City Council Meeting   12/19/2016

Good evening everyone.

Welcome to Charlottesville City Council.

We will begin with a regular call to order.

Pledge of Allegiance first.

Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Bellamy?

Here.

Mr. Signer?

Here.

Ms. Szakos?

Here.

We now go to awards and recognitions and announcements.

This is about the Bama Works Fund grants, and I lifted this from the local newspaper.

71 local nonprofits to receive BamaWorks Fund grants.

The Charlottesville Area Community Foundation, CACF, through the Dave Matthews Band's BamaWorks Fund, is giving more than one half million dollars in grants to 71 local nonprofits.

For the fall 2016 cycle, grants were given to a variety of Charlottesville area organizations.

including Albemarle County Public Schools, Big Brothers, Big Sisters of the Central Blue Ridge, the Charlottesville Police Department Foundation, the Paramount Theater, and Science Delivered.

Since the beginning of the year, the fund has given more than $1.9 million to 175 organizations.

The grants support a variety of organizations aimed at helping youth, vulnerable populations,

the natural environment, the arts and cultural assets.

The fund has raised more than 40 million dollars and given out more than 1,200 grants since 1999.

This is a super foundation and it's just great that our community has somebody like Dave Matthews who will give back to this community.

It's just super.

And last week we had an announcement about the Vinegar Hill Park

And I just wanted to add three volunteers because we're going to be talking about volunteer efforts later this evening.

And to the people that we mentioned two weeks ago, I'd like to add Laura Knott, a member of the Board of Architectural Review, Beth Meyer, a university professor in landscape architecture, I believe, and Scott French.

Thank you.

So good evening everyone.

I have a couple of announcements.

The first, more so of a recognition, I want to thank the entire community and the city of Charlottesville as well as surrounding areas for helping donate nearly 250 coats, gloves, scarves and hats.

This past weekend at the fifth annual Big Giveaway coat drive we were able to help tons of different families from around the area.

those in need and we'll be able to keep them warm so it really shows the power of what can happen when we pull and rally together so thank you for everyone who had a role and played a role in that.

Next up on December 21st which is actually two days from now on Wednesday at 5 p.m. there'll be the first annual holiday toy drive and this will be taking place at 2116 Berkmar Drive here in Charlottesville, Virginia that is also known as Cizimage Barbershop as well as the 89 Till

Sneaker Boutique so if anyone has any toys of any kind that they would like to donate to anybody

who's in need, small kid toys, middle-aged kid toys or teenage toys, whatever you have, please feel free to donate them.

Once again, this will be this Wednesday, the collection starts at 5 p.m. and again it's the first annual holiday toy drive, December 21st, 5 p.m. at 2116 Berkmar Drive, which is right next to the Jiffy Lube off of Highway 29.

We need all of the coats we can.

So let's make sure we rally together so that we can continue to help those in need and let's brighten someone's Christmas.

Thank you.

Okay.

We now move on to the part of our Standard Agenda where we have the City Manager respond to matters that were raised by the public in the last meeting.

Mr. Mayor, only one item that was staff related that came out of last meeting.

Ms. Melanie Miller asked the City Council during matters by the public whether

The city should consider commissioning a historic landscape report for the downtown mall and provide council with a brief update.

Staff is looking into that.

And on appointments, boards or commissions, we're going to

do appointments in January for a couple that were still up this month because we're filling out.

We have one more round of interviews for one of them.

So we should be able – Mr. Fenwick is our customary announcer of these

Nominations, so he'll have his opportunity in January.

We now move on to matters of the public.

Ms. Brazelton or Ms. Rice, would you mind?

And let me just say that because there's been a fair amount of attention, the procedures for this first matters by the public session this week, as in the last city council meeting, we had substantially more requests for slots than we were able to meet.

The new procedures that came into effect earlier this year

We've had 12 spots for many, many years.

When there are more than those 12, there's a random selection process that happens.

Tonight, there were 20 people who requested slots.

19 requested them two weeks ago.

So we have nine slots you can sign up for that you can get in advance.

And then there are three that happen by people coming first come first serve.

So that happened tonight.

There's a wait list of 11 people.

Again, we're kind of in a

No perfect system out there, but just to, we've discussed a little bit about, well, what if we were to lose the 12 spots entirely and just allow, have everybody who wanted to speak, speak, which they do in some other localities.

What I mean tonight, we probably, we've got a very crowded agenda.

We probably wouldn't get started until about 8.30 on the public's business because we'd have

you know 20 or 20 well more than that people speaking so again we're going to be having this discussion it's ongoing we're trying our best we're curious about how this works for the public the way that the quote-unquote lottery system works is it kind of offers a sampling among the 20 people who wanted to speak to get to the 12 and again no perfect system we are very curious to hear from the public about your thoughts we've heard a lot so far so I just wanted to flag that before we got into this particular matters by the public so

I'm going to read the same guidelines that we typically do.

We welcome public comment.

It's an important part of our meeting.

Time is reserved near the beginning and at the end of each regular city council meeting for matters by the public.

I would emphasize there's an unlimited period at the end of this meeting for anybody who wants to stay and speak to us then.

If you're here to speak for a public hearing, which we don't have any tonight,

Oh, no, we do.

I'm sorry, for the conveyance of Rougemont.

I'm sorry.

The first one is a public hearing ordinance.

Please wait and we'll have sign ups for that that are down here.

Please wait to speak on the matter until the report for that item has been presented and the public hearing has been opened.

Each speaker has three minutes to speak.

Please give your name and address before beginning your remarks.

Please don't interrupt speakers whether or not you agree with them.

Please refrain from using obscenities.

And I'll do what I did last time, which is just read the series of

of rules here.

Improper comments, disorderly conduct are not permitted.

Persons appearing before the council will not be allowed to campaign for public office, promote private business ventures, use profanity or vulgar language or gestures, threaten violence toward council, city staff or members of the public, engage in behavior that intimidates others, and interrupt other speakers or engage in behavior that disrupts the meeting.

Any speaker violates the rules will be called to order by the mayor.

If the remarks or conduct persists,

The mayor shall order the speaker to cease speaking and be seated.

With orders not heeded, the mayor shall direct the sergeant-at-arms to escort the individual from the meeting room.

So we will hope to have a wonderful meeting ahead of us tonight.

There's going to be a lot of strong opinions in this room on a lot of matters.

But again, we can agree without being disagreeable.

And we can focus on civil and civic dialogue in this very important local government body.

So with that all said, we will move to the speakers who have signed up and have spots.

Hello.

Hello.

I'm Dina Imlay.

I'm president of the Meadowbrook Hills Rugby Neighborhood Association.

I'm at 2014 Meadowbrook Road.

I'm here to make a very brief comment.

