling reading through the agreement between whichever contractor, whichever Dominion Virginia Power

and electricity or something what it says on the document.

It's different from what it says on this.

I hope it's connected in some meaningful way.

But it just appears to me that when I look through the documentation that's in there, the Virginia Power and Electric easement is not on the city's property or there are easements that are not on city property, not on the property that's being

purchased or taken by eminent domain.

It has in the handout that's before you at the end of the, just prior to this element of the agenda, it has a map showing the right of way is to be taken and then there's little indicators A and B and it shows these are the

the easement areas needed by the power company and they seem to be a separate parcel of land.

So perhaps you're taking an action that doesn't really apply to anything on the ground.

I'm not really sure.

Perhaps there are other easements that are on the property that the city is going to acquire and own.

but that all leads up to my comment is that this is an extraordinarily difficult document for certainly the citizens who are even paying attention to this to read and it seems like the agreement is a standard agreement that they use for all sorts of occasions whether it's on private property or industrial property or state property or whatever and I think it would be a wonderful idea

to write a contract that was absolutely readable and referred to the actual participants by their names and identified the parcels by some meaningful way that a person who's a graduate of the Charlottesville school system could sit down and read this easily.

So I would recommend that before you act on this agreement that some of these details be worked out because it just appears to me that what's being proposed and what's being discussed and what has with the comment made by the city attorney that they all don't seem to agree with what seems to be in the documentation.

So I would encourage you to I know this is the first of two readings so I encourage you between the time if you do pass this and first reading

that you have another block of time to sort out that information and I would thoroughly enjoy having a document that I could read.

Thank you.

Anybody else who would like to speak on this easement?

The discussion on easement.

As the Attorney has pointed out, we are only acquiring easements on properties which we own.

Next is the public hearing and he's going to CenturyLink.

I'm Peter Kleeman.

I live at 407 Hedge Street in the city.

I'd appreciate an offer on a great house somewhere in the city, but I would just like to repeat that as a member of the public and

Perhaps I'm paraphrasing, but you're confident that the city is taking an action.

But this is a public hearing, and this is where the public gets an opportunity to speak, and I'm not confident that the document is

one that really makes the sense that it should make to the public or to other potential easement desirors and that I think that we as a first class city, I believe, or we could be even a higher first class city if we would try to take all of the information about transfers of land in particular

I know I had a conversation with the city attorney several years ago about a transfer of land and said, well, isn't this a sale?

There's 30 something thousand dollars change in hand and rights are being given to the person who has given up the money and that looks like a sale to me and his comment to me was,

I can only give you my opinion about whether that was a sale or not.

I cannot tell you whether it was a sale.

The only way that I, Peter Kleeman, will be able to know whether that's a sale is if a judge says that it's a sale.

Now, when I'm trying to negotiate a way forward for

things in the city as a member of the public trying to influence what I consider to be the right direction to go in.

I would really appreciate if when we're going to sell a piece of property, we say we're going to sell this land.

If we're going to lease this land, let's say we lease the land.

If we're going to give a gift, let's say in the contractual arrangement that we give it.

Now in this particular contract that we're discussing here, it says there's an exchange of one dollar from the utility to the city.

Now what is that one dollar constituting?

Is that a sale of rights that they are getting the right to use that for a utility line

in return for that dollar.

That's the way I think of it when I lived in New York State and if I want to give a car to somebody and say, you can't give it, you have to sell it for at least a dollar because that would make it a sale and then you could do the title switch and everything else was possible because it made it a sale.

But in this case, I don't believe it makes it a sale.

or if it did make it a sale of rights, then I would believe that there should be a supermajority because the sale of rights to a utility is clearly outlined in Article 7, Section 9 of the Virginia Constitution that I have become so familiar with.

And so I would encourage that perhaps when you, before you finalize this contract,

that you change the language so it's clear and you recognize whether you're taking an action that is a sale of rights or whether it is a lease or it's a grant of some other specific type that we as citizens can understand what it is that that action is to be.

And I encourage you to take that step.

Anybody else who would like to speak on this issue of easement?

The public hearing is closed.

There's comments by the city council members.

We'll go to the next meeting for second reading.

Thank you.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Butter Creek Parkway.

This is a utility easement.

It's not a sale or a lease or a gift.

It's an easement which is being proposed to be granted to the University of Virginia Foundation for an underground water line

at the intersection of Lee Street and 11th Street.

