City Council Meeting   9/16/2013

Music playing...

Music playing...

Music playing

Mr. Norris?

Here.

Ms. Smith?

Here.

Mr. Huja?

Yes.

Ms. Szakos?

Here.

So, Mr Norris.

Seevilsa Broso Day, whereas Charlottesville's census report of 2010 recognizes that Charlottesville's Hispanic and Latino populations have doubled over the past decade to 2,223 people, jumping from 2% to over 5% of the city's population, and whereas the city of Charlottesville in 2009 established a dialogue on race,

in the efforts of engaging every segment of our community in open, honest and ongoing discussion on race, racism and diversity and whereas the city of Charlottesville recognizes that immigrant community members are the bearers of distinct and valuable cultural histories and traditions and whereas the city recognizes that Charlottesville is increasingly becoming a culturally rich and diverse place

and wishes to encourage the local Hispanic community to publicly share with ease the rich cultural heritage of each and every country that it represents and whereas Charlottesville recognizes that we are a nation of immigrants and that the local Hispanic community contributes a great deal to our city

and whereas the city of Charlottesville supports Lumenaria Seaville, a place where family, culture and community coalesce through the arts without borders and Sin Barreras, a local nonprofit link between immigrant peoples and the services and opportunities that are available to them and joining together to bring Charlottesville its first annual Latin American music and folklore dance festival here named Seaville Sabroso.

and whereas we are on this occasion acknowledging our Latino immigrants in honor of National Hispanic Heritage Month and extend the spirit of cultural inclusiveness to all of our immigrant community members in appreciation of the cultural richness they bring to our community.

Charlottesville City Council hereby proclaim September 21st, 2013 as a sub-roso day in city of Charlottesville.

It's signed on the 16th of September.

Is there someone here to receive that proclamation?

I'm very happy to have you here.

We'd love to have you talk if you'd like to say something.

We look forward to a particularly beautiful evening.

Why don't you guys all scooch back in?

Oh, get in front.

Oh, that's gorgeous.

Thanks to everyone.

And a special thanks to Simba Reras and Fanny and Clay, Fanny and Clay, who have worked, we've been working together on this event and it's been a wonderful experience collaborating with you all.

We look forward to the years to come.

As the daughter of a mother from Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, and a father from Loray, Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley,

and as Director of Luminaria Civile, housed in the McGuffey Arts Center, our city, Casa de Cultura, House of Culture.

It's been a long time dream of mine to be a part of creating a space where the rich cultural heritage of Mexico and our sister countries of Latin America can flourish and grow in Charlottesville.

To influence, educate, and create an artistic bridge between cultures and this place we all call home.

It is an honor to be here tonight with my friends from Mexico, Columbia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, and the United States to accept this proclamation from the city in honor of Cívos El Rosso Festival.

During a time

We are celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month all across the U.S. with traditional food, music, dancing, and community.

These are the things that tie us together as cultures, people, and as a human family.

When we are rooted in where we are from, then we can have confidence in where we are going.

I would like to say thank you on behalf of Luminaria Seaville,

and Sin Barreras.

From the bottom of our hearts to our city partners to Charlene Green from the Dialogue on Race, Joe Rice, the Communications Coordinator, City Manager Maurice Jones, Mayor Huja, Vice Mayor Szakos and all the city council members for coming together on such short notice to support this very special occasion for this Hispanic community.

We look forward to seeing you all there.

this Saturday the 21st from 3 to 9 and we look forward to celebrating this momentous event in the years to come.

And could everybody who's here to support... Just wanted to just reiterate on behalf of the directors, officers, and members of CIMBARERAS, we're very honored and appreciate

I'd like to read a proclamation for 2013 World Alzheimer Month Proclamation.

Whereas the nation and the city of Charlottesville observe World Alzheimer Awareness Month during the month of September, whereas Alzheimer's disease, a progressive neurodegenerative brain disorder, tragically rots individuals of their memories and leads to progressive mental and physical impairments.

who has more than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease with as many as 200,000 of those individuals under age 65 who have younger onset of Alzheimer's.

Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., more than prostate cancer and breast cancer.

Whereas the human cost of Alzheimer's disease is staggering.

In 2012, $15.4 million

caregivers provided estimated 17.5 billion hours of unpaid care contribution to the nation valued at $216 billion.

Whereas every 68 seconds, someone in America develops Alzheimer's disease.

And by mid-century, someone will develop Alzheimer's every 33 seconds.

Whereas we seek to recognize the individuals, families, friends, and caregivers dealing with Alzheimer's disease

and researchers who are seeking a cause or cure.

Whereas Celia Scharles recognizes the effort of the Alzheimer's Association to raise funds to support research and promote awareness for Alzheimer's disease and ask its citizens to find ways to do a little big thing.

in the fight to end the disease.

Now, therefore, I stand to say, which I do hereby proclaim the month of September 2013 as World Alzheimer's Awareness Month, signed September 16th.

I want to say thank you so much to the council and to the leadership of the city of Charlottesville that you're willing to provide your leadership as elected officials and administrative officials to increase the awareness of the growing impact of Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

It's an epidemic.

It is the health epidemic of this decade and the next decade.

And with your help, we can ensure that everyone in Charlottesville, including all of these wonderful people here, one of whom has a walked-in Alzheimer's shirt on.

Thank you so much.

that all the residents know about the programs and services we offer at the Alzheimer's Association to help individuals with Alzheimer's as well as caregivers.

This is a disease of families.

And they know about the training and education.

We train all first responders in our area to more effectively deal with families who may be having Alzheimer's and dementia issues.

to know about the research participation opportunities.

All of us can be part of a research study.

And to know that we need you in the fight against Alzheimer's.

So I invite everyone to join us October 12th, Saturday, in Lee Park for a walk to end Alzheimer's here in Charlottesville.

And I leave you with the firm conviction from the Alzheimer's Association that

Together, we will have a world without Alzheimer's.

On behalf of the Sierra Club Keep the Band Coalition and Citizens of Charlottesville, we would like to present the city with this certificate of appreciation to recognize your steadfast support of Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining.

Toxic waste and radioactive contamination created by the extraction and processing of uranium have been linked to increases in leukemia, kidney disease, and other severe health problems.

And the contaminant failure at the first proposed site could result in the contamination of local groundwater sources and downstream drinking water sources

It is crucial that we continue our work to protect our water, health, and the economy from efforts to overturn the ban.

Virginia uranium spent $572,607 lobbying Virginia public officials last year, the most of any group in Virginia during each of the last five years.

As Virginia uranium exerts pressure on Governor McDonald to create a framework for mining,

We hope you will continue to stand with us in protecting the ban by sending a letter urging him to take no regulatory action.

Thank you.

I'm guessing homework needs to be done.

I have an announcement for another award.

We are pleased to announce the Virginia Recreation and Parks Society Awards to the city of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department with the best new program in the state.

Award for population of 25 to 50,000.

And for night hike and campfire program, the program for which the award is given.

And is there anybody here to receive that award?

Well, we have been given an award, so people are doing well.

I want to thank our staff for this work.

I'd like to announce the 2013 Better Business Challenge.

The Better Business Challenge is a friendly points-based competition aimed at helping our non-residential community partners, including businesses, schools, churches, and non-profits, achieve greater resource and cost efficiency and sustainability.

More than that, the challenge is a way to bring our business community and consumer citizens together to help us be better environmental stewards of our community and further goals of local

Resiliency.

This nearly year-long program will spur innovation and efficiency and continue to galvanize local leaders around smart and sustainable business.

The easiest way to find out more is to check out the program website at www.cvillebetterbiz.com.

City Council encourages your participation in this fun local challenge to show off what sustainable practices you already are involved with and learn what other strategies might make good business sense.

And is Terry Kent here to receive this or to make a comment on this?

All right.

Hello, Council.

Thank you very much for inviting me up here to talk about the Next Better Business Challenge.

We're very excited to launch this program again for businesses.

The first round, 2011-2012, had 100 businesses participating, saving thousands of dollars on reduction of energy and water and waste.

So we're very proud of our businesses, and we're very grateful for the city's support of this program.

So thank you all.

It's a free program for businesses and non-profits and churches and schools.

Open enrollment, we invite everyone out to find out more about it at Main Street Arena this week.

5.30 to 7.30, we're having a happy hour.

And then the first Lunch and Learn kicks off October 3rd with LED lighting savings focus and energy.

efficiency.

So we're looking forward to a lot of cost savings, more great innovation from businesses, and a community-wide effort that's very important in terms of environmental stewardship and really building our local economy and resiliency.

Alright, and I have four announcements of upcoming events.

The Charlottesville High School Orchestra is performing at the Free Expression Monument September 19th.

The String Ensemble will perform concerts in Bison Saint and Paris, France next June.

Come join us for our kickoff announcement and performance in the downtown mall next Thursday, September 19th at 1 p.m. in front of the Free Speech Wall.

So that's very exciting.

On October 3rd will be the next Our Town meeting when city council goes on the road.

It will be in the Woollen Mills neighborhood at the Woollen Mills Chapel.

From 6 to 8 p.m. childcare and dinner will be provided for free.

It's an all public comment, no time limit chance for people in the Woolen Mills neighborhood to talk to council.

and then also on Saturday, the 28th of September, my daughter's birthday, there will be a vegetarian festival which many of you have come to know and love and expect at Lee Park from 11 o'clock to five o'clock.

Great food, a lot of vendors, you can learn more about vegetarian eating or cooking and that evening will be the City Scholarship Program Gala at the Paramount Theater.

I just have two announcements.

Government Services Day, the city of Charlottesville's Government Services Day is held every year in the fall on the historic downtown mall.

This event gives the community a chance to meet and talk with dozens of city departments and partner agencies about a wide scope of city services and programs.

This year's event will take place on Thursday, September 26, from 10 to 2, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

City staff and other representatives will be available to answer questions and distribute useful information to help citizens become more informed about their city.

People of all ages are invited to participate in everything Government Services Day has to offer, including interactive displays, exciting demonstrations, educational tours, special guests, and so much more.

So again, that's September 26th.

That's a Thursday.

from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. right on the downtown mall.

Second announcement is Charlottesville Community Career Conference returns this fall.

On Tuesday, October 8th, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at John Paul Jones Arena, job seekers will have an exclusive opportunity to network and discover how they can move up the career ladder.

The Career Conference will be an all-day event focusing on how job seekers can

market themselves to top employers in the local community.

For the first time, the Career Conference will also host the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce's Business Expo, giving job seekers the opportunity to learn about open positions in Charlottesville as well as connect with professionals in the business community.

The Career Conference is free and open to the public.

However, pre-registration is highly encouraged.

For more information or to pre-register, go to www.Charlottesville.org.

We also have some spots available for employers interested in participating.

I almost forgot and I apologize.

I just wanted to give a shout out to the Burnley Moran third graders.

On September 6th, they invited myself and Lizelle Duggar, who is our city clerk, our court clerk, and Sheriff James Brown to give them a talk about government.

They were studying local government and we talked for about over 30 minutes and they all sat still and it was a real, you know,

Big deal, 60 children in the small classroom were great, and we were already impressed with them when shots were heard outside the school.

Turned out to be fireworks, it was not really a danger, but no one knew that at first.

They called an immediate lockdown of the school.

The children knew exactly what to do.

They went under the tables in their classroom, back in the cubby area, pulled down the shades, closed the door, and those children sat under a table for another 20, 25 minutes after their

Long sitting listening about government services silently and still and I was so impressed at first I felt like it was kind of traumatic that they would have to do this but the fact that they knew what to do made them feel unafraid and I think it was a really nice testament to the to the schools and how well-prepared children are to know what to do in an emergency and to the particular third graders of Burnley Moran and at least the teacher whose name that I have is Anna Isley

Yes, I have a couple.