I want to congratulate the city council for taking up the matter of deer management.

This is a long standing problem in the city and we in Meadowbrook Hills are just one of many neighborhoods that are having difficulties.

I know that the first meeting on this this year was in July, July 18th, at which time there was a request for some clarification on the ordinance so that people who are legally allowed to have hunting on their property with three acres or more in the city can do so.

And so I'm curious tonight to find out

if that ordinance has been clarified.

Thank you.

We're next with David Stackhouse.

Thank you.

I'm Dave Stackhouse, 1404 Westwood Road here in the city.

I'm speaking tonight in support of the ordinance to allow shared use, including bicycles at Ragon Mountain.

After a lengthy process with more than eight public meetings, the majority of all attendees, letters, emails and comments favor use of shared, including bicycles.

The Parks Advisory Board recommended shared use, including bicycles.

The Bike Pedestrian Advisory Committee recommended shared use, including bicycles.

The head of Albemarle County Parks and Recreation is on record

supporting this change of use, including bicycles at Ragged Mountain.

That's a letter in the public record.

RWSA is on record publicly stating they have no concerns about water quality impacted by shared use, including bicycles and even dogs.

After all the emotional arguments about caring for plants and birds,

The scientific studies show bikes do not cause any more damage to trails, plants, or animals than do hikers or runners.

The proposed shared use trail system is no larger than the existing trail system and thus has no greater impact on the flora and the fauna.

The amended trail plan that includes a loop for bikes is a good trail plan that will minimize user conflicts while also providing the majority of trails closest to the parking lot for hiker only advocates.

Families and children need trails to ride close to Charlottesville.

Currently there are no substantial places to ride in Charlottesville that are not on private land that is subject to loss of use at any time.

Ragged Mountain can fill this need.

Getting people outside in our public lands creates a deeper connection to our natural world and is one of the best means to foster stewardship.

Allowing shared use at Ragged Mountain creates a larger pool of volunteers who can care for Ragged Mountain.

Add to that our need to get people moving to fight the epidemic of obesity.

Allowing shared use is progressive

is a positive step toward healthier lives for families and children, is good for future development and for helping Charlottesville to be the best livable city it can be.

I applaud our council for their forward thinking in supporting shared use ordinance.

I also suggest council consider changing the name to Ragged Mountain Reservoir so it will not be easily confused with the Ivy Creek Natural Area.

Speaking for the Mountain Bike Club, we are experts in designing and building trails, but we are not expert environmentalists.

This debate has raised our awareness and educated us to the need to work with our local environmentalists to design and create the best possible trail plan that can provide shared access while preserving all that is precious at Ragged Mountain.

And I want to thank everyone who put their efforts into all the research and all the public meetings.

My name is Teresa K. Lamb, Elton, Virginia.

The Charlottesville is my hometown.

I'm a descendant of founding fathers, many presidents of this nation,

and Fifth Cousins seven times removed to General Robert E. Lee.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I've reached multiple, reached out multiple times this week to speak with you, Mayor Signer.

Trying to seek out common ground in the city I've known and called home for most of my life.

It appears there isn't any desire on city council's part to find common ground except to push one council member's agenda

City Council would rather stack the Blue Ribbon Commission on race, memorials, and public spaces with people who think alike rather than form an open dialogue between the racist and try to put it into racism.

Mayor Signer, you state on your website you work for solution, not studies.

Yet $10,000 went into a commission that was not needed.

That $10,000 could have went to honor the free black man who fought in the Revolutionary War from this area.

who signed up right here in Charlottesville.

Do y'all even know his name?

His name was Charles Barnett.

He lived in Albemarle County until 1800, according to the Revolutionary War Pension Application.

He was a mulatto who enlisted in Charlottesville in the 7th Virginia Regiment.

Honoring the black community from all eras would go a lot further in bringing pride and healing than trying to tear down a monument.

Killing the youth of today in the future with misconceptions will only breed more hate and distrust between the races.

Now that the Commission has concluded its study and, in my opinion, allowed a group to favor their findings by wearing T-shirts with messages that amount to intimidation, the Commission has made their findings known.

It's my understanding the findings are to either move this Robert E. Lee statue out of downtown view or to transform it in place and rename Lee Park.

To that I say you cannot change history.

There is no evidence that Robert Edward Lee was a white supremacist and slavery as being suggested was not the cause of the war.

Stating such is an attempt to vilify the character of good people who lost the war, much like the men who fought in Vietnam were vilified when they came home.

History has happened and cannot be reimagined or retold.

It has to be recorded as it happened, otherwise you would be committing a crime like Hitler and the Third Reich.

Last I checked, this is still America, not a communist country.

If you move the Robert E. Lee statue or rename the park, transform or reinterpret history, you might as well take the men off the side of this very building and put up a swastika and start teaching children to hile Hitler or maybe the council would prefer to reinstate the Bellamy salute.

Thank you.

My name is John Ciambati.

I live at 1852 Edgewood Lane in Charlottesville.

Thank you for the opportunity to address city council tonight.

I'm here to represent the cycling community in the city of Charlottesville.

I first want to take a moment to introduce who we are.

The cycling community recently had the most successful Boys and Girls Club ride this year.

There were over 580 cyclists who volunteered to ride their bikes.

We had over 40 kids from the Boys and Girls Cycling Team.

Most of them, this is the first time and the farthest they've ever ridden a bike.

A truly wonderful event.

The individual cyclists raised over $90,000 for the Boys and Girls Club.

An additional total of $140,000 was raised with corporate sponsors.

This past couple months we've had a spinathon on the downtown mall where we raised over $10,000 for the toy lift.

We purchased over 400 bikes for needy and disadvantaged kids in our community.

We then spent over four days working 12 hours a day to build all those bikes and make sure they're safe for those kids when they first get them and be able to ride them safely.

We also donate helmets as well.

We are the Charlottesville area mountain bike club.

Charlottesville area mountain bike club is a 501c registered nonprofit in the city of Charlottesville.

We've been working since 2003.

We have MOUs with the county of Albemarle parks.

We have an MOU with the university of Virginia.

We have an MOU with the United States forest service.

Our goal is to build sustainable shared use trails in our community.

To that end, we're the group that is called upon to mitigate various problems.

You know, we don't build a lot of trails in this community, but we're the ones that are called upon to mitigate solutions, whether it's erosion, whether it's too much vegetation encroaching on the trail, or whether the trail is inappropriate for shared use in our community.

To that end, we donate over 500 hours of volunteer hours to our community to mitigate these trails and make them safe for all of us to use.

In the last two months, we've led trail work days, organized and provided tools

for two county workdays at Peretti Creek Park.

We organized the trail workday and the Rivanna Trail Foundation and the whole point of that was to mitigate a section that we felt was inappropriate for shared use and needed to be worked on.