The purpose of this is to serve the new battle building at UVA or the UVA's Children's Hospital.

Questions before we have open public hearing?

Anybody wish to speak on this?

Nobody signed up, so this is your chance.

Public hearing is closed.

It doesn't have a financial impact on the city in that the university, this easement is going to the university foundation who I understand will ultimately transfer it to the university.

They will assume full responsibility for all maintenance and repairs so there's no financial implication

Any other types of utilities that would have to be placed in that street in the future would have to work around those that are already there.

Any other questions or comments?

Move to second.

Second.

We consider the next meeting.

The next item is ordinance dealing with Eton Road, planning and development.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, this is an ordinance rezoning 2712 Eaton Road from R1 to PUD.

This application was heard by the Planning Commission at their May meeting.

They recommended that the application be denied.

In addition to the staff report and the materials you have in front of you, we've been contacted by the applicant today.

He expressed some concern about his ability to speak at the Planning Commission meeting and asked that he be able to present items to you.

told the applicant that that was ultimately at your discretion as counsel whether or not you wanted to hear him.

Additionally, the applicant has contacted staff about his willingness to offer a proffer related to the trail easement on the property.

And per our city code, when the applicant wishes to modify a proffer statement after the Planning Commission hearing, you have one of three options.

which I will go over.

This is city code section 34-65, modification of a final proffer statement.

Council shall take one of the following actions in this situation.

One, council may decline to consider the modifications and may proceed to consider the rezoning application final proffer statement as acted upon by the Planning Commission.

And just a point of clarification, there was no proffer statement in the application that the Planning Commission dealt with in May.

Two, the council may continue the application to a subsequent meeting date, which means you would defer it at this meeting.

In which case, council shall conduct an additional public hearing on the application, including the modified statement and following the advertisement and notice as required by law.

Or three, council may refer to the modified application to the Planning Commission for review.

So you could take it back, send it back to the Planning Commission.

and recommendation upon an additional public hearing of the modification including the final proper statement and following advertisement.

And then you re-refer it to the commission and the commission would...

hear it again at a public hearing that you would attend and go through the process again.

So that is the item before you.

You have obviously one of those three options.

Additionally, just to reiterate, the applicant does wish to have an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that came out of the Planning Commission, but that is entirely at your discretion.

Since it's not a public hearing, you're not advertised as a public hearing.

Tonight?

There is interest by the general public beyond the owner and I think

I also just have a quick question.

There have been two planning public hearings at the Planning Commission level.

I do have just a quick question.

Is there anything in staff's opinion that would warrant the increased density that this applicant was putting forth?

Because looking at the land, looking at where it was located, I saw no justification for it in terms of it being near a public transportation line or being already near any kind of mixed-use concentrated area.

without putting too many words in the applicant's mouth because staff's recommendation was for denial.

I do believe, and the applicant can elaborate on this if you wish, I think the applicant feels that the PUD as presented is the best arrangement that the

of units that can be accommodated on the site.

And it's not the unit count isn't different.

It's not an increase in density.

I think they feel that they can get the same number of units on the property.

I guess what I'm getting at was that it wasn't anything that was reflective of a comprehensive planning goal or anything that we've already had standing.

I think, I mean, there's no comprehensive plan, yeah, there's nothing in the comprehensive plan that speaks to any increases in density.

It's basically a clustering process.

It's basically a clustering of the units.

Correct.

Okay.

Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I think under the city code, as Mr. Holoska outlines, you can refer this back to the Planning Commission for consideration of additional proffers if you have a final proffer statement in front of you, which you do not have.

tonight.

So if that's your pleasure, I think procedurally what you would need to do is to defer any action on the application tonight until there's a final proffer statement submitted.

Well, that's the list you're deferring.

But there's nothing for them to hear.

I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and reject this PUD.

I think that we have a planning commission process and they've been through it twice.

I know that there was some question about speaking to the neighbors about it and bringing in public comment before even the planning commission process started, which is what most of the successful projects in the city do to get that sort of community support and they, as far as I know,

Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second.

Any discussion?

So all those in favor?

First meeting, Mr. Mayor.

Yes, first meeting.

It doesn't say that on our agenda.

Okay, so we'll move to the next meeting.

Actually, I think Ms. O'Hare will, correct Ms. O'Hare, will step up and provide us just a brief update on the utility rates from last time, just real quick.

My name is Sharon O'Hare, Assistant Finance Director for the City of Charlottesville.