September is Library Card Sign Up Month.

The Jefferson Madison Regional Library wants to make sure that your child has the smartest card of all, a library card.

Observed since 1987, this is a time when the American Library Association and libraries across the country

Remind parents that a library card is the most important school supply of all.

Library cards are free and bring you a world of opportunity no matter what your age.

You can find out more at the library's website JRML.org

Also, and I'm repeating this one from last council meeting because it's so important, our water resources, and there's folks out here who would be just perfect for this and you know who you are, Water Resources Protection Program Advisory Committee is being formed.

Right now, in February 2013, City Council approved a stormwater utility ordinance establishing a utility that will provide dedicated revenue to support the water resources protection program.

At that time, City Council also passed a resolution establishing a council-appointed

Standing WRPP Advisory Committee.

The Water Resources Protection Program is designed to ensure regulatory compliance, address drainage and flooding problems, provide for stormwater infrastructure rehabilitation and water quality improvement strategies, and promote public education outreach and involvement.

The Advisory Committee will engage in matters pertaining to the Water Resources Protection Program, including conducting periodic assessment of program priorities,

and funding needs and monitoring key components of the program.

The City of Charlottesville is accepting applications right now.

The deadline to apply is October 1st.

Two quick things.

First of all, this Saturday at Westminster Presbyterian Church at 5 o'clock is the 30th anniversary dinner for the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice, and I wanted to make sure that people were aware of that very special event.

Secondly, on behalf of our wonderful sheriff, James Brown, who was mentioned earlier, I want to make sure everybody knows that thanks to the sheriff's department, we have a good supply of these emergency preparedness guides.

This is National Emergency Preparedness Month, I believe.

And these are available in the lobby of City Hall and other places around the community.

These are great little guides that talk about how you and your family can be prepared for an emergency.

how you can prepare a disaster supply kit, how to treat injuries in the case of an emergency, how to handle evacuation, dealing with specific kinds of disasters, all kinds of great resources and information in here.

So, thank you, Sheriff Brown.

Is there anyone else with specific counsel?

Now we move to the next agenda item, matters by the public.

You can come and speak.

You have three minutes to speak.

Good evening.

My name is George Seymour and this is my wife Kathy.

We own and operate the import car store on the corner of Hydraulic Road in Route 29.

September 11th is not a particularly good day to be sure.

This past Wednesday, September 11th, 2013, we were presented a site plan by city employee Mr. Tolbert

and a colleague.

The site plan was titled Albemarle Place Road Improvement Plan, Route 29 and Hydraulic Road, which showed in detail the substantial loss of our property along Hydraulic Road, but referred to by Mr. Tolbert as a small sliver of property.

Let me assure you that's the understatement of the decade.

First of all, this planning was done totally behind our backs without any knowledge whatsoever on our part.

About a year ago, surveyors showed up on our property.

Under question by my wife, they stated they were working for the developers across the street.

She informed them our land was privately owned by us and they should leave.

Sometime after that, survey stakes appeared in front of our store.

But how could that be?

We're open from 9 to 6, Monday through Saturday.

How could this have been done without our knowledge?

Better yet, why would they sneak in and survey our property?

We had, as of this past Wednesday, not received any notification of a proposal for the Albemarle Place Road Improvement Plan.

How exactly does this proposal affect our property across 29?

Our property is small, barely adequate for our business.

How could we possibly give up a 20-foot strip of property along Hydraulic Road?

We would be unable to display cars in front of our building.

and that's quite unacceptable.

But let me assure you, let us both assure you that that property is more than just a small sliver of land to us.

That 38,000 square foot piece of dirt is a culmination of 32 years of blood, sweat and yes, tears.

Whose idea was it to build Albemarle Place then go across 10 lanes of traffic and confiscate our property?

Our business has no impact on traffic whatsoever.

So why are we expected to pay so dearly for rich developers to make a fortune?

We have never asked, received, expected, or would accept anything from the government.

Our property is not just 38,000 square feet of dirt.

It's 32 years of George and Kathy Seymour working together to make their own way.

We feel about our property at 901 Seminole Trail just like we feel about our home.

We feel cheated and we feel violated, just like when a thief burglarizes your home.

Hello, my name is Lena Seville.

I live at 808 Alta Vista Avenue in Charlottesville.

And I'm here to talk to you about the Belmont Bridge and some related matters.

The first thing I wanted to bring up was in reading the paperwork on the bridge, pedestrian access, which is something I have been asking about for a while now, because it's very limited from the neighborhood of Belmont, there is not an access point

from Carlton Avenue all the way over to I think it's Second Street and that includes the transit center.

I noted in there that when it mentioned the possibility of a pedestrian crossing, it called it extremely hazardous and I'd like to know what that's based on.

I mean, right now the Second Street crossing is next to three parking lots and multiple businesses, the farmer's market, they're talking about putting it next to the

next to that but this particular crossing they're calling extremely hazardous and I'd like a little more explanation of that.

I also think that that spot would be a great place to extend downtown.

There's numerous businesses in that area and not only would it give access to the transit center, there's a field there that could be developed, there's access to Belmont.

Right now we really don't have a way to get to downtown.

I get to the base of Belmont Bridge and I have to decide I can go many blocks this way to get across, I can go a few blocks this way but it's not an official crossing and after dark I don't feel safe doing that or I can go up over the bridge

and if the pavilion's closed then I have to circle back around and down and even the pedestrian bridge that they talked about putting in would have me going up if the pavilion is open and I can't get through that way back down and then to get downtown back up again it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense this would be a really ideal place for a pedestrian crossing and people are already doing it the other day I went to an unofficial crossing and there were four other people doing it at the same time I was doing it

So that's hazardous, much more so than having an official crossing at a not even really highly used area.

I mean it doesn't have a lot of car traffic, but our neighborhood would really like to be able to access downtown easily, conveniently.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was the bridge versus the underpass, or as I might even call it, a tunnel.

To me it's huge.

I mean it's three rows of the underpass.

It's three rows of train, two rows of cars, and it has to be deep enough that buses can get underneath there.

I mean that's

It's not very inviting for somebody to walk through.

I don't think it's a very inviting way to approach the city.

We talk about it looking nice.

Avon Street is the most traveled of anything in that area, and you're putting them into concrete walls.

Also, Water Street in that area doesn't have any lights.

The traffic flows pretty easily.

But Avon Street has lights, so cars stop.

And when you get there,

When the lights are red, it's kind of a heat pollution sort of thing.

And an underpass actually makes that worse.

It has no airflow.

I think it would be a really uninviting way to replace the bridge.

In addition, I think there's a lot of costs that haven't been included, as we've seen in the paperwork.

I have no problem spending a little more money for something that's significantly better, but I don't think that we're getting that.

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

I have three things on my mind.

I think last week was transit week, but I don't own a car, so every week is transit week.

Have you ever used the phone number and station number to get what's supposed to be real-time bus information?

Well, I want to bring a, I mean the idea is nice.

If you haven't tried it, you should try it and I want staff to try it too.

I've left messages about some of my experiences.

For one thing, the recording starts so fast.

I don't know, by the time you punch in the bus station number, half the message is gone.

It's gotten a little clearer, that's nice.

But it's also, what's disturbing is the times are frequently off.

One time, during a period the trolley was supposed to come every 15 minutes, the recording said no buses in the next 30 minutes.

So I'm standing there and of course one shows up about five minutes later.

But typically it'll say a bus is coming in 13 minutes and one shows up immediately.

So I'm not real sure what triggers it but it would certainly

If we want more people to use buses, we need to have our infrastructure reliable.

Second, you have on the agenda an update for the Belmont Bridge.

It's been quite a while since the last public discussion, and I think a lot of people would appreciate it if you would ask staff to spend a couple minutes reminding us why was repairing the existing bridge rejected.

and third, this is about your agenda and when items are not yet ready to put on the agenda.

If a report isn't ready when the material is public to the post, unless it's time critical, it shouldn't be put on the agenda.

Don't expect the citizens to have to go back over and over.

Even with email reminders that we get, we shouldn't have to do that.

You shouldn't have to do that.

This week,

The item, which I believe is very poorly titled, simply Rivanna Quarterly Update, was not available when the agenda was first posted.

A lot of people don't necessarily know what we all mean when we say Rivanna.

Is it an update on the water quality of the river?

Is it an update on the water quantity?

I don't know.

The staff memo calls it an RWSA agenda

Update.

Well, it turns out it's both.

Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.

Anyway, I think that it would be better served to make sure that materials are fully available.

And if not, put it off.

This is going to be the fastest three minutes.

Members of council, my name is Jim Rounswell.

I live at 1113 Monticello Road.

As council knows, Peter Hsieh and I were hired to review and develop proposals for the redesign of Belmont Bridge.

The work presented this past February arose out of a community-driven effort, including two competitions to propose alternatives to the MMM replacement overpass.

Public input, as well as recommendations from both place and bike committees,

were also incorporated.

Using conceptual proposals, our goal was to engage in a public review of the design merits of each option and incorporate these ideas into a final design.

Unfortunately, the meeting focused almost solely on cost.

Attendees recognized the facts presented in the city staff handout were biased and a public backlash ensued.

In response, Mr. Tolbert apologized to the public and reassumed direct control of the project.

On March 27th, we met with Mr. Tolbert and agreed that information essential for public and council to make an informed decision was missing, specifically because comparative costs were based on estimates developed prior to public and committee input,

We agree that all costs be developed and disclosed for both schemes.

Costs not only included the structures but finishes, landscaping, sidewalks, stairs, as well as a more precise estimate of the pedestrian bridge.

An economic and real estate impact study was also recognized as essential.

So here we are seven months later and yet relevant cost information has been precluded.

The $15 million estimate for the overpass is simply an update of the original MMM overpass, a proposal that the public has categorically rejected.

It does not include costs of public or committee design input that was part of the February presentation.

The $1.4 million already spent on the project is also missing from the figures.

So to be clear, the $16.4 million option will cost more, possibly as much as $20 million.

The $27 million underpass estimate, on the other hand, does incorporate public and committee recommendations.

Yes, the underpass will cost more, encounter more hurdles, take longer, and be more complicated, but it's a superior solution to retain the economic competitiveness of our city.

Unfortunately, we don't yet have apples to apples.

This report is incomplete and consequently raises additional concerns.

Where is the estimate for the pedestrian bridge?

Where is the supporting data from the SIA study?

Why hasn't either option been included in the SIA study?

Why is there no documentation from the pavilion lessee who also is equally affected as the tenants and owners of LexisNexis?

Why, if cost is the only concern, does the possibility of a design-build approach for the underpass continue to be excluded from the conversation?

It is precisely because design-build offers a means to reduce both time and cost that it is imperative it be included.

Despite public support for the underpass, design-build is not even mentioned in this report.

It's unfortunate that city staff has not engaged the nationally recognized experts in the design-build field who have offered to assist them.

is increasingly frustrating that we as a community have yet to have the previously scheduled conversation about the design merits of each proposal and what this critical decision means for the next 50 years.

Public discourse continues to intensely focus on cost.

Instead, perhaps like 37 years ago, when the automobile surrendered downtown to the pedestrian, can we transcend the moment and make this project the centerpiece of council's stated vision for a vibrant and commercially competitive downtown woven into the pedestrian-centric city-wide parking trail system?

This is not 1961.

The rail and federal interstate forces that shape this decaying bridge are gone, and it's time to transform, even restore this landscape.

In this iconographic moment, shall vehicles at the equivalent height of a three-story building embody who we are and continue to divide this part of the city, or do we exceed the moment and open a civic gateway?

Relegating the automobile to the ground plane, I cannot think of a better way to symbolize a municipality's ambition to become a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, livable city than with an emblematic tensile pedestrian bridge.