When the Rivanna Trails Foundation had their shed broken and all the tools were stolen, we were the organization that raised money to replace all of their tools to maintain the beautiful RTF that we have here in town.

We hosted land manager workshop and trail building session last year that had city parks, county parks, and various other private entities.

We learned how to manage park systems in that session.

We learned how to build safe and sustainable shared use trails in that session.

As an outgrowth of that, we donated $3,000 to have a professional trail building company come to Charlottesville and work with our county parks employees and the city parks employees and other various private land managers.

for a demonstration on sustainable trail building in our community.

Our volunteers are also leading the Youth Mountain Bike Resurgent here in Charlottesville.

The Charlottesville is now the most popular mountain bike for kids.

Montchello High School was the first public mountain bike high school team that was led by one of the volunteers.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Marilyn Filippi, 4721 Helios Path, Barbersville.

As I was hunting through the 126 pages of background material related to this meeting, I was struck by the volume and diversity of issues that you have to absorb and then make decisions about.

Your jobs seem to be thankless ones.

With few exceptions, you only hear from people who want to influence your decisions or those who disagree with what you ultimately decide.

When I looked at your backgrounds to see who would not just accept but actually campaign for these jobs, I found that you have been taking leadership roles in the community activities for many years, which couldn't have been easy, especially when combined with families and jobs.

Given all that, I have to believe that you want to do the right thing about Ragged Mountain.

I accept that you have decided to allow biking, but I was happy to see that the resolution includes a commitment to review this shared usage policy after the county opens hedge row with additional biking trails.

However, I was very surprised that the resolution actually directs the park staff

to implement the map that was handed out towards the end of the last meeting.

That map was obviously prepared to benefit the biking community and was not the map that had been discussed for the past several months.

We had been led to believe that even if the council voted to approve biking, there would still be an opportunity for a quiet walk or nature hike in the area south of the reservoir.

The advisory board's recommendation to allow biking

was based on the previous map that protected the southern part of the area for quiet enjoyment.

I am asking you to remove or revise that section of the resolution.

Jean Philippi.

Hello.

Hello.

I'm Jean Philippi, Helios Path.

I'm going to be quick, direct, and politely blunt.

We know that Ragged Mountain will have biking trails.

Period.

End of story.

Time to move on.

The issue now is the design of the trails.

This is not easy to do because we want these trails to satisfy several different requirements.

I can give you that list later.

I, as well as many others, have concerns about the map in the resolution, which was developed by the Biker Group.

Now the blunt part.

We all know that there are conflicts between the biking group and hikers and walkers.

No big surprise.

Let's address this directly.

I think we should get representatives of the two groups into a room and try to agree on a trail design instead of considering a plan developed by the bikers alone.

We should be able to do this.

We should be able to design a trail plan that's very good for both groups.

It won't be anywhere near perfect, but it could be very good.

I recommend that the Parks and Rec Advisory Board convene a small group

with the goal of agreeing on a trail design.

I know you want to finish this process, so do most of us.

There does not have to be a huge delay.

We can do this promptly and prudently as we consider all the important factors.

We want both groups to enjoy the trail design.

We do not want to have one group that is very dissatisfied.

I'm concerned that that's the way we're heading.

I respectfully recommend that the resolution not include the specific trail language in the fourth paragraph and in points one and two.

Instead, direct the advisory board to convene a small group to attempt to design a trail system that satisfies both groups.

We have to at least try.

Getting the groups together is the best way to achieve long-term satisfaction and enjoyment of Ragged Mountain.

Thank you.

Lee Politis, Albemarle County, thank you Councillors for your attention to how best to manage Ragged Mountain.

I can't lie, I still believe that when we consider all of our parks and natural areas as a whole

It's optimal and important to offer residents a diversity of outdoor experiences, more active experiences in some parks and more tranquil ones in others.

And I still believe Ragged Mountain is best left as is as a natural area.

And we still have an existing county ordinance that prohibits biking at Ragged Mountain.

However,

If biking is to be allowed at Ragged Mountain, please abandon the resolution offered up at the last council meeting to extend biking into the southern area.

Having cyclists and hikers on that same trail for over a mile goes against the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

The board was not unanimously in favor of allowing cycling and as a compromise called for low impact biking

and separate trails for cyclists and hikers.

Also, the proposed bike trail extension goes directly through the southwest corner of Ragged Mountain, an area deemed most ecologically sensitive by the 2016 ecological report commissioned by the city.

The report advises that the integrity of these systems relies upon preventing

Further Division and Minimizing Human Presence, page 112.

If we are to have this change, I believe we need to consider input from the ecological report.

and the Parks and Recreation Board, as well as the Planning Commission, as a number of them also voiced concerns.

At the last council meeting, Kay Slaughter suggested enlisting a professional landscape designer.

I think that makes sense.

Someone who can process all of the gathered information and draw up a plan that best suits Ragged Mountain and all of its visitors.

Thank you.

Hi, Dan Beaker, 4174 Laird Lane, North Garden.

First of all, thank you for your patience with this whole ragged mountain issue.

It's become rather complicated, but in the big picture it really doesn't need to be.

For a long time there have been advocates trying to preserve Ragged Mountain Natural Area for foot travel only.

Well that is apparently lost.

You want biking, okay.

What next?

The trail map that was put together by the Parks Department and the advisory board on November 1st and presented at the last council meeting does a reasonable job of separating biking and hiking trails.

but the resolution you're considering tonight changes that dramatically.

It extends biking well beyond the recommendation of those two bodies.

And I'll repeat just a couple of things that the previous speaker just said because it's important.

And the problem is that this trail extension goes into the areas deemed the most ecologically sensitive by the eco report that you commissioned this year.

That report in talking about the rich biodiversity

And I quote, the integrity of these systems relies upon preventing further division and minimizing human presence.

How do you minimize human presence without eliminating it?

You do it by allowing foot travel only.

It discriminates against no one.

It only discriminates against mechanization.

So this one area that's been set aside to retain this quiet hiking experience in the southern part will be lost if you pass this resolution.

Further, it forces bikers and hikers onto the same trail for over one mile.

Someone hiking in this area will have bikes coming from behind and from in front.

Now, I'm not opposed to mountain biking.

I'm an avid mountain biker myself.

But allowing hiking only in this one section is a good call.

If you go against that, you are going against the recommendation and the work of the Parks Department, the advisory board,

The County's Natural Heritage Committee, which is composed of many resource professionals, both from the city and the county.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bill Schenker.

I reside at 420 Rook Road Drive.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Ragged Mountain Natural Area Trail Usage.

I'm a biker, but I support strongly maintaining the current usage of hiking and fishing.

First, I would urge you to delay a vote on your ordinance this evening.