I presented the rates at our last meeting and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have for them.

Currently we are recommending that the water rate be reduced from $43.70 to $43.45 per 1,000 cubic feet.

We're recommending that the wastewater rate be increased.

and the predominant factors for that are because of the rates that we're receiving from Rivanna, which comprises over 56% of that budget.

And that's recommended to increase from $44.70 per month per 1000 CF to $50.25 per 1000 CF.

We're also recommending that the facility fees be increased for water and for wastewater to more closely indicate the actual cost to our utilities for increasing new customer base into our utilities.

What percentage would the facility fees go up?

Currently we haven't built in the additional amount.

We're recommending, we're proposing that in 2014 we get $450,000 for facility fees.

Currently in the current year, we're recommending, we're projecting that we get $350,000 for that.

And last year, did you tell me it was $211,000?

We received $211,000, that's true.

Why are we getting so much more this year under the current same rates?

And I asked this last time, and I apologize, I need to ask it again because I don't think I still understand.

The facility fees that developers pay, they're developers, right?

Or builders pay.

That goes into a fund and there are no necessarily any costs that we have to then make up for with those facility fees because we're using those facility fees to offset water rates.

Is everything that comes in as a facility fee, does that go into the rate stabilization fund?

Yes.

I would like to propose, again, I would really like to see some sort of, whether it's a task force,

or a group of people to sit down and talk about these rates.

I express my concern about them.

I'm extremely concerned about the rate stabilization fund, which we are outspending.

We are spending down our reserve.

This year we are in water putting in $700,000 when in fact we brought in

211 one year, maybe 350 this year.

It's double what we actually brought in.

It's unsustainable.

It's been mounting.

It's almost been doubling every year.

And we have so many issues at our doorstep for which those facility fees could be used.

and when we ultimately, and we will, it's actually almost within the scope of the forecast, which I think is four or five years, be draining those funds.

And that's, and waste water's even worse.

Waste water we brought in, I think you told me, $233,000 last year and we're using $1.2 million this year to stabilize our funds.

A million fifty thousand.

A million fifty thousand.

Okay, a million fifty thousand.

Excuse me.

It's just an unsustainable process.

So this is what I would like just to get some grasp for.

And of course the other issue that I really think we need to explore is are these costs, these taxes really, and we don't call them taxes, but payment in lieu of taxes as well as the utility tax that we have, well the payment in lieu of tax that we have built into our rates.

I'm thinking this is increasing our rates by 20-25% these taxes that we put on as well as the monthly charge.

I mean these are all unrelated to delivering and producing water.

Again, I personally think this is playing into the fact that we have such a high rate of utility cutoffs, of people losing their connections to utilities.

I strongly feel that we really need to get a grasp on what's in our utility rates and what impact it's having on our citizens.

Let me make one comment.

We have had the system for the last two or three years, I think, we're doing now.

And changing the facilities fee implies more taxes.

Somebody has to pay the taxes somehow for general funds.

And in my mind, the poor people are trying to help.

They'll be hurting more than

We support people who can't afford by subsidizing the rate and I think otherwise the other option is the tax.

I disagree that that's the only other option and I think that would be part of what a task force, whatever you call it, a group of folks who come with, you know, various backgrounds could explore, okay, if we didn't use our utilities, if we didn't use the sale of water to generate funds for the general fund, which is what we're doing, if you take

If you take the taxes that we generate from the sale of water, waste water and gas, we're talking $6 million taken out of the utilities

sector and put into the general fund.

I understand that is a lot of money to make up for.

At the same time, it's a lot of money that could be used either in our utilities or that be used to bring our rates down and make our community more affordable.

I really believe this is an affordability issue and I'm not blaming anybody for being in this position.

I'm sure there was

a perfectly logical time in history where this made sense to do.

But I'm not sure that's where we are now, and maybe it is.

It's possible it is, but I think we've got to have the conversation going forward.

I just want to touch base on

point that Ms. Smith just made regarding the viability or sustainability of this approach that we're using to buy down the rates with the facilities fees.

I mean, based on the projections that you've seen, are you confident that we can continue to subsidize them at the rate that we're doing now, well into the indefinite future, or is there

Personally, I'm not as concerned with the water utility.

Our forecast goes out to the fiscal year 2017 and we have a remainder with the facility fee of $350,000 and that's with the 3% for the single-family household and the 2.5% for the rate going up each year.