I don't think just replacing a federal highway ever passed makes the grade.

All right.

I just want to talk about opportunities.

And actually, Brian Weimer, 712 Grave Street.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in front of the public.

Not everybody gets this.

We have an opportunity of a document you're going to look at.

And to me, actually, the great opportunity is to show how far the city staff will go to fail in understanding what the city needs.

or listen to the citizen's desires.

And two, totally missed the bigger picture.

Within it, as well as what Jim has talked about, are five basic false assumptions.

One, does it have to be four lanes?

It joins a two-lane road into a two-lane road.

Why is it four lanes?

Why has that never been questioned?

It crosses three railroad tracks.

Why does the engine sit idle on an extra track right under the bridge?

Why not move it 100 yards away?

Why does Old Avon have to be accommodated?

When is a redundant road?

Why is not an at-grade crossing on the table?

Go to Manassas.

Every single at-grade crossing there is at a major road.

Is Manassas any different than we are?

I think we're better.

and also just the viability of the Belmont Bridge vicinity like the process of the ICS which has been so productive.

Why has not the economic viability of that whole area been discussed?

Why is it a bridge?

And that's where we get to this bigger opportunity and a bigger issue because this bridge is an opportunity.

It's a gateway.

It's not just pavement.

This is an opportunity to create a whole viable area within the city to totally change how people interact and come into this city.

Now, we've had other missed opportunities, and last year, actually more than a year ago, we missed an opportunity to apply for a $250,000 design grant.

We can still probably do something like that.

We've still got time.

Another missed opportunity, and I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the report that you're going to read was released after the place meeting, when they would have had a chance to weigh in on it.

Why was it presented then?

and I guess the bigger issue is an opportunity for design oversight and that's really what I want to come out of this is the city has a problem with the process and where I want to go with this is world class city.

You guys said it, not me.

World class city, world class city, world class city.

I'm trying to be a world class citizen here.

I think that everybody here are world class citizens for showing up and being part of the process.

I think you guys have a chance to be, and are, a world class city council.

Why don't we have a world class process in the design of our city?

Thank you.

Greetings, I'm David Hurstman, 1107 Calhoun Street, and I'm here to talk to you tonight about playing in the streets.

In our constant quest to get our kids outside and exercising and away from their electronic devices we got one of those portable basketball hoops and we put it outside in the street and it worked.

The teenagers and their friends were outside playing on beautiful days and that was very gratifying and it worked for a week because about a week later we got a visit from one of Charlottesville's finest

a Charlottesville police officer telling us to move the basketball hoop, which we did.

But my wife Garnet wanted to know, well, what's the problem with the basketball hoop, what we were in violation of.

And we discovered some very interesting parts of the city code.

Section 2827, coasting, snowballing, et cetera in the streets.

No person shall slide or coast upon the ice or snow in any street.

It doesn't say whether the coasting or sliding can be intentional or maybe inadvertent.

No person shall throw any snowballs in the street.

Section 2828, playing games in the streets.

No person shall play any game in any street.

No parent or guardian having the legal custody of any minor shall permit such minor to violate the provisions of this section.

Well, I'm being a little facetious because of course the streets need to be safe places and the code needs to address safety.

But then a little while later, I read in the paper one of our city councils, I think it was Miss Smith, talk about the concept of complete streets.

And I thought, I wonder what that is, a complete street.

I've heard about it in Arlington and other places.

And lo and behold, there's a national complete streets coalition.

And I went on their website and they have this definition of complete streets, which are streets for everyone.

They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, people of all ages and abilities that are able to safely move along and across streets in a community, regardless of how they are traveling.

Complete streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work.

They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations.

And I thought this was great.

This is very admirable.

And I think our city already does a lot of this.

But I would only suggest that maybe a good place to start to implement complete streets is to look at some of the issues of the code.

And maybe there's some updated sections to bring our zoning ordinance in line with the implementation of complete streets.

And it would be great.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Before I begin, I have some handouts to give to all the council members.

First off, I would like to thank you all for allowing us to be here tonight.

My name is Jake Bibbin, and I'm a fourth year student at the University of Virginia.

And I want to come up here and address the noise ordinance update that's getting brought up this evening.

And I just want to present to you all

Some of the efforts that are made by myself and my peers that are here with me, Kathleen Lovell, President of the Inner Sorority Council, Eric McDaniel, Student Council President, Jaylen Ross, Director of University Relations who actually drafted this release, and Hayat Yashish who is the Minority Rights Coalition President.

And just wanted to show you all that

We have been making progressive efforts to limit the amount of noise violation calls that go on throughout the Venable neighborhood area.

As listed here on the release,

One of the main things that we as student leaders like to do, strive to do, is to have our groups give back to the greater Charlottesville community.

And through that we do such events like Tucker for Charity, Project Serve, Greek Week, Palm Dress Drive, Madison House, and several philanthropies that benefit the community.

The reason why I bring these up to you all this evening is just to reiterate our progressive movement towards making the streets of Charlottesville a better community and a better place for all the members who live here to embrace and like we've all been talking about just enjoy the great area that you all have benefited us with.

Thank you.

I'm Kirk Bowers, I'm a county resident and I just wanted to reinforce

for your good work on the uranium ban.

I'm the conservation chair for the Sierra Club in this area and we appreciate your good work.

Thank you very much.

And also I wanted to mention that this Saturday is the International Day of Peace and I'm on the board of directors of the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice.

I'd like to invite everybody here to come to that event on Saturday evening if you have time.

It's at the Presbyterian Church on Rugby Road

We're 30 years old this year, and we're also celebrating peace on that day, and I think that's something we can all look forward to and hope in the future.

Good evening.

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

I have several concerns that may need to be addressed as they relate to my neighborhood.

Before tonight, I felt these concerns could be presented when council and staff visit the 10th and Page neighborhood.

According to Mr. Jones' assistant, this will not happen until maybe December.

Therefore, I felt

These concerns should be given to you before then.

The first one relates to the increased parking in our neighborhood by individuals that do construction work on Main Street and hospital employees.

This particular problem is growing worse in our area.

Another traffic issue

deals with the narrow streets in this area and in Charlottesville neighborhoods in the inner city part of Charlottesville.

Evidently, the city was laid out during Thomas Jefferson's time horse and buggy and the streets are so narrow that cars can hardly get through.

For instance, on 8th Street Northwest,

up around the 300 block.

Cars are parked on one side and traffic comes, it's going in both directions, north and south down on 8th Street.

And you have to wait and you can hardly see what's coming around the corner and cars travel, they travel right fast on 8th Street and on many of the streets in the area.

Why can't the city do a traffic study to address all the streets in Charlottesville?

Whether or not maybe some of the streets need to be one-way streets, whether or not parking needs to be just on one side of the streets.

But it's a problem and it's a problem that I guess many of you are not aware of because

The emphasis presently appears to be heavily on Main Street.

Lastly, I have several budgetary issues that I think council could address.

Can the city employ a company that can combine newspapers,

and Garbage so that you will not have to have two separate containers when you put your trash out.

One of my friends said that she deals with a company that combines everything.

Time.

I have one other

It appears you have appointed a blue ribbon committee that will address the city schools budgetary concerns and maybe the city schools will not have to come to you in the spring asking for more funds.

Thank you.

Please use your name and address.

Rolf Braun, 1120D East High Street.

I'm here just to raise a couple of questions about the Belmont Bridge and underpass issue.

I hear a lot of talk from certain people in the community that

about the cost estimates that maybe the bridge isn't that much cheaper.

Well, the bridge is cheaper than the underpass and while they say maybe there are costs not included in the bridge, I think that there are costs in the underpass proposal that have not even been broached.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of the underpass is as far as community development, but it seems from a design perspective that it's designed that it could be a wider, more welcoming space.

In order to do that, because the bridge over the underpass still wouldn't have to be as long as the actual bridge, but in order to do that, you would have a fairly large amount of impact on the property at each end.

We've already lost a valued community space this year in random row books.

I would hate to see something similar with the Bridge PAI.

I know Charlottesville residents love spud nuts.

The proponents of the underpass haven't presented any coherent vision in my mind as to how this effect on the community around it would be mitigated.

It seems to me like it's almost intended as an engine of gentrification.

that it's intended to have a big vision and big development and I'm not sure that's what a lot of the city residents want in that area.

The contest that they're talking about where supposedly citizens preferred this design, well the people paying attention to this contest from the beginning wanted the at-grade and then they wanted the underpass.

A certain set of people have been driving this process from the beginning.

It really hasn't been that well advertised to the larger community.

For instance, the bike committee supposedly approved it, but as a cyclist, I can't imagine wanting a structure with a larger grade, especially keeping novice cyclists in mind.

with both ends, with Market Street and Garrett Street being a considerably higher elevation, I believe 10 to 20 feet higher than the railroad tracks, the grade of the underpass would almost certainly be higher.

The underpass might also flood, being below the grade of pretty much all of the surrounding land.

That's a cost that hasn't been considered at all.

Finally, the bridge, having an underpass, there's no opportunity to provide sound baffling from the pavilion.

if, which is something that I believe a lot of the Belmont residents were asking for.

It appears the intent of a lot of the underpass advocates is to move the pavilion.

I heard one comment at an architectural event where they said, let's move the pavilion next to the cemetery so it will disturb the dead instead of the living.

Well, right around that whole cemetery area, you have Friendship Court, Crescent Halls, other low income housing.

I guess those people aren't dead, are they?

I think the underpass is a planning nightmare waiting to happen.

It's a financial nightmare for the city and it's a civil engineering non-starter.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Member of Council.

My name is Tim Freilich.

I'm a resident of 719 Levy Avenue, just a few doors up from Spudnuts where I live with my wife and two young girls.

I'm also a regular bike commuter and my wife walks across the bridge every day to work for the city.

From the first MMM design group meetings, I was a vocal participant criticizing the replacement highway bridge process, the highway overpass concept that MMM seemed to be pushing.

I celebrated Project Gateway and the architecture school competition and the important messages that I think both of these efforts have sent.

But I've tried for months to envision the three underpass with no at-grade crossing option.

and it doesn't work for me.

I've talked with my wife, neither of us would feel comfortable with designs that we've seen so far walking under a series of underpasses at night alone, nor would we want our girls walking there.

As a bike commuter, I also am very concerned about the additional grade and also going through at night, it just seems like that would be a scarier option than the current

Bridge.

On the other hand, I don't like the current bridge that much.

I'm really disappointed that we haven't had an enhanced bridge option or even a reasonable expiration of such an option.

I think that the proposed replacement highway overpass with inadequate bike and pedestrian facilities would be a tremendous lost opportunity.

But I would be perfectly happy with a broad

Broad good-looking bridge with cantilevered, lightweight bike and pedestrian facilities on either side of the bridge.

And maybe a slightly wider spot in the sidewalks at the highest point of the bridge where you could stop and look at the mountains or watch the sunsets or trains.

I love watching the sunsets from the top of the bridge.

My girls love watching the trains and buses.

And I love the gentle separation that I get between my house and the bustle of downtown.

I have really appreciated all of the alternative proposals that have come out.

I wish we had more design details on the underpass option as a resident of Belmont with lots of friends who are really supporting the underpass option.

I want to love and understand it.

I haven't yet.

The inclusion of the flyaway pedestrian bridge is great maybe if you're going to the downtown mall if it's officially included.

But what does that say about that underpass option if it's not included?

And that's what really concerns me as someone who often bikes across and then goes to the right instead of towards the downtown mall.

As a biker also I'm concerned that the pedestrian bridge addition that looks so lovely

doesn't seem like it would be doing anything for me as a bicyclist.

I could be wrong about that.

Again, we don't have all the design details.