The Board of Supervisors has now publicly reached out to you, urging you that you delay a decision.

And we understand that they privately reached out to you some months ago.

So it is not a delaying tactic on their part.

I think it's more an expression of the concern they have

about the trail usage of Ragon Mountain Natural Area over the past 130 years and your proposed ordinance would change that significantly.

Before you change 130 years of history, such a major change I think deserves to be considered in a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors.

I would urge you to delay a vote.

I know there were two, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Bellamy, who were for

for a delay and meeting with the Board of Supervisors at your December 5th meeting.

All it takes is one more of you to swing this decision, and I hope you would consider doing that this evening.

It is possible that your meeting with the Board of Supervisors would accelerate the development of the trails at Hedge Row property in 2017.

Second, if you decide to proceed

on your ordinance.

I would support what you've just heard from two previous speakers and that is that you adopt the trail design that the Parks Advisory Board suggested to you and not the design that was put into the resolution at the last meeting and was never exposed to the public before it was put into that resolution.

Thank you.

They give us cookies and I'm going to give you some books.

I'm Roy Van Dorn, I'm owner of City Select and our office is on 1140 East High Street.

What you have in your hands is found in every hotel room, most winery tasting rooms, hospitals, Charlottesville Airport,

It's really what the community tries to teach and educate our visitors.

Now what is the visitor market here?

Sometimes we have to step back and realize how big the visitor market is, and I'm speaking of the overnight guests.

In 2016, we're gonna finish up with about 1.5 million guests who spend the night in Charlottesville and Albemarle County.

That represents the largest ever nighttime population that we've ever had.

It also represents an 11% increase over 2015.

That is the largest increase in room demand in the state of Virginia.

We also enjoy the highest occupancy rate

except for Arlington, which I kind of consider part of the Washington DC metro area as the bedroom.

But if you look at it just from a community standpoint, we enjoy the highest occupancy in the state.

That has some good points and it has some bad points.

The bad point is when the rooms are full, like in the fall and the spring, prices are high and there's no room in the inn.

and so we do have a capacity problem.

Even though we think we're building like crazy, we still lag.

We're the slowest growing lodging metropolitan area in the state of Virginia as far as a community.

Let's talk about the book I just gave you.

It's our second edition put together by a variety of people and really represents the whole community.

The purpose of the book is to encourage longer stays.

Guests may be here for a reason.

They come here for business.

They may be coming here to go to UVA.

They could be coming here for a wedding and don't realize what we actually have in this town.

So we're trying to educate them for a purpose and that purpose is we want you to come back and spend money with us.

And lastly, one of our biggest growth areas for rooms is weddings.

So trying to sell weddings is an important part too and that's because that's a fuel for our local economy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm John Hayden.

While Mr. Bellamy gave lip service to an apology, he has shown no change in attitude or acknowledgement of his hypocrisy, which to me is the first step in understanding and changing.

On the contrary, he strutted into city council like a cocksure rooster to the admiring clucks of the henpeck chickens.

There was no acknowledgement of how he realized

the potential damage he caused to Mr. Muir or how his actions were nothing more than self-aggrandizement.

He wouldn't admit he, quote, needed to be taught a lesson, that words have consequences.

Your words, Mr. Bellamy.

Since Mr. Bellamy arrived in town, he has been involved in one

protest after another where it seeks to divide white and black people pushing false narrative like hands up don't shoot and this phony racism con about the statues.

It is one thing to advocate for equal treatment and equity but stop blaming the white man for all the ills of the black community.

In 1961, Martin Luther King Jr. said, quote,

Negroes are 10% of the city of St. Louis, but are responsible for 58% of its crime.

We have to face that, and we have to do something about our moral standards.

We know there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world too.

We can't keep on blaming the white man.

There are things we must do ourselves.

I've been saying the same thing here about the crime rate for years, and I'm called a racist.

While talking about white history, we have finite and static monuments that are just there, nothing more than some concrete and steel.

I would say to those of you who complain that black history is not represented in the same way,

You only need look at the African American Heritage Museum that was created at taxpayer expense that has the luxury of expanding the history of the black community.

It can be added to, changed, and expanded in ways that the statues cannot.

If we seek to alter the statues, shouldn't we strive for parity for whites in the museum?

This controversy over the statues

was created by a black supremacist who hoped to accomplish two goals.

One, to eliminate white history and two, to get taxpayers to pay for the black history monuments.

While I have no problem with any acknowledgement of black history being placed anywhere in this city, however, I don't think taxpayers should bear that burden.

Mr. Bellamy, I would suggest that you follow the words and actions

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

My name is Susan Hathaway and I'm from Sandston, Virginia.

I'm here tonight to speak to you on behalf of the millions of descendants of Confederate veterans and for the veterans themselves who no longer have a voice.

I could spend my allotted time telling you about the honor and bravery of these men or speak to the noble character, courage, and bravery and incredible faith of Robert E. Lee or mention the many, many ways Confederate veterans contributed to the success of even this city, but I won't.

For any of us who have witnessed the spectacle in these chambers when City Council voted against the wishes of its citizens to remove the Lee Jackson holiday from the city calendar, we know full well that facts, truth, and the wishes of the majority of the constituents sometimes matter very little on a body that is hell-bent on shoving a progressive, extreme agenda on your entire citizenry.

The rest of the country is watching amusement as you cower to the demands of one man and his hate-filled agenda to destroy our history and heritage.

We collectively rolled our eyes as we watched you spend $10,000 to appoint a commission to study the matter when blowback from his initial stunt was swift and fierce, knowing full well that if you allowed Mr. Bellamy to run roughshod and force a vote to remove any monument,

Any further political aspirations any of you may have outside of the protective bubble of Charlottesville would end.

We watched you stack that commission with folks with the exact same views as the council holds.

We sat through meetings of this commission and listened as citizens overwhelmingly expressed their wishes that the statues remain.

From the commissioners, we heard over and over the false narrative of white supremacy selectively applied to everything from the men the monuments honor to those who erected them to those who choose to honor them today.

What an absolute colossal waste of taxpayer money.

In the end, it is obvious that neither facts nor truth nor the will of people matter to the members of this council, and I for one will not waste time or energy in trying to educate folks who are blinded by prejudice and hate.

The fact that the man who was the catalyst behind this entire process has shown to be a racist and have a prejudice against anyone who isn't black should have been enough for you to all step back and call off this entire process.

In the end, the citizens of Charlottesville should know, since you refused to tell them, that removing, moving, or altering of any war memorial is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

and I promise you that if you insist on attempting to do any of the above, you will be met with criminal and civil lawsuits that will tie this body up for months and cost your citizens much more than the $700,000 of their money you presently wish to spend on your foolish attempts to satisfy one man's hate-filled crusade.