Any changes or improvements in economic development, any changes

and our capital structure, water demand can certainly alter those figures throughout the year.

The one that I'm more concerned about, I think, is the wastewater fee.

I had more difficulty trying to balance it out using facility fees in the out years, and we do have to use a good portion of that.

Again, when I've done the forecast, I'm forecasting it not looking at economic growth and the increase in facility fees.

So hopefully when we start seeing the economy pick up dramatically within the city of Charlottesville, we've been very fortunate and kind of insulated from a lot of the economic downturn as a lot of inner cities are.

But when we do start to see the economy start to pick up, I'm hoping that with the increased rates and with the economic development, we'll see that facility fee increase so we won't be as constrained within that wastewater utility.

And we currently track the facility's revenue for water and for wastewater on a monthly basis.

I'd be interested in looking at that at some point just because there was some information that Mr. Tolbert gave us at a planning commission city council work session that also talked about that in terms of property tax revenue coming in as the economic development is shifting upwards and I think those kinds of

Tracks of information are going to be really important for us to see just how much we are earning as we're just simply getting back on track again in terms of our redevelopment.

Can you explain just briefly

how it is that if our rates are going down this next year, why the payment in lieu of tax is going up?

The payment in lieu of taxes is based on prior year revenue that's generated.

So what happens in this year's rate will generate what's happening in future years in terms of payment of lieu of taxes.

Oh, so we pay afterwards?

After the fact, right.

kind to answer my question I had about payment in lieu of tax and it's our enable, you know, whether there's enabling legislation for this and I was wondering, Mr. Brown, if we could get basically a legal opinion on that for the whole council.

Other comments?

Mr. Mayor, can I just ask for a point of clarification about the Utilities Task Force.

It's been brought up a couple of times.

I just want to get an understanding of whether or not Council is interested in that.

Well, I think we'll have to develop a charge in the equality committee.

Okay?

Thank you, Mayor Huja and City Council.

I think a presentation may be getting ready.

And while we wait for that to come down, I'm here with PCA Board President Dr. George Beller, as well as some members of the community who I'd ask to stand to show their support for our proposal now.

There were three others here who had to leave at nine, so thank you so much for coming out to show your support.

We are here to provide context on the full proposal that you have in your materials and I'd also like to point out that it connects directly to the city council vision statement.

Item number four on that vision statement on the wall is arts and culture.

Since 1979, Piedmont Council for the Arts has responded to the changing needs of the area's arts community.

Having emerged as the leader in the field, we're now the primary advocate, coordinator, and convener for arts and culture in the region.

In this proposal we address a clear need in the community to set goals and make measurable progress for arts and culture.

A Charlottesville area cultural plan would launch the most important and impactful work PCA has ever undertaken for the city.

We've spoken with hundreds of artists, arts organizations, educators, volunteers, board members, and young people.

We've met with city councilors, county supervisors, department heads, philanthropists, business owners, and more.

Their feedback has led to new PCA activities from web resources and professional development programs to even bolder initiatives such as the Arts Access Project and the Arts and Economic Prosperity Study.

As we grow, our constituents ask for even more support.

The decision to embark on cultural planning is the result of five years of listening and learning, but it's only the beginning.

With PCA's leadership and a clear, community-driven strategy that reflects many perspectives, we can make incredible things happen.

We expect our cultural plan to include strategies such as a cultural tourism initiative whereby we link arts organizations with the CVB to develop collaborative marketing efforts promoting the arts as an essential part of a visit to Charlottesville.

A teaching artist program through which artists from sculptors to actors will provide arts instruction and after school programs.

A recommended strategy for the city and county to ensure that funding for arts and culture is based on the prioritized needs of many people.

A business incubator program for artists and creative professionals helping them prepare for financial success while fulfilling their career aspirations.

A resource sharing program between UVA and area arts organizations focusing on strategic planning, facilities usage, and program partnerships.

More effective use of facilities and cultural districts in Charlottesville and surrounding counties to support arts organizations, businesses, artists, and artisans.

PCA is uniquely positioned to launch a cultural plan.

We'll leverage our long-standing relationships with the arts community as well as city and county staff to lead a coordinated approach that will benefit all residents.

From quality of life to education, from community building to economic development, there are many important ripple effects of a thriving arts and cultural scene.

The arts are one of the best ways to bring people together and to create vibrancy throughout the region.