Anyway, I'm really urging the council to consider an enhanced bridge option.

And I don't think it's too late to head down that course.

And we might end up with something between the two that leaves us better than we have been.

Thanks.

Good evening.

I'm Peter Kleeman.

I live at 407 Hedge Street in the city.

I'm not here to promote either a bridge or an at-grade crossing or a tunnel for the Belmont Bridge replacement, but I would like to recommend that the assumption that there should be 100% through traffic at all times in the development of whatever that solution is be relaxed.

it seems to me that considering that assumption that it is essential that traffic be flowing across that particular roadway at all times during the construction is a burden and certainly a bias against certain solutions in that set of bridge, tunnel, or at grade crossing.

So my feeling is when I look at

the McIntire Road extended project that's being built there are many times when that is effectively not passable and that is a much larger traffic flow area in the city that is another gateway to the city and today I was avoiding that area because it was impossible to pass through there during a certain portion of the day

So my feeling is that to not bias the kind of solution that would be developed, it would make sense to look at reasonable accommodations for detours and other ways through the city.

There are many other ways to get across that railroad track at other sections both

I want to say east and west of that intersection and I'm sure that there can be some accommodations made to allow a fairer evaluation of the broad range of alternatives rather than just biasing them by an assumption rather than an analysis.

Thank you.

We will close the session with comments.

At the end of the meeting there will be an opportunity for people to speak as they would like to speak.

First of all, we are going to have a discussion on the Belmont Bridge later, but thank you to everyone who came to speak about the bridge.

We'll hold off on that until later.

I did want to reassure Mr. Gaines with regards to the trash issue.

We actually have the best of both worlds in the city of Charlottesville because you have the choice of separating out recyclables from garbage and putting your recyclables out on the curb.

But what's left over in your garbage can is then taken to a facility that sorts out the recyclables from the garbage.

So we do have that system in place here in the city of Charlottesville.

And on top of that, if you want to take recyclables to the McIntire Recycling Center, you can do that too.

So that's good news and I do think the parking issues that you mentioned certainly warrant some attention from staff so I'd like to have staff take a look at that.

I'm really sort of intrigued and troubled and only slightly amused by the comments of Mr. Hirschman about playing in the street and how it is that that's illegal in the city of Charlottesville so I certainly hope

We can figure that one out because that's really absurd.

I mean, the whole idea of neighborhood streets and complete streets is that they are open to all users, including sometimes children playing basketball, I would hope.

I agree with Ms. Quinn that the real-time info is sorely insufficient and I've had to rely on it myself extensively in the last year.

It's not that great.

So I do hope we can take a hard look at that as well.

Okay, and ditto on the Belmont Bridge, taking lots of notes.

Really great points all around.

It's going to be a really interesting and healthy discussion.

And I happen to know that IT is actually working with transit to make a better system.

You're right, it's happened to all of us.

I wonder if on the agenda for our meetings when the materials aren't there, just a note could be made that check back for materials because I've had the same situation and kind of have to go back.

It takes a while to download those and I agree too with Dave Hirschman.

It's happening around the city, I'm not going to say where, but it's been really nice.

I've even seen a resurgence of kids playing outside and often in the city, same issues as Mr. Gaines is talking about, the narrow streets and the

Thank you again on the Belmont Bridge very good

I will speak namely to Mr. Hirshman and first about the Complete Streets.

The city passed the Complete Streets Resolution in 2010.

Nothing's been implemented in a concerted way or a comprehensive way.

We have talked about that already when we were passed a resolution for the HEAL.

which was the healthy eating active living resolution.

At that point I interjected the need for a context sensitive street solution as well.

Both of those strategies deal with creating streets that are used by all modes, streets that are sensitive to their surroundings and that are designed in accordance with the context that's not one size fits all.

And all of that needs to have a city wide transportation plan.

as has been discussed later.

We need to have a citywide plan in order to identify where there are problems and disconnects between our existing street sections and our codes.

That is something that has come up in our comprehensive plan update.

It is something that was repeatedly stated in the place design task force report.

And so we are at a point now where we have to make a decision on how to both implement

a complete streets resolution that's been around for three years, how to implement the HEAL resolution, how to revise and look at our codes, and how are we going to get that citywide transportation plan that is the foundation for all of that.

That again is a major implementation question.

It's going to be about looking at how do you coordinate between departments because when you're dealing with streets, you're dealing with infrastructure that is below grade and above grade.

So you're dealing with utilities, you're dealing with stormwater.

We have a stormwater utility that we passed that is moving us towards a direction of green infrastructure.

So again, the public works needs to be coordinated with

with neighborhood services needs coordinated even with parks because you're dealing with green infrastructure.

So you're raising big, big questions and important questions that have to do with systems of the city.

And we can only handle that in a very, very comprehensive concerted way that's going to be cross departmental.

And when you do that, you need people to understand design thinking and problem solving.

So I'm hoping that this council really does, really does understand what needs to be done to implement these important ideas, which have been around with us for many years.

Any other comments from city council members?

I agree with most of the concerns of my colleagues.

And we are moving to the next item, the consent agenda.

I'm here today to present the results of the results of the results.

Item H, Resolution 1, extension of your classes at Lewis and Park, is quoted first in our Virginia corporate, $130,000 versus home reading.

Item I, Resolution Amendment Number 2, adding material and innovations to the program's agreement and local government support agreement for recycling, first of one reading.

Item J, an ordinance, the 19th development district code changes, second of two readings.

Item K, an ordinance exchange of permanent easements to cure encroachments at 431 Monticello Road, second of two readings.

I think council members would like to remove any items from the consent agenda or would like to make a comment on the action.

Second.

Can I actually ask one question?

Not in the city.

Okay, let's vote.

Thank you.

Next item in the public hearing on the amendment of 1625-21 trail access easement.

Who's presenting that?

That's the other one.

The other one got buried somewhere.

The item before you this evening is the request for the abandonment of a pedestrian easement along Brandywine Drive that goes into the new Meadow Creek Valley Park.

The easement was created a number of years ago along with a sanitary sewer easement leading from Brandywine Drive down into the Stream Valley.

However, the easement topographically is very, very, very steep.

As we walked through the master planning for the Stream Valley, the neighbors that are immediately adjacent to this easement asked that we evaluate and possibly abandon the pedestrian portion of the easement, obviously leaving the sanitary sewer easement in place.

After site visits and talking with them and seeing the situation, we agreed that it would make sense to go ahead and abandon the pedestrian portion of the easement.

There is pedestrian access further south along Brandywine Drive from the right of way that will allow us to provide trail access to the east side of the stream.

So it showed on the map where the new access is.

Where else can people access?

If you're walking from that area, is there any place else along there?

Another clarification question?

If not, I'll open the public hearing.

Anybody here who would like to speak on this topic?

Good evening.

My name is Peter Kleeman.

I live at 407 Head Street in the city.

I generally am opposed to the idea of closing pedestrian accesses to public open spaces, and unless it is hazardous or dangerous or an invitation for injury,

were something I would recommend that all of your public accesses that are in existence remain in existence and perhaps be expanded.

I think if we're going to make a pedestrian-friendly community, we need to be adding linkages, not removing them.

Thank you.

I'm Charles Hughes.

I live at 1625 Brandywine Drive and the pedestrian easement would come directly by our house, within three feet of our house.

It's a very steep decline.

It could be hazardous for people who have trouble walking.

It's not conducive to an access to the trail, but mostly I'm more concerned with people walking right by our windows and being able to see in.

We haven't had anybody that actually in the five years, six years that we've lived there have actually come through our yard to

to access the trail there except our neighbors across the street and on either side.

It's not conducive.

They have to come through the driveway, walk up the front yard, and then down the pedestrian easement.

So it's not really that convenient.

Unless you've seen it, I don't think you should really make a judgment on it.

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

If not, I close the public hearing.

I have a question, just quick.

How far away from this existing easement is the unbuilt public right-of-way?

10 houses down.

Is that a motion?

Sure.

Is the second a motion?

Second.

Yeah, I'd just like to say, I mean, I too, it sort of hurts to close an easement, particularly when it means that people don't have to get in a car and get to the trailhead.

and I do think it's also, Brandywine's not that easy to walk along, but I trust Parks and Rec's judgment on this.

I have a question, didn't we just put sidewalks in there?

Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council.

Tonight this is just really an update on where we are and a report on the process.

If you remember back in February, as has been outlined earlier, we came to you and slowed down the work that was going on with the Belmont Bridge.

We had been through the process with the design competitions and there had been a lot of questions raised and so

We came to council and said we want to do some analysis and get some information for you.

We wanted to try to get as close as we could with the information we had of cost estimates that were as closely comparable as we could get them and we wanted to get an independent third party to do those for us.

We wanted to find out definitively if the railroad would allow us to have an underpass and if so with what conditions.

We wanted to try to figure out if there would be any additional right-of-way costs with either option and what were those costs, if we could define that.

And then were there any negative impacts to property owners and also what are the potentials for positive economic development.

We also said that going forward, once council made a decision as to which direction you wanted to go, that we wanted to engage the place design task force as the steering committee, which we had not had a steering committee prior to that point.

If you recall, this went to the Place Design Task Force last year who made a statement to council, wrote a letter to council that essentially said that all things being equal, they thought that the underpass provided some of the best alternatives.

that was based on not having at that time any cost information in detail or anything of that nature.

So the intent has always been that that place would serve as your steering committee to approve any or make recommendations to you for any designs once we go forward.

We hired Barton Mallow who is a national firm that does construction management and cost estimating and gave them the plans and in your reports you've got their report.

Essentially they tell you that they use the work that's been completed by

MMM Design Group at the 35% progress set dated August of 2011 to do their estimating and they estimate that from this point forward the cost to construct the bridge is $14,962,800 and that includes some contingencies but roughly $14,900,000 to $15,000,000

They discuss constructability and they've got some details of that.

And then they go to the underpass and they tell you that they're working off of the schematic design proposal that was prepared by Site Works and Mr. Rounsovel in December 2012 and that's what they used.

And knowing that

Those two things are not at the same stage of completion but rely on trying to make adjustments for that.

Their best guess at the number for the construction of the underpass construction cost wise is $27,257,000.

So $27,000,000 plus or minus for the underpass.

They acknowledge that there are decisions that can be made as you go through the design process for either one on how long do you close the 9th Street, do you leave it open, that can impact the numbers as we get into more detail on either design.

They also acknowledge that the railroad's conditions are going to be

a major factor as they go forward and if you took the time to read the railroad's comments they're not as clear as you would like them but it's very obvious that the railroad expects all three lines to be to remain open the entire time and if they don't that we relocate the lines to keep the amount of access open and that is their call.

One of the questions that had been raised a number of times was

was whether or not there could be an at-grade pedestrian crossing, particularly with the underpass option as something that was really desired.

And the railroad, it's the one thing that they, I think they did define clearly, where they say an at-grade pedestrian crossing across the yard tracks would create an extremely hazardous condition

and Buckingham Branch would not consider this an option.

So they are adamantly opposed to that and as we've talked about before, that's not unusual.

That's across the country.

Railroads do not particularly usually approve at-grade crossings and when the rare occasion that it does, they usually require that one be closed somewhere to compensate for the one that's open.

So that's not an unusual answer.

They do say that they would allow an underpass.

However, they provide a large number of comments about the conditions that would have to be maintained or met in order to make that happen.

As to right-of-way costs, it's very difficult to determine yet.

We know that the bridge, as it's been taken forward, would not require any additional right-of-way costs because there's no need for additional right-of-way.

The underpass, it has not progressed enough to

know that definitively however in looking at the schematics it appears that there would be but again we don't know that for a fact.