In the end, the monuments will remain and the names of Lee and Jackson will be spoken with reverence and honor in the Commonwealth long after each of you are forgotten.

We have the law and the majority of citizens on our side.

You would do well to consider both when making your decision.

Thank you.

OK. All right.

Any responses anyone?

Under our rules, we generally, you're going to direct individual responses.

So Ms. Lamb, I would like to offer an apology for not responding to your email.

It is, I did get it.

It's very hard on matters where there are lots and lots, hundreds of people, but I usually do manage to respond and that was, that just slipped through the cracks.

It was a kind of crazy week, but I do apologize because our clerk raised it to my attention and I just sincerely apologize.

Sure, I will respond.

Right.

And anything that goes to staff concerns, we'll respond to next next meeting.

okay we now move on to thank you all and and just the general thank you that we offer to people who do take time to come up and speak to us it takes courage it's not easy being down there on the side we're for some reason about 18 inches up here and you're on TV and we do appreciate coming up sharing your opinions the community appreciates it we read all the emails we get as well and you can always it's important for us to hear from people who do come up and matters to the public and we have an open session after this meeting

Alright, moving on to the regular agenda, we now go on to the consent agenda.

Item A minutes for December 5th.

Item B in appropriation FY 2016 year end appropriation, second of two readings.

Item C in appropriation $664,776.63 to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund, second of two readings.

Item D, a resolution meeting procedures amendment, first of one reading.

Item E, a resolution request for proposal form-based code, first of one reading.

Item F, a resolution ragged mountain natural area bike trail map, first of one reading.

Item G, an ordinance West Main Street density amendment, second of two readings.

Mr. Signer, I'd like to remove one item from the consent agenda.

Item F, which is the ragged mountain natural area bike trail map,

And I'll second that.

Great.

Any other objections to talking about it at that part of the agenda?

No, that's fine.

Okay, so let's do that.

I think it's important to talk about D, that's the meeting procedures amendment because it concerns Joe Drago and what happened here on June 20th of this year.

It's important that the community understand what happened that evening both at the opening matters before public and at the final matters after the public, I guess you'd call it.

So for those watching, we televise these meetings and it's available.

You can watch it.

The meetings are usually up probably a month after the meeting.

Maurice, is that a good guess?

Yes.

Okay.

So, and I will probably make this announcement again, but I will read you what I had.

Mr. Drago's first comments on June 20th occur, and you can scroll through the video, you can stop it at certain times.

Mr. Drago's first comments occur at approximately 17 minutes 44 seconds.

and his second comments occur at approximately 2 hours, 28 minutes, 35 seconds.

And if you watch this video, you will understand why we tried to maintain the conduct of that meeting.

We have a duty to make sure we do the city's business.

So I will make this announcement again, but it would be well worth, for those of you who care about this, because I think it's going to come up again,

And I just realized that we have a correction in item H that we are actually voting on, but it is not what was in the earlier version of the agenda.

There was an error, there's a typo in it, so it's been corrected.

So the proposal was intended to have a 15 foot minimum and a 20 foot maximum setback, and in the way that it was worded in the agenda, it said a 15 to 20 foot minimum.

So that was an error.

Our discussion when we discussed putting it in said 15 minimum, 20 foot maximum.

So it is what we had agreed to now.

It was just a paper copy.

OK, great.

Well, it sounds like one more thing.

Yes, sir.

Unless Chris and you had yours, OK.

Item E.

The request for proposal form-based code, it's about 200, I've heard two figures, $200,000 and $236,000.

Any further discussion, any questions?

All in favor?

All right, that carries five to zero.

I have a statement now that that is passed, including the resolution about the meeting procedures, I'd like to read this to explain a perspective that with my colleagues will indulge me.

It's relevant.

And I've conferred with counsel about this.

But this is to kind of explain a little bit about what happened from my perspective as the chair of the meeting.

And this goes to our meeting procedures.

It should take a couple minutes.

In a time of increasing cynicism about government, it's ever more important that government be able to do the public's business.

When we become a stage for theatrics aimed purely at incitement, it becomes difficult to run an orderly meeting where we work through things like tonight, deer population, mountain biking at Ragon Mountain,

We have agreed now in the consent agenda to remove Rule 9G in its entirety as a result of a legal settlement whose terms are confidential.

We were represented in this matter by an attorney with the Virginia Municipal League whose judgment was excellent.

I am glad that we did reach a settlement and believe it's time to move on.

However, because there has been some misinformation among the public and the press about the events leading up to this lawsuit, I would like to take a moment to clarify for the public a couple of issues.

First,

I do not believe that the rule in question, which prohibited, quote, defamatory attacks on individuals or groups, was about content.

It was about, as Mr. Fenwick just emphasized, about disorderly conduct.

We developed these rules by working closely with our counsel.

The introductory phrase to Rule 9G says improper comments and disorderly conduct is not permitted.

As the chair of the meeting, I'm charged by Section 2.2-68 of our code

under the, quote, general duties of mayor, and this applies to any mayor, and it has for many, many years, with the following.

The mayor shall, quote, preserve, quote, order and decorum.

That is the duty and the requirement of the chair of the meeting of the mayor.

There is not really any choice about that mandate.

The point of city council meetings themselves as well as these rules is to allow us to do the public's business in such an orderly way with decorum and order.

When the plaintiff in this case made his comments, my perception looking out on the group of people sitting in the chambers right here in real time was that they did threaten a level of disorder that would have impeded our meeting and that would have stopped us from doing the public's business while actively frightening people in the community and in the chambers in real time.

When these remarks were made, I noticed people looking out right here, sitting in the chamber, becoming visibly angry, making audible sounds of anguish, becoming physically disturbed.

It seemed to me that the situation could very easily have gotten out of control.

Under these same authorities, two weeks ago, I had to threaten to stop the meeting several times, and because my perception was that the order and decorum of the meeting would have been lost, and those were

It was good because it ended up leading to a meeting where we could get the people's business done two weeks ago.

The reason that this decision and the rule itself I don't believe were about content can be seen from other decisions that I have made as the chair of this body.

For instance, in mid-August, another gentleman came up to the podium and provided very harsh critiques of our refugee community in presumed connection with the Muslim Brotherhood.

However, that was a very different situation.

The speaker made his points in a relatively calm manner.

I did not perceive that effort to be about incitement, but rather to make an argument to which there conceivably could have been reasoned responses

And so I did not stop him, even though there was a comment from behind the dais that the comments were hate speech, but he was allowed to proceed.

With all that said, I want to keep this matter in perspective.

Fortunately, these sorts of disruptions are rare.

As mayor for this one year, I only invoked Rule 9G once.

I am very glad, however, to move beyond this matter with this settlement about these rules going forward.