This organizational chart is an excerpt from the Community Cultural Planning Handbook written by Craig Driesen, the nationally recognized consultant we've selected for the Charlottesville Area Cultural Plan.

It outlines how the consultant and PCA will work together to coordinate the planning process in tandem with other key entities.

Thanks to the endorsement of every major arts organization in our community, we now have an unprecedented interest in launching a cultural plan.

The 45 organizations listed in your materials have expressed in writing their support for PCA's management of this watershed project.

the timing for a cultural plan could not be better the preliminary results of the arts and economic prosperity study show that greater Charlottesville has the second highest level of economic activity generated by arts and culture over a hundred million dollars per year among all twenty eight national study regions in our population group even though we're on the smaller end within that population range of a hundred thousand to two hundred and fifty thousand in fact

Our economic impact is even higher than 60% of study regions in the next highest population group, which goes up to 500,000.

These data prove that Charlottesville is a leader among arts and culture cities in this country.

With annual arts attendance of 1.6 million, arts and culture is not only a major industry here but also a major part of our community's quality of life.

However, PCA knows from talking with constituents that some needs are not being met and that it is a continual struggle to provide quality services in a challenging economy.

There are many whom the arts aren't reaching.

There are organizations and groups that could be collaborating but are not.

There are neighborhoods with young people who receive little to no arts exposure or instruction.

There are artists who cannot afford to live in Charlottesville and arts organizations that struggle to make payroll and suffer from drastic local funding cuts.

There are artists and audiences in surrounding counties who are cut off from the networks and resources that should be available to them.

There are free and conveniently located arts facilities that are rarely entered by low income or minority audiences.

Without a clear plan for community priorities for arts and culture, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by these challenges.

And for an arts council that operates on an annual budget of only $120,000, PCA must be strategic about where to start.

And yet, as the Economic Prosperity Study will demonstrate, the arts and culture industry is a major player in this community.

It's not a fringe component of our economy or of our quality of life.

In the absence of a single city or county staff person dedicated to overseeing the needs of our artistic and cultural life, it's imperative that PCA step up and launch a Charlottesville area cultural plan.

We ask for the city's partnership in this effort.

We have a vision for a community in which artists are thriving, arts organizations work together to reach diverse audiences, schools are infused with arts learning opportunities, businesses embrace the value of the arts, and city and county leaders invest strategically and smartly in arts and culture.

We have a request from the Human Council for the Arts and you have heard the presentation and you have the materials in advance for you.

Do you have any comments or questions?

We are requesting $25,000 allocation from the city over a two-year period.

Sure.

If Council does approve this tonight, it will be taken from what's now called the Public Art Fund.

It used to be called the Percent for Art Fund.

And we have a reserve in that fund of a little over $56,000.

and we, as part of the budgeting process, the city council put $25,000 aside in fiscal year 13 and out years as part of the CIP as well $25,000 per year for the next five years to contribute to that fund.

Traditionally, the fund has been used for the Art in Place program.

And for a couple of years, we stopped putting money into it.

We're paying down the reserve.

And as I mentioned before, Council decided to put more money into it over the course of the next five years.

And I just think that given that it is a strategic plan, it's also a very wise use of the money, whereas before, not that it, you know, the arts are important, but it just seemed to be more scattershot.

I think this is

As was expressed, it can be pretty overwhelming to figure out what to do next and where to put your investment.

I really will urge you to keep your eyes and ears open for the strategic investment area planning process going on that's south of the downtown mall.

which is focused around the Ix neighborhood but it's very much an area that would benefit from some focused attention.

I was really impressed when I went to this conference recently to Delray Beach, Florida and they had a Pineapple Grove Arts District which

just turned around the entire district physically, economically, and it had a very strong emphasis on the arts.

So maybe I can get you some information about that.

I just want to strongly endorse this proposal.

They've done an excellent job of crafting the request and the scope of work for the study.

Just a little sort of maybe an add-on is as you're sort of doing, you know, looking at the landscape of arts opportunities and programming is also think about some of the international linkages that are available through our sister city partnerships.

There's some really valuable arts exchanges that can take place through those that can add value to this whole enterprise.

I, too, would like to express my support.

I have absolute support for the city funding what you've requested.

I think it's very modest.

I do have a couple concerns, and that is in reading the proposal, actually, which was pretty different than your presentation.

I really enjoyed the really concise way that you presented this.

I am concerned that there be a minority presence.