We haven't gotten the final SIA report however I have

talked extensively to both, Chris England and I have talked to Eric Smart who is the lead economic development person on that team and Eric feels that there would be no appreciable difference in economic impact for a bridge versus an underpass or either one.

That there's the same development potential and creative design with either option could make, you could realize

the same impacts.

As to negative impacts, the one that we felt all along was key was the LexisNexis impact because there are contractual conditions from when the city and CETA leased that land to Lexis or Mickey Company at the time that remained in place.

Starting on page 10 of the memo, I've included comments made by the city attorney, but those

those indicate that Lexis has, that was a part of the agreement, they were very interested in it when they decided to locate, very desirous of it and CETA even put up a one million dollar bond to ensure that it would stay open and if it were to close prior to the period in that bond that stated there then that bond would be paid to Lexis so they are concerned, they did provide a letter

stating that they would like to see it remain open as did their primary tenant RKG, that they did feel like they would like to see it remain open.

We've not answered all the questions.

We knew we wouldn't answer all of them and until we go through a design process with one option or the other, we won't get all the answers to every question.

We indicated that we would come back to you.

We also indicated that before you make a decision that we would go back to the public.

And what we have asked in this memo and coming here tonight is

We'd like some guidance from you as to how you would like us to approach the public, to engage the public, and what questions you would like us to ask them that we could get information on that would help you with an answer.

And then if there's any additional information for you to make a decision to move forward, we would like you to have an opportunity as we go forward to ask that.

I would address two more points.

One of them is

You know that if an underpass option was chosen, we would essentially have to start from scratch, start over.

I think that's, I mean everybody knows that.

We would take the concept and have to go out and get engineering, we'd have to get VDOT approval, we'd have to get it in the six year plan and then attempt to convince VDOT that that was a viable option and why the bridge was not for them to agree to fund it.

Those things have happened.

That's not saying it couldn't happen.

That's just the process.

With the bridge, we have the structural plans.

I think that the understanding that we've had is that we would, if you chose the bridge option when that time comes, we would start the design discussion with the place design task force.

If we can work off the 35% plans, then great.

If we need to make changes, then we can do that as we go forward.

But I don't think anything is off the table at this point.

with that design either that's within reason that we can do because there have been a lot of good comments raised throughout this process about what to do if there is a breach, about how we might particularly deal with bike and pedestrian access and so those things are still open.

And then lastly, I did not include anything in the memo about the pedestrian bridge.

And the reason I did not is because the pedestrian bridge is a viable alternative with either option.

I think it's more necessary with the underpass, but I think it's a really interesting way to move bikes and peds to the downtown in particular and back to Belmont with a bridge.

It may not be as necessary but it's a good alternative.

and the cost is essentially the same with either alternative so we didn't put it in there because it wasn't really germane to that part of the discussion.

That said, it's also not eligible for the primary VDOT funding but there are other programs such as revenue sharing, enhancement dollars where if you decided that that was something you wanted to pursue at some point we could very aggressively go after that money.

Okay, thank you.

Now, we have a report from the staff, and you have heard a presentation.

Well, the sufficiency rating of the bridge was in the 40s and when it was evaluated by the bridge repair report, so the inspection reports were evaluated by VDOT, they felt that it's at the stage where it warrants.

It's not cost effective to continue to do repairs.

And Mr. Wymer brought up four lanes versus two.

It's two to four to two.

That's where it has gone to this point.

I think that's a design option as we go forward that I think is very interesting in pursuing.

Right.

I don't know if there's any reason at this point that any agency has said you've got to have four.

Usually that happens in a rural area with a farmer that's looking for ways to get his cows somewhere.

The railroad would love for us to fence off

I agree, I think we should be increasing pedestrian connectivity, not restricting it.

But I had a quick question.

Mr. Freilich took the words right out of my mouth when he asked, you know, how do we get to the point now where we have, and I think you sort of touched on it a second ago in your comments, but how do we get to the point where our options are this underpass, which a lot of people still have doubts about,

Well, what you see is...

None of us are disagreeing that you don't have an enhanced bridge option at this point.

We've not done any work on the bridge option in over a year.

Again, if you choose a bridge option, I didn't use the words enhanced bridge option when I was talking about the things we would look at, but that's exactly what

There are a couple of things that I have, you know, as folks have been talking to us both today and previously.

If we do the bridge, I think I'm in total agreement that I have no real interest in just a plain old flat rectangle, that this is something that we're building for our kind of legacy and I would hope that as we move forward that it becomes something that we can really

be visually inviting and connecting of the city rather than just a box in the middle of it.

But there are a couple of things that I know that folks have expressed a concern about that I just want to kind of put on the record that we're looking at.

And one is the sound buffering aspect of a bridge.

And the other is shade.

It's a long expanse and it's not going to have regular trees, but

It may be that there might be some sort of sound buffering thing that can also provide shade on one side of the bridge.

Yes, I have some comments, questions.

I think the fundamental irony of all this, though, is that

When the design competitions happened a couple of years ago, when we got initial feedback from the public, they did not want the MMM original design.

And yet that was the basis for the option that now is being compared with the underpass.

In reality, that was something that no one wanted.

And so there should have been an enhanced bridge option to compare to the underpass.

so that you really were comparing apples with apples.

But the point of the matter is that everyone is adding sound baffles, adding bike head lanes to the existing bridge, design features that would make it something to be proud of and worthy of this city.

But those are the very things that would have made the cost equivalent to the $27 million.

I think we're underestimating how much that design is.

And so we've got to really understand that there may not be as huge of a difference in cost when you start computing it based on higher design standards.

And I do have a question.

How much have we spent already in design and engineering?

I don't have that number.

Okay, so then it's like 15 million compared to the 27 million, but again the 15 million was based on a design that was rejected by the public because it was too

And again, what we did not include in the underpass option was any of the design or environmental costs which would be in the millions of dollars up there too.

I would disagree with Ms. Galvin that the underpass would be about the same price as the bridge.

Well, the thing is we don't know.

Well, I have a question.

Or does it already accommodate?

The minimum requirement is 24 and a half and I think it's already there.

Do you remember whether the design?

Good question.

I would be curious to see, and maybe this is a jump in.

It is higher than that one.

Yeah, the Fry's Spring, it's surprising how much higher it is, and therefore the slope, and therefore the biped, and it's got a lot of ramifications.

But I would be curious as we move forward, particularly as we go to a public process, to see where along the tracks our current at-grade crossings are.

just because I'm for instance down you know smack downtown both 2nd and 4th Street have them and we're talking about putting a city market on the other side of the tracks on you know having people walk across those tracks I if you know I know the railroad said no more but I really do wonder if if as we explore explore this that if there's any you know

possibility that the railroad would negotiate with us, would work with us.

That's the really, really critical piece missing and really that's holding up sort of all of these processes is being able to go from Belmont to downtown or being able to go from Belmont to water.

We have these elaborate bridges, pedestrian bridges.

I mean, if we had that, it would open up so much better use of the land that's under the bridge or over the bridge or whichever one we choose.

Well, I have a concern about the pedestrian sort of flyover, which I love.

I love the idea of a pedestrian flyover, but my experience on city council has been that those things always get cut out.

You know, we had one or two over on the McIntyre Road

But there is a provision for sidewalk and bike on the bridge

Well, but this goes back to my earlier comment and a couple of the speakers mentioned this is that if we do the bridge we want to make sure that it doesn't have, sorry, about half-assed, you know, bike pad infrastructure included in it because particularly if we end up cutting out the flyover.

The work that Mr. O'Shea has done on the bridge has enhanced sidewalks.

They're both wider than normal, but the one, I believe it's on the west side, are 12, 14 feet wide if I'm not mistaken.

And that's, again, that's just, that's taking it one step further, but that's not a design at this point.

Again, I didn't put the pedestrian bridge in there because simply it's not eligible for this VDOT funding, and so we're going to have to pay for it one way or the other.

And it's to sling us up.

Other questions or comments?

We're not discussing this yet.

Well, we're not deciding tonight.

I know, but I mean, in terms of giving direction on the next stage, which is the public process.

You know, again, I must say that there's another little irony here that the places on task force in the last two letters is community engagement.

The group, yes, technically was not required to be visited again before it came to council but on the meeting last week we had it on our agenda and it might have been good if we had had a chance to talk about this because I think the committee, the task force does have ideas on how this needs to be presented to the public and how we can really have a very open, honest exchange.

I personally think that the public wants to see that third way and I want to see what that third way might be because right now we've got the original MM design and we've got the underpass and we've never really understood the cost implications of that enhanced bridge so we

The underpass had enormous two and three times the amount of contingencies ladled on it as opposed to the original bridge.

We need to estimate some contingencies for the extra cost for design for a bridge that this public would really fall in love with and feel as becomes iconic of the city.

I do feel pretty strongly about that and I recommend that this council

used the place design task force to help create and work with staff to come up with a process, clarify how we present the information, have comparative tables so that you're really looking at things apples to apples across the way.

And when we don't know, we honestly say no.

We just don't have that information yet.

But I personally don't, I can't make a decision until I get a better public read, a better read from the public about

where they stand because tonight it was like 50-50 for and against.

And I don't feel that that's, I want a little bit more information.

I have to say I'm a little cautious about

sort of accusing staff of lying in this report because I don't think that that's what's happening.

I did not say that.

This is post-decision from council.

I'm saying... No, we're not making a decision tonight.

Well, the idea was a design.

Well, I think council can decide whether they will proceed with a bridge idea or with a 100-pass idea and subject to design afterwards.

The design has to be... Before it can be designed, we need to decide in some way that what

What are those two alternatives you'd like to pursue?

And what are those two alternatives the staff would like to pursue?

I think Ms. Galvin made a great point about the need to have a better sense from a design perspective what this bridge could look like.

Can it be the kind of world-class bridge that, you know, the world-class amenity and infrastructure that we deserve, that we want, that our public wants?

You need to make a decision.

I'm not sure that we're being asked to make that decision tonight, maybe to weigh in on it, but I'm not sure that that's really before us.

What we were asking council to do was help provide us with some guidance on next steps when it comes to community engagement on this process.

And that could include and should include the place design task force as part of that engagement process.

So we certainly could do that.

And then we'd suggested the possibility of holding a public meeting.

We had suggested the possibility of having a work session.

Well, I would suggest that we move forward with the notion of coming up with an enhanced bridge option that is truly reflective of the community's desires and also has a realistic price tag associated with it.

And if we find that all the things that we want in that bridge are going to cost $25 million, then maybe we

come back to this point and say it's a much different choice at that point.

But I would say my default position is as Mr. Freilich.

I was early on in this process, I was very intrigued by the underpass and I still think it has a lot going for it.

But at this point, I've heard from a lot of people in Belmont.

In fact, I'm getting unsolicited phone calls from people in Belmont saying,

I'm not sure that we're ready for that.

If we're going to get a better design for an overpass bridge as one of our options, we need to know what to tell you.

What do we want?

Do we want two lanes?

Do we want four lanes?

candle levered sides and I think that's for the public really.

But you need to know what to design.

Well I'm not sure the public really feels that they've had a good enough say.

Our instructions here are to give input on how to do public engagement and what should we

ask the public, what should we offer and what should we ask from the public and you know I think we've heard a lot tonight about what kinds of ideas the public has and I think that's what we need.

We need, you know, we're either going to go over or under but what are the qualitative, what do you want it to do?

Do you want it to be a thoroughfare or do you just want it to be a local street?

I think that Mr. Norris has expressed kind of where I am on this not to say we don't want an underpass at this point but to say let's explore the bridge because that seems like the likeliest option to bring in a lot of public engagement to talk about what would what would a bridge look like what could a bridge do how would it act how would it feel how would it look

And that's what I said.

And that's what I said.

Is that enough guidance?