I want to assure this public in the remaining year of this term that I will always work to maintain order and civility in these chambers in order that we are able to do the people's business.

Thank you very much for your indulgence, colleagues.

All right, we are moving on now to item number two on our any further any comments about this?

OK, this is a public hearing ordinance.

This is conveyance of Rougemont, first of two readings.

We do have a public hearing on this matter.

Nobody has signed up so far.

But if anybody would like to, the sign up sheet is right here.

And Andrew Gore, Assistant City Attorney, will be presenting to us.

Mayor Signer, Members of Council, as the Mayor said, this is the first of two readings in a public hearing for proposed ordinance to authorizing a conveyance of city-owned land to Christopher and April Hoffman.

The proposed conveyance is of an unimproved 20 by 60 foot recently vacated portion of the Rougemont Avenue right-of-way.

The Hoffman's are the owners of the property at 1011 Rougemont Avenue, which fronts on the unimproved portion of the Rougemont Avenue right-of-way.

The Hoffman's have plans to build a single-family residence.

However, the parcel does not have the 50 feet of frontage on an approved right-of-way that has been accepted by the city for maintenance, which is a requirement of the city's zoning ordinance.

The city owns the parcel adjacent to the Hoffman's parcel and the city's parcel and that city parcel is also adjacent to Quarry Park.

Additionally, the city owns the large parcel opposite the Hoffman's property on the other side of the Rougemont Avenue right-of-way.

The city and the Hoffman's recently executed a deed of vacation, closing the portion of the Ridgemont Avenue right of way in front of the city's parcels and the Hoffman's parcels.

Following the vacation, the Hoffman's now own 30 feet of that 60 foot Ridgemont Avenue closed right of way and the city owns the other 30.

This proposed ordinance

would convey an additional 20 feet of right-of-way to the Hoffman's, which combined with the 30 that they already have would give them the 50 feet of frontage on the improved portion of Rougemont Avenue, and therefore they would meet the requirements to construct their single-family home.

If the conveyance is approved, the Hoffman's would pay fair market value for the sale of the property to be conveyed, which has been determined by the city assessor to be $1,320.

The city would retain a utility easement over the

and a portion of the right-of-way it is conveyed, and it would also retain ownership of the remaining 10 feet of the right-of-way, which could potentially be used for pedestrian access to Quarry Park via Rougemont Avenue.

Public Utilities and Parks and Recreation have reviewed the proposal, and they have no objection.

As noted, a public hearing is required.

Any further questions?

Okay.

Well, I will open the public hearing in this matter.

The sign up sheet is down here.

I don't see anyone having signed up, but if anyone would like to.

Good evening, Mayor Signer and members of City Council.

My name is Maynard Sipe.

I'm a land use attorney here in the city of Charlottesville.

You've seen me before you in the past, and I'm just gonna take a moment or two to say a couple words.

First of all,

I just want to put a little face to this issue for you.

The Hoffmans are a young couple who had bought this lot when it had a small residence on it because they desired to live in the city and were looking forward to it.

When they bought the lot, the existing house was substandard condition and they chose to remove it to build a new home, their dream home, and they obtained the demolition permit from the city.

At that time, nothing was raised about the fact that it would become unbuildable by doing so.

but they came back, their builder came back for the building permit and found that the city's interpretation of the zoning ordinance regarding frontage made the lot unbuildable.

I would like to thank staff for working with us.

We did work out a solution which is what is before you.

The solution does result in the lot becoming buildable once again under your staff's interpretation of the zoning ordinance.

and I appreciate their efforts.

I want to get that on record.

I do think it benefits the city as well since the street right away that was basically unbuildable due to topography actually split two parcels of land the city had, one being in Quarry Park and one being adjacent to it.

So the resolution works out well for both parties.

It's unfortunate for them in terms of several months delay and tens of thousands of additional costs they've encountered.

I ask for your approval of it and I just wanted to speak also to let you know if there are questions you have I would like, I'm here to answer them.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Good evening, my name is Bo Dickerson.

I live at 415 Lexington Avenue and I actually wanted to speak about some things

affordable housing related and this is a great example.

I'm in the development industry in this specific city where I do 95% of my work and this example that before you won that even got to this point.

This is a no brainer as far as proving something that should have been done regardless.

But it's also a great example of why there is no affordable housing in this town because neighborhood development services, Mr. Jones,

Thank you.

Anyone else on this item?

Okay, closing the public hearing.

Is there a second?

And it is related somewhat to the context of why this became an issue and it does reflect very strongly why it is very important that we proceed with a citywide rewrite of our zoning ordinance subject to a review.

As I understand it, the resulting parcel was determined to be too narrow and did not meet the standards of the existing zoning that we had to have a minimum 50 foot wide lot.

Most cities in America have lots for housing that are less narrower than 50 foot.

And I think moving forward, we really do need to be very conscious of every zoning change that we can muster that will facilitate the construction of affordable housing from very low income to workforce.

Any further questions, comments?

Okay.

Well, we have first and a second, and that is all that we need for this first of two readings.

Moving on to the item number three in the agenda, this is a resolution about deer management.

Mike Murphy, assistant city manager, will be presenting.

We have 30 minutes allocated to this.

I would emphasize to everyone again, under these now year-old governing procedures almost, the way that we set up our two meetings in each month was the first meeting is a

The second meeting is a working meeting where we no longer have work sessions off camera on the first Thursday of every month, which we did have before when people couldn't see us openly deliberate kind of off Robert's Rules of Order.

Under the new procedures, we move those working meetings into the second meeting of every month like this.

So this agenda item here is an example where we don't have to have a motion right away.

Council is

Good evening.

Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager, back to speak with you all about direction on deer management.

As you know, we've had two presentations this year, one from Mr. Kochka at Game and Inland Fisheries, and once a presentation from myself and Mr. Jones.

Since that time at Council's direction, we've continued to look at the available options based on your feedback after the last presentation.

And that falls into five categories as are outlined in the report.

Your general public education and other measures you can take with homeowners, possibilities regarding sterilization, employee-led culling, i.e.

use of a police force,

urban archery ordinances and the use of paid sharpshooters.

So the report gives some analysis of all of those options.

Our recommendation is that we get direction from council tonight about whether you have an interest in an urban archery ordinance, and if so,

Each locality has some limiting factors that they've put into play and you have many examples in front of you and like to get some idea if you have an interest in an urban archery ordinance what limiting factors make sense for our community and

Since there seems to be some consensus from experts and some interest from the council in the possibility of sharp shooting, some notion of if council would want to put budget behind that because we would need to issue requests for proposal.

I do have a question about something that's not here that I would appreciate before we really start a discussion.