There's a lot of talk in the proposal of increasing diversity, but I didn't see a lot in the partners.

I was concerned that the African American Heritage Center, which actually is one of its missions, one of its, I'm not sure if it's a mission, but sort of one of their goals is to bring more multicultural entertainment.

to our city and I certainly think that fits into your goals as well.

The other place that I was concerned didn't reach out to a more minority audience or even artists was in the

The media outreach, which was in the proposal, which we got in the proposal, is very much our traditional outlets, which, quite frankly, don't reach.

We've been told, do not reach minority audiences.

So it's almost a matter of, for all of us, we all go through this, is what we don't know, we don't know.

So, you know, as much as you could really even go beyond the close-knit community, you know, we talk about a close-knit, it is a very close-knit community, and that's one of its problems, really, is that it's so close-knit that we really need to find who else is out there that can help us

to diversify.

And I'd like to piggyback a little bit on something that Dave was talking about, our sister cities and international opportunities.

We also are just very quickly becoming much more an international community here in Charlottesville, particularly with the IRC's efforts.

And I hope that we'll embrace the arts and cultures that come with our diversifying international profile.

But thank you.

I also strongly support this plan.

I think it is well overdue.

And with suggestions for changes, which Ms. Norris and Ms. DeSmit has made, I think they'll be good and excellent additions to the planning process.

I'll make it.

Any further discussion?

If I vote, thank you.

Please keep us abreast.

Hi, good evening everybody.

I'm just going to give a quick history and update of how we got here tonight.

And I have Gretchen Ellis here with me who, if there's questions about the ABRT process, she can answer those questions.

But basically, here's kind of a quick history of this.

During the budget, proposed budget, the Virginia Cooperative Extension was recommended through the ABRT process to reduce their funding by about $7,300.

Okay, I'll wait.

People are excited.

Are those art people?

They're excited.

And this again was based on the review done by the agency budget review team at the time.

We did discuss this agency at several budget work sessions.

I believe a couple of citizens came out at the public hearings and spoke in favor of their programs.

But in the end, council adopted a budget with the reduction in place, and that was the decision that was made.

A few days after the budget was adopted, we received some information from the Virginia Cooperative Extension about a letter they had sent in March that I never saw a copy of.

It would have been good to have at that time.

Unfortunately, budget staff did not see the letter that was referencing a memorandum of understanding that's in place between the city and the Virginia Cooperative Extension that determined some level of funding related to their personnel.

So since that time I've been looking into this MOU, trying to better understand what their funding formula, exactly what their request is, understanding a little bit more about their data, how many that they say they're serving.

I'm trying to validate all this information and as they well know I've been asking many, many questions about this and trying to better understand.

So at this time my recommendations are the following.

I gave council a couple of different recommendations if you wanted to provide funding to them.

My main recommendation though was to first revisit the MOU to incorporate in there some

something about outcomes and expectations and levels of service that would be provided tied to funding.

I can't think of a single city agreement that doesn't do that.

And today we would definitely write an agreement that would define what those outcomes would be and would be clear about what the funding level would be.

If council wanted to provide the funding before we got through that process, we have a mechanism to do that too and that's no problem.

But I think the main thing is the memorandum of understanding and if there's an interest in keeping one with the Virginia Cooperative Extension, we'd really like the opportunity to work with the VCE to revise that.

Maybe there's other Virginia localities that fund the divisions of cooperative extensions that have agreements we could look at so we could do some research in that area.

But I think this goes back to the discussions we had during the budget work sessions that council's definitely interested in accountability and making sure that agencies are providing the outcomes and the information that shows you how citizens are being impacted by the programs that the city is funding.

So we, I believe, and staff believe this is consistent with that discussion that was had during the budget work sessions.

So that's my recommendations in a nutshell.

I know you've gotten a lot of emails about this, but there is a lot of discrepancy in the information.

What I've tried to do is give you a report that is based on the best information I have available.

And so that's what I've attempted to do.

And I know, again, there's some discrepancies that have been pointed out, and we've tried to correct some of those as we've gone along.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

I actually do have a question, clarifying question.

No, that's not a new process.

It was the first time they were in that process.

Right.

Well if we had known they had an MOU in place they probably would have stayed.