So I do have a question now.

Is this something that we need to then have basically three options?

that are going out to the public and we're getting public information on that.

Well the bridge now, the bridge that was estimated here is not the bridge.

Nobody wants that bridge.

We are.

I don't see why we need at this point, particularly since we didn't put on our agenda that we were going to make a major decision like this, why not take that to the public along with the third option?

or you know again I think we need more sort of real basic

parameters for how this bridge is going to function.

We've gotten some great questions and the public engagement could be like that.

This is the kind of information, this kind of feedback we've gotten, here are the answers to those questions.

I've already told you I want to see where the back grade crossings are along the railroad.

You can even solicit more and have the

have the public meeting to say, give us your ideas.

Here are ideas that have come out there.

How do you feel about them?

What's important to you?

People are going to say sound baffling is important to me.

Someone's going to say that it's not a highway going through our city is important to me.

If we, though, are going to say the underpass is an option that we want people to weigh in on, I think we need to be really clear.

that as a taxpayer are you willing to pay the difference between 15 and potentially 30 out of local money which would probably involve a tax increase are you willing to have no traffic through that area for up to a year are you willing to pay a million dollars to LexisNexis because they would lose access to their

to the bonded route that they have through there.

So as long as it's clear what the choices are, it's not like would you rather have an underpass or a bridge, but would you rather have an underpass with all of these additional costs and downsides.

or maybe focus our attention on a bridge.

Like I said, I'm not really for taking it out of the equation because we may find that a bridge ends up looking like along those same costs and then we want to balance the two.

We can say that.

I agree with you.

I agree as well.

Right?

And then, because we did, as Ms. Smith said and as Elizabeth said, we did not advertise that we were going to make a decision tonight.

So, but I think that needs to be the focus now.

If we're going to do a bridge, what kind of bridge would the community want?

I agree.

Absolutely.

Okay.

That's what I'm talking about.

And as part of that, there should always be the previous boards of this is where we came from.

and then you get that enhanced bridge design and that is the design that is more in keeping of an equivalency to measure against the cost of an underpass option.

I think what I'd like to do is at the October meeting a place come and talk, as Ms. Galvin suggested, about their ideas about what it would take to get to that point.

We would have to re-engage our design team and get them to produce that.

I mean, again, through a process of talking to the public, working with place, and put something together.

So we're talking a few months of work there to get that together.

And I agree that we should have some public input before we come up with a design I mean it's fine to bring the

I guess, to be clear, what I'm saying is go to place, get some suggestions for what they think we need to show to get that conversation going, then go to the public, have that conversation about that, let them do a little work, and then come back to you to be able to do that.

And again, I think we've moved beyond what the bridge

That everybody rejected where it is because of the work SiteWorks done.

I think that bridge had gotten rejected a year and a half, almost two years ago.

Yes, we can do that.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda is the ordinance.

Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, if I may, this is a relatively short ordinance that's offered tonight on first reading, so I'll just go ahead and read it.

It's taken with slight change from an ordinance that was proposed in Richmond.

To the extent hereafter permitted or required by law, the city hereby recognizes same-sex marriages that have lawfully occurred in other states and as such shall extend to the partners of city employees in same-sex marriages that have lawfully occurred in other states.

All of the benefits offered to the spouses of city employees in heterosexual marriages.

To the extent hereafter permitted or required by law, the word spouse shall include the partner of a city employee in a same sex marriage that has lawfully occurred in another state.

This is worded in terms of city benefits.

I think to give you an example and probably the most significant would be health care coverage.

Right now a city employee who has, who is married to an opposite sex partner can purchase health insurance for his or her partner.

a city employee who has a same sex partner even if lawfully married under the laws of another state or country cannot purchase health insurance for his or her spouse.

That's not the result of any decision the city of Charlottesville has made or for that matter any locality in the state.

It is the result of state law.

I have quoted in my agenda memo to you for a number of years the statutory in law in Virginia has stated that a marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited, any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia.

That was also enacted into the Virginia Constitution effective January 1st, 2007.

The first sentence of that constitutional provision reads that only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

So obviously we cannot enact an ordinance that changes that.

We are precluded by state law from recognizing marriages which are completely valid and lawful in other states if they are marriages between individuals of the same sex.

What this ordinance does is expresses council's policy and council's intent that if the day comes in Virginia, as it has in some other states,

where same sex marriages are recognized or where Virginia decides to recognize same sex marriages that are lawful in other states that you as an employer will treat city employees the same regardless of whether their spouse is of the opposite sex or the same sex.

Thank you, Mr. Brown, that's helpful.

Your cover memo focuses exclusively on the issue of health benefits, which is, as you say, it's the most important benefit that we provide to employees.

But there are a wide range of benefits that a city employee has access to.

As I understand it, state law is very clear that political subdivisions like the City of Charlottesville are expressly prohibited from providing health insurance to same-sex couples, is that correct?

Yes sir.

The state code in terms of benefits allows a locality to provide benefits to its employees and dependents.

That has been interpreted by the Virginia Supreme Court in what I think is a very narrow fashion.

I think a number of years ago, Arlington County attempted to define dependents as unmarried domestic partners, whether same sex or opposite sex.

And the state of Virginia, the Supreme Court, said you can't do that.

That's a violation of the Dylan Rule.

You don't have the authority to do that.

Slightly different than this constitutional issue that involves same-sex marriages.

almost all other benefits that we provide today to city employees short of health insurance we currently allow by administrative decision not by city official city policy or city council policy or ordinance but by administrative

Choice, we allow partners in same-sex relationships to access.

For instance, a city employee who has a subsidized membership in a gym.

can apply that towards a family membership, right?

We provide a subsidy for the employee and then anything above that subsidy the employee pays for and whether they qualify for a family membership or a couples membership or a

But the city currently allows, as long as the health clubs are okay with it, the city currently allows partners, city employees with same-sex partners to enroll in the city subsidized membership.

The city pays for the membership.

Which we provide to city employees.

of City Employees.

I'm not sure I'm aware of what those benefits would be.

So for instance, Employee Assistance Program.

Right now, there are certain components of the Employee Assistance Program that family members can participate in, that can benefit from, from the city's Employee Assistance Program.

And we allow city employees by administrative decision to include same-sex partners

I'm not aware of that decision.

Life insurance.

City subsidized life insurance.

No, sir, I would disagree with that, I'm sorry.

I mean, we have always, people have always been allowed to designate whoever they want as a beneficiary under their life insurance policy.

Okay, so we allow it by default, but I'm saying that in all these cases,

A city employee can, and the reason I ask about the gym memberships is because when I got on city council I asked this question.

And they said, no, you can't sign up a same-sex partner on your family gym membership.

And I said, well, why not?

And they said, well, because the gyms haven't approved it.

It's a gym decision, as you said.

So I went personally as a city council member to ACAC Gold's Gym.

And I said, do you have any problem with city employees signing up same-sex partners for the city subsidized gym membership?

They said, no, we have no problem at all.

And from that day forward, you were allowed to sign up a same-sex partner as a city employee.

And so my point is that state law seems pretty clear in terms of health insurance coverage.

There's been a court case, as I understand it, about health insurance.

issue and they were very clear to say when it comes to health benefits you can't enroll same-sex partners but it seems to me that there's a gray area when it comes to other benefits and one of the reasons why I think this ordinance is more than just symbolic is because it would enshrine in city policy some of those

I would just, for the record, with all due respect I would disagree.

I can't in good faith say that I think it is a gray area.

I don't think that the state code nor the Constitution speaks in terms of specific benefits.

It is a blanket, absolute, unequivocal prohibition on recognizing

Marriages between same-sex couples that are lawful under other states.

And I don't know of any other way to interpret that.

My own preference, frankly, and I know Mr. Brown probably won't like this very much, my own preference would be in that second sentence where it says, first of all, we recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states as permitted by law.

We could leave that.

But in the second sentence where it says, we will agree to extend

benefits to people in same-sex marriages performed lawfully in other states, I would add, or people in domestic partnerships or civil unions.

In my mind, it's, well... After the sentence, or after the phrase, to the extent hereafter permitted or required by law,

But that then goes back to what Mr. Brown had talked about where there was a problem with the word dependent in the Arlington County versus White because then it began to include the unmarried domestic partners of county employees and that is

That is what I saw was struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court, which would flow into that category of dependent.

I have a concern that as much as I want state law to be different, as much as I want the city to give benefits to all domestic partner couples and feel that the state law is wrong,

and recognize that the idea in principle of civil disobedience, I think we also have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And I'm torn by that because I think that the Constitution in this case is wrong, which is why I think that this ordinance gets at what we're trying to do while we continue to try to push to change either the Constitution or move to a court case.

And I think because there are already court cases, I don't think we need to be that one.

Just for the record, what I was suggesting that we do, and if I can be clear, I'm going to vote for this either way, but I do think it will be a strong ordinance if we say, to the extent hereafter permit or require by law the city hereby recognize the same-sex marriages that have lawfully occurred in other states and as such shall extend to the partners of city employees and same-sex marriages that have lawfully occurred in other states

Let me fill in one other thing that I have kind of skipped over that I should have mentioned and again the genesis of this was an ordinance that was proposed in Richmond and the one that I brought to you tonight is slightly different.

The one in Richmond

begins with, to the extent now or hereafter permitted or required by law.

And I have left out the word now.

and said to the extent hereafter permitted or required by law because in my mind it is clear that it is not now under the law of Virginia permitted or required by law and it concerned me that you would be adopting something that could be misinterpreted and would be misleading to someone who's not well versed in Virginia law and said well maybe it is now permitted

I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that it is under the laws that now exist.

So that is a slight difference between what was proposed in Richmond and what I have brought to you.

I did feel it was incumbent upon me to point out that difference.

Any questions?

As I have explained in my mind, and I understand Councilman Norris has a different perspective, but in my mind this is a statement of Council's policy should the law change.

The way this is worded to me says that we are prepared to offer the same benefits to same-sex partners of city employees if they're lawfully married, as we do to city employees who are lawfully married to opposite-sex partners.

And that policy can include

I have a question.

Could you, Mr. Brown, please explain what is the intention behind the state providing such benefits to the institution of marriage?

Why do we have these benefits?

I'm sorry.

Well, I mean, I'm just wondering why is this an issue at all?

Why is it that if we have this option for married couples and there is the distinction between domestic partners or just girlfriends and boyfriends or whatever, what is it about marriage?

I think that gets into the policy realm rather than the legal realm.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable asking that.

As I say, I think the statutory

Law has been the same in Virginia for quite some time that says we will not recognize same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions.

I believe what has happened is that similar laws in other jurisdictions have been successfully challenged in court.

often under an argument that the statute is unconstitutional under the state's own constitution.

And I think Virginia's response to that was to incorporate that rule into its constitution.

It's very hard to say that a particular statute is unconstitutional when your state constitution says the exact same thing.

I frankly thought that the Arlington County decision, which said Arlington County does not have the authority to define dependents when the state code says you may provide benefits to your employees and their dependents.

I thought that was an extremely narrow conservative ruling and really, even if we didn't have these state constitutional provisions and the state statutes, really kind of limited the options that localities had

and it's especially poignant in that Arlington County is like Charlottesville and it is self-insured.

We're not purchasing insured.

You would think and someone I recall

You know, an email exchange that I believe Councilor Norris had with a constituent who raised a very legitimate question of why can't we provide benefits to the people we want to provide benefits to?

So, that actually

The city doesn't contribute to that.

Otherwise, why would city employees participate in the city's health plan?

My guess is that most of them do.

Unless they have insurance elsewhere.