I was looking at some of the examples that you've provided and I looked at the Fairfax County Archery Program on their website rather than just what was here and their 2017 program is actually a very different animal I think than

what was described in our report.

It's very much about controlled hunts by groups rather than just kind of random opening it up for archers to come into the city.

So they tell people exactly where they want them to go.

They do it only in that area.

It's managed by the city and yet they're not paying them to do it because it's people who get in a group and this is what they do.

If you allow a managed hunt do you then have to also allow random hunting?

That was my impression from the state.

I'm certainly not an expert on this topic.

In the Fairfax model, they say that other hunting is not allowed.

We could certainly bring that back and consult with the state again as soon as this week.

I do just have a question.

When you, and thank you for answering my questions earlier today or yesterday, whenever it was,

And it is pretty striking how few parcels we have that are three acres and over.

And I would like to know, in fact, just for the

public consumption, there's only 39 parcels in Charlottesville that are three acres and over residential acres.

And my understanding in reading the literature is that most limitation, most communities had a limiting factor of three acres or more when they had an urban archery program.

I don't know for sure that we can save most.

Some of our peer localities certainly use three acres as their standard and so we wanted to provide you a range as you're aware in my response to you earlier today.

We showed you how many parcels at a half acre, one acre, two acres and greater than three.

There are very urban dense localities that are approved for urban archery, including Richmond, who put no limitation based on acreage.

So it's a real mixture.

And according to the state, I think I included this in the memo, it's been 50 years since there's been a fatality from a bow and over 20 years since there's been a kind of bystander injury from a bow.

So they view it as a very safe program, one where the people engaged in it do some self-regulation about where is a wise place to do hunting, to engage in archery.

That said,

We have heard from both the state and all the localities we talked to that really this is about what is your public's perception of safety, right?

You know, what is your particular appetite for the type of risk that is perceived?

And so the folks from the state would say

When you decide that, then any size that you want to put on it, whether it's no acreage restriction or a three acre restriction, could be appropriate.

One of my concerns in regards to the recommendation

which I do agree that we have to do something before but one of the things that I'm really concerned about is if for example if we were to contract or even use police officers or anyone else to take care of the deer issue and using the word the term take care very loosely so if we were to go that route and if there was a deer that was hit while on someone's yard and it didn't die immediately and it traveled into someone else's yard

I think about my daughters and how they would react to seeing a deer possibly waking up the next morning and a deer just lying in our yard.

That wouldn't go over so well.

The same way in which I would think about many other people's children or just people in general for that matter.

They're coming out of their house going to work and there's a deer laying in their yard.

So it's certainly clear that you would want landowner permission in all cases.

Nobody believes that with an archery component that deer are likely to die only on the parcel in which they are shot.

And so that's why there is some discussion in our memo

about the idea that some localities require some additional landowner permissions within a certain radius and you could certainly require that.

Absolutely not negotiable that the removal of the carcass is necessary within a certain time frame.

That would need to be specified.

Will we be able to specifically specify that you can only do the

using other.

So let me just clarify, you know, because I had a lot of questions.

I've never been a hunter and so I learned a lot over the last several months.

Well, you're the expert now.

And so the sharp shooting, the state doesn't even consider it to be hunting.

And therefore they allow you to employ many means that a hunter is not allowed to.

Nora managed hunts, since they consider that hunting.

So they allow you to bait the deer to a certain location, use spotlighting, you can shoot from a vehicle, you don't have to be from an elevated platform.

you know all the meat must be donated to charity it's expressly forbidden that you're taking trophies so you have to take off the antlers and send them to the state so there's a lot of provisions that distinguish the two and that usually happens when it happens

on public land at nighttime with night vision gear.

Yeah, I would prefer my hunters to be hunting during the day.

Obviously I'm not the hunter here.

So what we're trying to do here is to give you a few guidelines or say head in this direction or that.

Yeah, it is staff's perception that we've been here a couple times that unlike previous councils who've entertained this issue that you all have the will to manage the population in some fashion.

and that we've had some analysis.

Staff is not for a matter of cost and effectiveness reasons thinking that the non-lethal interventions are the best solution for us.

Just to recap, if you go with vaccination, you have to vaccinate the same dough year after year in order for it to be effective and there are some effectiveness issues.

With the other program that Mr. DiNicola runs through White Buffalo, you would have to tranquilize a deer and perform a surgical procedure, an over-reectomy, so that the deer can no longer reproduce.

But the price tag on that is typically $1200 to $1500 per doe.

And so it gets into quite a price tag.

potentially.

For that reason, we look at the other alternatives, which would be hunting of some kind or sharpshooting, whether it's by professionals or whether it's by a group.

And I've been contacted by a group like that since the first item, Kristin, and they pitched to me.

you know that the positive end is that they carry insurance and they register with locality and so there are some ways that you can make that work.

I think that many experts agree that the best if you're interested in managing the population is to combine urban archery with a sharp shooting program that you'll have the best results.

I should also say that they all say, once you start doing this, you can't really stop.

And I just want us to be aware of that.

You're not going to, you know, suppress the deer population and then say, oh well we've done that and they won't come back.

I do have a question related to that.

A couple more things.

So listening to the community, I think this is something that we have to do.

There's no question about this.

The numbers are just increasing every year.

Personally, I would not support sharpshooting.

I think what we see here is a pretty consistent archery from a tree.

I would add notice to neighbors, not just the homeowner, the landowner, but the people around there, some kind of notice.

I would not like to see the police be involved because I don't think the police department should be the agency that sort of picks up all these odd kinds of jobs.

So,

I can add my list to that if that's helpful.

So, I've struggled mightily with the archery, the hunting thing, and the managed hunt is something that I think I could, you know, I think actually would work very well in a lot of ways.

I think it wouldn't work everywhere, and so I would be interested in seeing that supplemented by an employee calling or some

I don't want anyone shooting guns in the city that isn't already a sworn officer.

So I don't want to change our law about who's allowed to shoot in the city.

And so I think the police, not as part of their day job, but as volunteers who do it in their overtime, I would be comfortable with.

I'd be comfortable with Albemarle County sworn officers volunteering for that as well.

So contractually or mechanics of what happens is that we would create an MOU with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries where the city would be issued the kill permits for the sharpshooter and whether it was one group or another, we would do that through them.

I do have a question for Ms. Szakos, though.

When you say volunteer, were you saying that we would not pay?

They wouldn't be assigned it as a job duty.

I pretty much alluded to it earlier that I do believe that we need to have a controlled culling and I do believe that it makes me feel better to have a sworn officer do it so that it would be a professional that we've already authorized to use a weapon like that.

I do think that that would mean that there would be designated times and dates.

They could do it on public property.