It does make sense and my concern is that they don't get sort of punished in a way for that confusion of being moved and I wouldn't blame them if they didn't really understand what, I mean I'm not trying to put words in anybody's mouth, but kind of what the implications of that were because I do think that the way the MOU is written up and just the way the relationship works with the city and the county

You know, if you all have read all this stuff, it's really a relationship with Virginia Tech.

And what really the basic question is, is how does the city and county split this obligation or, you know, agreement really of what it is with Virginia Tech.

And so I think that's more kind of between, I don't think we can really or should, either we or the county should be making decisions without talking to the other one.

because of the implications.

So I would really like to see us fully fund this.

I think that wouldn't be surprising to you, certainly, to Leslie, who knows how many emails we've passed back and forth.

But particularly in consideration of the fact that this just got put in the wrong place.

and got assessed under criteria that really wasn't necessarily appropriate for this.

Well, I think we ought to do some funding for them, but I definitely think we need to have a minimum of understanding.

One of the concerns I had was that they, whether or not it was the right decision or not, that they were within the ABRT process.

And although it was new to them, there was an orientation, there was training available, which they participated in.

And yet, from what I understand, the application that they submitted was so cursory as to have almost no information.

April 13th, it's too depressing to add up.

So the taxpayers are paying for you to spend an hour after Alice and Ryan Davidson and other staff going over this because we didn't, because the process that was outlined and very clear, it seemed to me

I'm all for going and making this over to an MOU.

I'm not really trying to change the outcome here, but it seems that if the Cooperative Extension Service had taken the staff time

required to fill out the application, we would have known that there was an MOU.

We wouldn't be dealing with this now.

We wouldn't have spent all of the staff time and frankly our time reading emails about it after the budget has already been adopted.

It was totally unnecessary.

And I got to say that although I support the work that you all do and I support the fact, especially when we're talking about local agriculture and Farmer Todd here working with kids, it's all things that I support strongly, but I got to say I'm a little mad.

that we had to go through this now when this should have been done during the application process for the APRT.

I would just like to say that

Again, thank you for having the tenacity of a terrier with all this, as well as Miss Ellis.

And again, it sounds like it's a very worthwhile program with a very, very strong support in the community.

We definitely need to have a revised MOU.

Totally agree with this.

I think we all agree with that.

And if that does put it in different categories, so be it.

I am very hesitant to just write the check for $7,355 because I don't think it was totally one size issue or problem.

I think there was a very good process put in place with the ABRT to try to ferret out some of this information.

Having said that, there was a misunderstanding, there were changes, there was transitioning, we were discovering that this might be a different animal than first thought.

And I would like to propose that we put the process in place for developing this new MOU

and then it's only after we've we have determined that there's any additional funds left over at the end of the year that we see if there's anything extra that we might be able to justify giving but not

without knowing even how much of this benefits our city children, I think it's important that we get some of that data first before we even understand how much of the balance gets given back.

I believe that's how we actually handled a lot of the other

And you put it well, though, Kathy, in saying this is a different animal.

And I personally feel that that is, in fact, where it all went wrong, is that we were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole that we've had an historic relationship with Virginia Cooperative Extension.

And all of a sudden, they were in a different process, at least the way I see it.

And I don't think it's necessary to sort of blame anybody

for anything that went wrong, but it went terribly wrong.

And I think we have to recognize that you can debate whether there's this right proper city-county split here, but the fact is, is that the city and county together only pay a third of the costs of providing any of these services, and then we pay, you know, 25% or one and whatever, whatever split.

It's an incredible deal.

and you don't have to believe me but I know a lot about Extension and the services that Extension provides not only to our children but to our adults and the crossover between the city and the county is really unique.

particularly when it comes to their large volunteer programs, Master Gardeners and Master Naturalists, many of whom, even if they live in the county, and many of those, I know so many of them live in the city, but even when they live in the county, they come into the city.

This is a tremendous volunteer force, thousands of hours.

In fact, very often come into the city because we're the ones with the problems.

Sure.

So there's two parts.

One is related to the funding and the other to the MOU.

And our main recommendation is to revisit the MOU and rewrite that basically and make sure we include some outcome data, expectations, and really spell out clearly what the funding formula is.

Secondly is the funding part.

So the 7355 that would make them whole again could either be done now or not tonight but soon.

I mean we could do that at a separate meeting coming up and we could find a source for that.

We would not use council priority initiatives funding.

or as Counselor Galvin suggested, we could wait till the year end after the MOU process is completed.

Now I anticipate we'll get through the MOU process before August, which is when the applications go out.