So would it be a violation of state law for the city to say, OK, there is a cash value, a monetary value, to that subsidy or to participating in the city's health insurance plan?

and that because the state law is openly discriminatory when it comes to how families are defined, how spouses are defined, that we will allow employees in lawful same-sex relationships, civil unions or marriages, to

qualify for an equivalent monetary subsidy, if you will, that they can then use to purchase health insurance outside of the city's plan.

Yes, sir.

Until a court says it is unlawful discriminatory action on the part of the state, I think it

Let me say, we at least agree on the ordinance which we have in our package.

And there's a start of our intent.

I would like to make one three-word amendment to this ordinance, which I think

You've said would be acceptable.

You probably realize this, but for explanation, there is a certain thing called common law marriages, which if two people live together for a certain period of time, that relationship assumes the attributes of a lawful marriage.

Virginia does not recognize common law marriage.

That's still marriage.

Second.

So I move that we adopt this ordinance with the addition of those three words.

I'll just change the order when I say it.

Okay.

So we'll move the second reading next time.

And I just want to thank Councilor Norris for bringing this to us and for finding an enrichment

I'd like to take a few moments to give you an update on some of the more important matters that are going on with respect to the Rivanna authorities.

Following the outline I provided to you earlier, the first item is the granular activated carbon or water treatment plants.

As you know, we're pursuing an evaluation of what this community has come to lovingly call hybrid options.

That report is due to the public this week.

It should be on our website by Friday and will be discussed by our board of directors a week from tomorrow.

I can tell you at this point that the analysis appears to be more cut and dry than we once expected.

It may help you to know that the idea of hybrid options for GAC is real out of the box thinking.

It's not something that's been, we've not found anyone who's done this kind of analysis before.

So we're developing something from scratch and we developed it with certain expectations and visions as to what it might yield.

We thought initially it might yield three different ideas or ways to use GAC from one end that provides a lower quality water to achieve a price to providing a very, very, very high quality water and more expensive price

What our consultant is finding is that there actually are trade-offs in costs with blending.

If you begin to scale back too far, how much GAC you put into a water treatment facility, then that part that you treat with GAC has to be much higher quality in order to blend with the

other water and yet achieve the regulations.

And in order to achieve the higher quality it means you have to change out the carbon more often and that drives up operating costs.

So in fact what you're going to see when this report comes out is that there are trade-offs between capital and operating costs and there really aren't as many variations of options for a hybrid as we once envisioned or thought.

We had indicated that we would have a public process and we still I think should go through with some sort of public process and our board will discuss next week if we want to start with something simple and work up from there only as the situation requires or if we want to go straight to a public meeting.

So stay tuned for that discussion.

We will be pushing for a board decision in November.

I hate with things like this to have to be the one that pushes, but we had very challenging negotiations with the Virginia Department of Health when we went back to them and said that our community had decided to go with carbon because the state felt that we were very far along on the need to meet a deadline by EPA.

and they were not very willing to give us the time that I would really have liked to have had so we're sort of hemmed in to that situation.

The next item on my outline is a retreat for the board of directors which is something that our board has not done often but wish to try this time and talk some more broadly about

what kind of services we want to provide and what our vision and perhaps mission statement might be for our organization.

We've had some discussion between staff and board at some of our recent meetings about some of the value-added services that we are providing in our community that are somewhat unique, that most utilities don't provide enough provided examples in the memo.

And also some discussions about costs.

I think you could say, I think you could safely say we've done very well on the cost side in recent.

We've been working on this for the last months in the sense that we have found ways to refund some of our bonds which has lowered our debt service costs and that's just good for everyone and it doesn't change the types of services we provide.

But I also think, and I have had some discussions with the board in terms of my professional views more recently, that we do have to be careful that we don't create too many value-added options because of the risk of facing substantial public criticism for providing too high a cost of service.

and that's something I think that our board will take up further.

There is a more recent proposal that's out that's along the vein of finding new ways for us to spend money and it's coming from the Center for Natural Capital which you may have seen.

I don't think it's on your agenda tonight and you haven't dealt with.

The county did discuss this with the group offering a proposal which was basically that

Water rates, in my opinion, water rates be raised.

The report said take a portion of water rates, but you can't really do that without cutting vital services.

So it would be raising water rates to pay, to have urban citizens basically, because that's where our money comes from, have urban citizens pay rural landowners to plant trees.

And from a policy standpoint, I think that's something that deserves a lot of

Careful thought before taking on.

Interestingly, when the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors considered this item two weeks ago, it may be some wisdom here, they shifted gears and asked the group that

represents the Center for National Capital to think more in terms of how it might be able to offer riparian tree planting programs that might save the county costs on its MS4 program as opposed to a way of asking the drinking water utility to provide the program.

So we'll see where that ends up going.

Certainly from my viewpoint, there's no deadline on acting on this matter.

In fact, I've already briefed those who have asked me.

Our staff does not have the time to take on this new program right now anyway without additional support.

So it's not something that we could begin immediately.

We got some disappointing news on dredging the South Fork Reservoir.

Orion Marine, I will say from being in contact with them, who was our proposer for a detailed phase proposal, worked diligently in the area around the reservoir to find a deal that they felt was cost-effective with a landowner to allow for processing of material.

They've remained open minded to reuse of the material even though one of the property owners they were negotiating with made a condition that would not allow reuse.

But they ended up writing us a letter in late August that said they would not submit a detailed phase proposal because they could not find a cost effective land deal.

We have invited, I'm waiting for confirmation from Orion, but we have invited them to come and speak to our board next Tuesday, which I think is an excellent opportunity for the board to really have a direct dialogue and understand some of the difficulties and challenges that they faced.

Following that, I think our board's going to need to decide where do we want to go.

We've kind of run into a dead end on the process we were pursuing, which was an open-ended PPEA.

that have been advised and counseled by a number of citizens in this community.

So now we need perhaps to decide if we're going to take a different path.

I did want to comment in the report that the Ragged Mountain Dam project is going very well.

It's remaining on schedule within the budget and we are optimistically looking forward to a dedication of the facility possibly as early as next March, which is about six months away.

All of the underground and foundation work is complete and the earth dam is coming up.

Now it's about 40 feet above ground, which is about a little less than a third of the way to the top.

But it's like a pyramid shape, so probably well over a third of the earthen material has now been laid and compacted.

There will be a mediation on cost sharing between the city and the Albemarle County Service Authority for the Rivanna Pump Station with the McCammon Group on September the 27th.

I assume you all are already

Well versed on that process and a couple of counselors are participating in that process.

I do hope we can find a way.

I do hope we can find a way that doesn't cost us a lot of money to implement and will allow us to move forward.

As an organization, we have to push to move forward with the construction of the pump station with or without a cost share agreement because we are under a consent order from Virginia DEQ to complete the project.

So with that legal constraint,

We really have little choice but to move forward, but I think it's also the right thing to do for the environment as well.

In fact I think we talk about

When we talk about the environment and sustainability, we talk about a lot of different things in this community.

One thing we probably tend to overlook is the treatment of our wastewater.

Yet I think, and maybe I have some bias, but I think it's probably one of the most important things for the environment that we can do as a community.

And with the treatment facilities that we have in operation now, we are doing a very, very good job of treating the wastewater.

But we've also got to make sure we don't have spills from the transmission system.

And that's what the pump station will complete a long process of addressing.

And finally, the last item I probably don't need to spend a lot of time on, you proved on your consent agenda tonight to extend the McIntyre Recycling Center another six months through June 30th of 2014.

We do expect the county who actually initiated the request will do the same.

As you are aware, the county is considering other options, perhaps privatizing beginning July 1.

and with that will come a number of changes including perhaps changes in the way household hazardous waste and amnesty days are performed if there is no longer a Solid Waste Authority performing services at the Ivy Material Utilization Center.

So that's something to stay tuned for.

I do appreciate that Mr. Beck will be attending a meeting with our HR manager this Friday

It's an important conversation.

The employees who have dedicated their careers to the Solid Waste Authority and have worked hard deserve opportunities for other positions and I don't think that's in dispute anywhere with the changes that are being made and also we have a concern that we may not be able to carry forward services through June 30th as requested if we don't have critical mass of employees and as you can imagine when

It is as broadly publicized as it is that some facilities may close the end of June.

It's only natural that those people who are employed in those agencies are going to be looking for other opportunities that may not come on our timetable, but certainly on theirs.

And we certainly wish everyone the best.

And that completes my report.

Mr. Frederick, could you touch on one other issue that came up at our more recent event on water and sewer authority board meeting and that was the issue of wholesale metering and the plan that's part of the cost share agreement between the city and the Albemarle County Service Authority.

There's a report that came back from a committee that was reviewing this over the course of the last year or so.

Can you walk us through the committee's findings and recommendation and then also

The cost share agreement for the Ragged Mountain Dam included a provision in it that said that a metering program would be developed to better account for how much of the water that comes from water treatment plants in the urban system ends up in the city's distribution system or the Albemarle County Service Authority's distribution system.

We are now allocating those costs.

We use a couple of pieces of data.

One is the meter flow from the three water treatment plants, which is the total water produced.

Another piece of information that we use now comes from the city and from ACSA, which is your billing, composite billing totals, how much you bill your retail customers.

for water, but there's always a gap.

The retail sales do not always equal, do not usually, in fact almost always do not equal the amount of water produced and there are various reasons for that.

It's not all water loss or leaks as is popularly attributed to, but

flowing water through a fire hydrant.

Fire departments fighting fires.

Or a sprinkler system goes off in a building and many sprinkler systems are not metered.

And also the fact that water meters themselves for retail customers are not perfectly accurate nor are meters in water treatment plants perfectly accurate.

So just some of the slight inaccuracies lead to a lot of reasons why there's a component of non-revenue water.

The metering program's aiming to try to

to reduce or eliminate the allocation of non-metered water proportional to retail billings, which is how we do it now.

Or to see if perhaps one party, be the service authority or the city, believe that their system is tighter than the other jurisdiction system and therefore if we meter up to all the flows, we're going to find that the other party is actually using more water than everybody thinks they're using and then therefore they're going to owe us money.

That's kind of the way the balls are being tossed.

What we found though, this is not surprising, but the magnitude of it perhaps is a little bit surprising.

It's very difficult to get a grasp on what it would cost to do all those meters until you find out how many of them are there, how many locations.

Does water go from one jurisdiction to another?

And where are those locations?

And obviously if it's in the median of US 29, the cost to put a meter in there is going to be a lot greater than if it's on an easement.

in an area where there's no traffic.

So we had to know some of those details in order to price it and what our consultant found is to

There are over 500 locations in the water system where water flows from one jurisdiction to another.

Some of them are as simple as, say, a Rivanna transmission line that might have a hydrant coming off of it that belongs to the Albemarle County Service Authority.

So some of them are fairly simple and then some of them are much more complex, but there's over 500 total.

And to meter every single one of them,

The number that our consultant came up with was in the neighborhood of $20 million and I don't think anybody believes we should pay $20 million to decide how to allocate a dam that doesn't cost much more than that.

So our consultant considered a number of other options that meter the primary areas of interface but then still allow for an allocation method for those smaller

types of interconnections.

And the one that seemed to be the most popular by a committee of staff representing all three agencies called a jurisdictional approach is to put a meter every time a pipe crosses the city-county boundary, whether it's a Rivanna pipe or a city pipe or a county.

And with the city and the county, you have an agreement.

If there's a pipe that crosses the jurisdictional boundary, it changes at that boundary.

It changes ownership.

That dates back to the four-party agreement.

Even though, in many cases, those pipes were originally put in by the city at a time when the city was serving outside of the city corporate limits.

That jurisdictional approach is $6.4 million, and I did challenge the Rivanna board of directors.

Some told me after the meeting that was an awful courageous thing you did to put yourself out there like that, but I actually did challenge the board.

Maybe $6.4 million is still too much to pay to settle an agreement, and maybe there's still other ways that we can look at ways to fine tune this so it's not so expensive.

particularly since in this case, I can understand we decided to spend $13 million to move the Rivanna pump station.

I can understand that clearly in the context of what it does for a neighborhood.

We're spending 13 million or roughly 11 to 13 million more perhaps to have granular activated carbon instead of chloramines.

I can understand that argument.

Having a really hard time figuring out where's the benefit to the end consumer in installing meters on a water system.

So I challenged the board and it turned into a

rather I'd say fairly lengthy debate and concern.

We will put forward next week, try to keep this discussion going, we'll put forward some other additional ideas on what we think might be a cheaper way to do this, but I'm also encouraging other people to think outside the box and think if we can find a way to work together as agencies

Mr. Frederick, do you have any idea, do you have a sense or even a theory as to in this gap, this water gap, what the biggest leak is or what the biggest gap is?

I'm going to give you an honest answer.

If I had to really just throw a dart against the wall, I'd say start with the accuracy of metering.

One thing that I know Ms. Hildebrand is very strong on is encouraging a meter change out program for the city and testing of larger meters.

That's a fundamental issue for water utilities, but yet it's one that municipal utilities across the country have fallen behind on.

And unfortunately for utilities, meters rarely speed up.

They often slow down when they get old.

When they slow down, that means they're under registering.

Yes and it's fairly, with both the city and the ACSA the more intensive metering programs are fairly recent but that's a good positive thing and I hope maybe we'll tighten things up over time.

I will say though that 13% is what's been calculated as the percent non-revenue water.

That's not a bad number.

comparing utilities across the country, 10% is considered excellent, 15% is considered good.

One thing that 13% tells me is that that means we don't have this major, major problem.

So perhaps this theory that one utility is real tight and one utility is real loose maybe, I don't think it's as big as perhaps is being discussed.

I have a couple of other questions.

In terms of dredging, the dredging decision, I'm sort of curious, because in the adopted plan South Fork just doesn't contribute that much of the water storage.

It's like 200 million gallons out of those couple billion.

At the end of the years.

We hope it will be more than that, but that's

Conservatively estimated and with our reduced water use is probably not even less needed.

So I say that because it does beg the question as to why Rivanna would pay at all for dredging if it doesn't, it's not needed for the water supply and it's not even going to be counted to the water supply.

Which brings me to my next question is yet there's the pressure to do it

comes from recreational users as well as, you know, advocates for dredging for other reasons.

If the rowing club or UVA or some, you know, the private landowners wanted to privately contract a dredger using their own land, their own money, would Rivanna necessarily object to that?

That's an interesting hypothetical question.

From my own viewpoint, I don't see any reason why Rivanna should object provided that.

the technical methods in which dredging is performed.

It is very clear and can be inspected to confirm that it is very clear that it is not harming the water supply.

But I have to qualify that and say that's my own personal view.

Well, Mr. Froder and I have been talking about that at some point we're going to get on the agenda and discussion about odor mitigation because that's an increasingly important problem in the city but that's further down the road and it's a complex issue I know

to understand why we created sub-phases to the phase that we're in now in terms of implementing the investment that we've already made.

But there's a cost implication.

So we'll get that on the board agenda, talk about it, and hopefully come back to this council to talk about what can be done, or if anything.

But there is $33 million that has been set aside for this process, right?

There's an estimate from an engineering firm that it would cost $33 million, this is 2007, to assure the removal of 99% of the odor.

Our board's commitment to odor control at this point is far less than $33 million.

That money is not set aside and sitting there waiting.

It has to be obtained and has to be obtained through higher waste water, wholesale waste water rates.

So the question is how far do we go?

And that's the question the board has been wrestling with for some time.

And they've chosen to tackle the low hanging fruit first, the biggest gain for the smallest dollar, which makes good sense.

But the commitment in terms of funding is in the I think about 4 million dollar range is far short of what the engineer said it would cost to get that 99 plus percent confidence.

This is an issue I was going to bring up.

I'm glad you brought up Ms. Galvin.

Do you think your board understands the depth of the problem?

Because when I was on the board, when this issue would come up, I sort of felt like there was sort of a defensiveness.

The reaction was one of defensiveness or even denial at times.

But it's a major quality of life issue for people in the southeast part of Charlottesville.

It's a big issue.

And I guarantee you if we were to advertise a public hearing on odors from the water treatment plant, we could fill this room two or three times over.

I mean, if people felt like it actually would make a difference for them to show up.

And in fact, I was going to suggest tonight that one step we could take, having read your report, and I fully agree with Smith's comments, is that we take that money that had been allocated for dredging

and instead use it to accelerate some of the deodorification measures that have been researched and to see if there's any support on council for at least exploring that option because it's pretty nasty, I have to say.

I want to add to Ms. Norris' comment.

A number of citizens come last month and it's impossible to... they even have to decide to go a weekend away from the Benmore neighborhood to avoid

I think we have a handle on what their feelings and their concerns are.

From a standpoint of how we operate our facilities, how we perform hygiene, we do everything that I think we reasonably can.

It is a problem that requires a major expenditure of money and that's where the

That's where the debate on the Rivanna Board of Directors is.

I think Ms. Galvin, certainly some of the comments that she's made with me lately, I believe she recognizes this issue and is asking questions in the neighborhood of how do we provide more funding to get more work accelerated.

I can't say that everyone on the Rivanna board feels exactly the same way.

It's a healthy debate, I think, that needs to happen.

You can encourage that debate to happen, and it won't take nearly as long to get that information.

We may even have it next week.

It won't take months to get that information.

If it's not by next week, it will certainly be available by October.

To have that conversation, we're getting ready to introduce our new capital improvement programs, and that was a great time to be talking about

How we order our priorities and how we invest our money.

One thing I'll say, I know a lot of people don't want to spend as much time as I might want talking about how poop is treated.

but the odors come from bacteria and it's the same bacteria that remove nitrogen, the same bacteria that remove phosphorus, the same bacteria that create the methane gas that's used for cogeneration of green electricity.

So it's a knot all tied together.

We can't kill the bacteria because we killed the bacteria, we killed the process.

So the way wastewater treatment plants deal with that issue is you provide control mechanisms

And control mechanisms include covering tanks with structures that have to withstand wind loads, snow loads, and that's why it gets expensive.

Plus you have to be able then to scrub the air underneath the cover, which involves chemicals and electricity.

Yes, it definitely would.

And what we're going to find out in the answer to the question Ms. Galvin raised earlier today is how much more is it going to take to complete what our consultant in 2007 identified as phase one of three.

We're still chipping away in phase one.

Phase one was supposed to get you a 95% confidence level.

It may be that the money you're talking about could get us close to or all the way through the end of phase one.

I think that

Yeah, but there's no options to do dredging.

The only problem with that, that $3.5 million doesn't necessarily already exist.

Yeah, and I agree with Mr. Norris that it's ridiculous to, particularly given the experience with Orion, to continue to

to even think about using water rates to fund that.

I get the reallocation.

I just didn't want to make it sound like there's $3.5 million sitting in an account somewhere.

It's not sound money.

I think one of the reasons that I supported judging was because a lot of people claimed that it could be made self-funding.

And so that was really designed kind of as a startup to make it self-funding.

And I think that the current experience of Orion shows that it may not be.

I think that I feel like that motion is a little premature for me, but I'm not against considering it in the future.

I don't see any reason why council can't make a strong statement to accelerate and define funds to do so.

But we're hearing tonight from Mr. Frederick that there's really no path forward on dredging.

Let me back up.

We are at an end to the process related to PPEA.

That does not necessarily mean that we can't pick up another way of

Accomplishing, dredging, it doesn't mean it's an end in the sense that we can't do it.

It may mean if we're going to do it, we need to take a different approach.

and the approach that was recommended.

It's one of the reasons I brought up the private folks doing it because if they're doing it for a different reason, they have a different rate of dredging perhaps, have a different even focus of where dredging might

One thing I would suggest is that there has been an expressed commitment to dredge in the past.

There are constituent groups in this community who I think still today support it.

It might be a good idea if we're going to end the process of reconsidering what we're going to do to invite public comment.

That may be one reason not to

You could certainly make a strong statement for odor control.

But I don't think we're going to get any odor control until we actually put dollars behind it.

And that's what I'm trying to find, some dollars.

It was years ago now that we stopped composting because of smell.

And is there any sort of rethinking about whether the composting

in fact contributed to the smell because it's my memory that it cost us about a half million dollars a year to dispose of what we used to compost.

You're in the ballpark, but I will affirm to you that there was an odor with the compost facility.

That's a true statement.

There was an odor.

And we worked hard at finding ways to use technology

as cheaply as we could to get rid of the odor and what we found was that the technology was expensive enough and our board at that time was facing a lot of other major capital expenditures.

Alright, let me reword my motion and maybe I'll get a third vote.

I would like to move that we

I would urge the Rivanna board to consider ways to accelerate the deodorification process and to consider the option of transferring funds from dredging into deodorification.

Second.

We're not recommending it, just urge them to consider it.

I would second.

I would encourage everybody who doesn't understand the real urgency of this issue to spend one night in Belmont and one night in Carlton on a day when you can keep your windows up, particularly when it's overcast.

The stench is nauseating.

It's disgusting.

And I know Mr. Frederick is doing what he can, but he's limited by the resources that are made available to him.

I think your solution is undercutting the whole process.

But there was a motion and a second.

There is a question on the table.

I would offer an amendment that would get a third, but it may not be acceptable to the mover, which is to take out the second phrase.

Any further discussion?

I need to ask one more question, I promised I would.

A citizen who works right by Ragged Mountain actually mentioned, we all know what a really horrible rainy summer this has been, but they are very concerned about the sedimentation in the creek, the water coming off of Ragged Mountain.

Is there any, can you record it all on any measures to control that or to measure it?

They said the water coming out into the creek back then actually goes to Morris Creek.

The entire construction area is controlled by erosion and sediment controls that are governed by permits issued by Albemarle County and it's inspected frequently.

And the times that I have been out there, the erosion control facilities in my view have been working extremely well.

And the contractor that we have

If you do much in the way of construction, one of the things that you learn very quickly is a lot of contractors like to cut corners on erosion control.

FAIL is one of the few contractors that I have found that does an extremely good job of erosion control.

Next item on the agenda is a noise ordinance update.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our update for you tonight.

I have with me Lieutenant Upman and our Crime Analysis Detective, Rob, in case you have any questions that I'm not able to ask for you.

As you know, in August 2012, City Council was presented with a recommendation to increase the penalty for the violation of the City Noise Ordinance.

This recommendation was in large part on behalf of residents of the Venable neighborhood.

Shortly after presentation to council in August of 2012, the department began examining what we could do better to improve quality of service in response to the community at large.

We participated in numerous meetings with various UVA representatives and members of the Venable neighborhood.

We established a written warning system and a system in which to store that data information.

We revised policies and procedures governing responses to complaints, conducted additional training, purchased various equipment, and ultimately deployed a plan that we believed was fair to all.

It was well into December 2012, January 2013, before our plan was realized and fully operational.

At first glance, the data that we have previously presented to you may appear to show an unremarkable change in comparison to previous years.

I want to extract and highlight a few facts for you to consider.

In comparing fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013, we have experienced a 15% decrease in noise disturbance calls in the Venable neighborhood.

and a 14% decrease citywide.

We have increased enforcement by 16% citywide and 80% in the Venable neighborhood.

This is a remarkable positive impact for the community and represents a responsive community.

It also reflects hard work and dedication of our patrol officers.

At this point, the Department recommends that we continue with monitoring our process throughout the fall of 2013 into the spring of 2014, at which time we will come back to report to Council on our progress.