So it'll certainly be even before that time that, you know, I'd want to make sure we got that done before the next application period began again at the end of August.

And afterwards actually, Leslie, I would like to know if there's any new information about the reserve funds that were unused this year because of the positions.

Hi, I'm Carrie Swanson.

I'm an Ag Agent in, actually for Admiral County so you all don't fund my position, but I also serve as the Unit Coordinator for the Charlottesville Admiral Office of Virginia Cooperative Extension.

And I'd like to address a couple of things, if I can, that I heard tonight.

First of all, the application process, which was very new to us and a different process than we were used to,

The rationale behind using the indicators of quality that we did, the contact, the face-to-face contact information that you've probably read about if you followed the emails, was really because the application is very much designed to track previous years.

So the reason that we chose to use those numbers is because it ties back to previous years and you can see

So we didn't feel like it was a useful measure to throw in new things all at once.

It was difficult to determine what was needed.

So we're absolutely willing to provide different information, number of views served, that kind of thing.

We have no problem doing that.

One of the issues that I had with the background information that you were provided with for tonight was that it said that we had no means to track or record the citizen data from our consumer horticulture program and that there was no means in place.

And there absolutely is.

We were never asked for that information by staff at all.

This is an example of April of last year for the citizen data and the questions that come into our help desk.

I have information, phone numbers,

addresses the questions that were asked, the follow-up information that was given and those are all logged and compiled by our volunteers at the end of the year and so those numbers are absolutely based on hard data and you know I'd be willing to do the same thing for 4-H as well and I believe

Ms. Galvin brought up the rationale behind having a fair proportion between city and county in terms of number of youth served especially for 4-H and making sure that you guys are getting a fair service for your dollar and I absolutely believe that you do.

One of the things that I cited in many of my emails back and forth with Leslie was that you guys pay 25% of the local one-third of the funding

and 26% of our enrollment, now that's club enrollment, and includes youth that have participated in six or more hours of 4-H programming.

There are many more youth that participate and less, but 26% of those enrolled are from the city of Charlottesville.

And we took those addresses out of our database, which is not designed to determine between city and county.

mapped each and every one of them to make sure that I was counting a city address and not a county address with a Charlottesville zip code.

Those are in fact city residents.

So I think you can very fairly say that we do serve that percentage of city residents.

And I think that's a fair percentage between county and city.

I think readdressing the MOU is perfectly viable and a good idea.

The problem is that we're three weeks away from the end of the fiscal year.

I have two employees, two of the four employees that are funded through city funds that stand to lose their job on July 1.

So that's a major concern for me.

I've put an extremely large amount of time into this as well.

I share your frustration.

We've been just as frustrated that we were not accurately represented and that the subsequent staff review did not bring our organization to light and has not provided accurate information either.

I would like the opportunity to readdress the MEU.

I would love to know exactly what you'd like to see in terms of outcomes so that we can provide that.

I have no problem doing that.

It does need to be coordinated with the county.

They provide a large majority of our local funding, about 75 percent of the local funding, with you guys providing about 25 percent.

Even though $7,300 seems like a very small amount, we've got a large amount of funds that stand in the balance.

Let me say that I would like to see we deliver these matching funds this year.

That means that we can take some actual experience.

June 18th.

I would like to ask another question, though, and, Kerry, you can, between Leslie and Kerry, I think maybe you can at least address the uncertainty of this, is that I happen to know that there have been two positions that were unfilled for a good chunk of last year and maybe even part of the year before, and that would be Peter Warren and Laurie Ann Barnett,

and which if we gave full funding to the county do we not we pay we send our funding to the county and then Virginia Tech bills the county so there may be a reserve fund somewhere because we've given full funding but in fact we didn't need full funding because there were two unfilled positions there may well be

I would really like to find that out.

Yeah, that's a really critical piece of information.

My suggestion was that while we're talking about not losing the matching funds.

So that's why I think it would be advisable to make some decisions if they can.

We pay them quarterly.

We pay the county quarterly.

So it's not like they get it all at once.

So if we continue to pay them quarterly, they would get quarterly payments.

So we can continue to pay the full quarterly and if something fell apart, it wouldn't be...

Does that work if we get the full, you get the full payment?

Well, at the same time...

Does that make sense?

...at the same time, we're not sure if we work on our own, address the issue of the services you raised.

Absolutely, sir.

The funding would be contingent on a new MOU.

Not this time.