I also do believe that we could begin an urban archery program but I do want to start cautiously with having a minimum of a three acre site and then with pretty much all the other conditions that you've given to us to look at with the added condition of making sure that there is a very sizable buffer around the parcel to take into account that animal that is going to be roaming off the

the property within which it was shot.

So I am in the mind of doing it the aggressive way, having both pieces working together.

I did have one other question before it heads back over that way.

There was some language in the memo about

Publicly owned land as opposed to privately owned land.

And I hate to keep alluding to this Fairfax County one, but it's the one I spent the most time really looking at because I found less that I worried about in it.

But theirs is mostly on public land.

So they're doing parks, spaces like that.

Can I ask a question about the association?

So now that in the past discussions there was a little bit of the further this got toward sort of self-regulated under where we know a lot about what's happening and I remember when Ms. Szakos and I met and I think a couple of the other localities that basically have an agreement with an association.

Is it bow hunting?

I remember one gentleman contacted me with a group called the Virginia Wheelan Sportsman, right?

And there are other hunting clubs.

They carry insurance.

Yeah, they're bonded.

It seems to me that, from what I've heard from everybody, that would be the best comfort zone for the part of this that would be bow hunting, is that we'd have an agreement with a self-regulated entity that its members would

The bow hunters.

I guess it depends.

To me there's a few questions that we can sort of get where we all are on the different components here.

I would be, if it's an association of

Bo Hunters, who are acting in the role of a sharpshooter group.

And they're not sort of free agents.

You know who they are.

There was some concern last time about amateur

bowhunters who wouldn't be in a system, I guess.

Whereas the appeal of this is that it's free, basically.

We'll get some advice from the state and also from council.

I'm thinking that one way is you could pass your hunting and urban archery ordinance, but require people to have insurance to do so.

And so that might

but the appeal would be that I think that they wouldn't apply to the city if they were members of one of these separate groups you just would know that they to have this

entitlement, they would have to be a registered member of that group with these requirements and so on.

So we don't create a lot of bureaucracy that we have to deal with.

Yes, they would have to.

And this one, the archers must pass a criminal background check and there's various disqualifying convictions.

There's, as you mentioned, no baiting.

So can I try to synthesize this a little bit?

Mr. Bellamy, did you have anything you want to?

No, I'm ready to move forward.

How many members here are comfortable with this?

Managed hunt.

Well, so managed hunt, I'm not sure what that means, because that means that you only have a period of, that the hunt itself is managed.

I think the beginning threshold one is, are we OK with a bow hunting organization who has some criteria to it being allowed to have

to call on a volunteer basis in private land in the city with some kind of criteria.

It sounded like Ms. Fenwick, you were...

Yes, yes.

Bow hunting in a club, yes.

Okay, so a club.

Mr. Bellamy is okay with that?

Yes.

I'm not sure.

And I might be...

The three-acre thing might limit it enough that I would be

I'm not sure we can do that.

I think that what gives Fairfax the right to pick what the groups are is the fact that it's on their land.

That's what I think.

Mr. Brown, do you have any clarity for us?

That sounds right, but I don't know without checking with the state.

I think that Ms. Akus is on the right track, that how localities control how much hunting happens on private or public parcels

is how they write their ordinance.

And as I've indicated in the memo, you can dictate things like only shoot from a tree stand and what the height of it is.

Only on parcels of this size.

X number of feet or yards from a dwelling, street, park, school.

All of these controlling variables then determine where are the places.

Other things that we heard that you know would be merit some serious consideration just so you know where this is happening is anybody who wants to allow their parcel to be eligible to be hunted on has to register annually with the city.

A lot of localities do that.

Then you have some idea when somebody contacts you say I think I saw somebody with a

Bo in my neighborhood and say, yeah, well, one of your neighbors has a permit to do so.

So that's how you would control it.

And Urban Archery really is only a program that adds September, February, and March to hunting season.

What you're saying is regular hunting season, you're going to allow bows in the city October through January.

And in our city, we also allow September and February and March.

That's what Urban Archer does, adds three months.

So I would be comfortable with it if we could control by user, like if we had some way of being able to say, you know, there's a list of approved hunters or something like that.

There are some places, and we'd have to consult with the state again on this, where you have to qualify at a shooting range.

And I don't know how we would manage such a thing.

There's a lot of expertise needed.

And similarly, I know that you all have brought up the law enforcement angle.

I did reference in the memo, we'd need to build a lot of capacity there.

There's a special kind of ammunition.

You'd want to test the officers on the shooting range.

What are you going to, you know, where are we going to take the carcass?

Who's going to process the meat?

We'd be responsible for all that.

Not that we couldn't be, but we're not really set up to do that.

Let me try to get a couple more information about where we are.

So other criteria, depending on where staff advises us on this question about an organization or whether we can establish criteria.

So it sounded like there was interest in this being insured.

Is that what people like?

Okay, so we'd like for you all to advise us on options for there to be a bonded or insured component to this.

Ms. Galvin has staked out a hockish position on three acres being the minority.

Are there any, I for instance, I would be fine with

an acre in the city of Charlottesville because we're scaled smaller with our lots because we're a denser city, but I still think it would be fair having looked at the number of lots.

So that's my opening bid for the acreage.

Yeah, I'd go with three.

So I would start with three.

So can I respond to Ms. Szakos' point for a second?

So I completely understand where you're coming from in regards to making sure we have a registry of sort

Can I ask another question about sharpshooting?

Feelings about police with all the pros and cons that Mr. McMurphy outlined.

Where is everybody on the question of police sharpshooting being part of this program?

Yeah, I would not support police.

Yes.

I would be fine.

I'd also be willing to look at a contractor to do that, provided they were licensed to do so.

So you're talking shooting what?

Shark shooting is strictly suppressed rifles.

Okay, so that's a term of art.

And my concern about having people who are not sworn officers shooting is that we would have to change our ordinance

to allow shooting by other people than now can shoot in the city.

We'd like to be advised.

I think, so it sounds to me, and so it sounds like there is a solid support for a three-acre threshold, which we could change.

I mean that's, and for a hybrid approach where we have

And then who does?

managed bow hunts.

Using the Fairfax County model.

Yeah, I like that.

I'm cool with that.

I do too.

Okay.

All right.

Are those pretty good?

And Mr. Murphy, we do need that buffer around the parcel to know where that animal goes.

I would say that I think the one I was going to add that as well.

I think that from my individual conversations with everybody, there's permissions, a clear there's a lot of different examples, but a clear part of this program that would ensure that neighbors, neighbor with a wounded animal that that's built in and that the hunter probably has gotten

Permission from the neighboring property.

At least notification, maybe permission based on, but I think we need advice.

I think we've given a lot of direction right here, and now we need just advice from staff on what that translates into.

Yeah, actually, the person who has coordinated the urban archery and hunting program since the beginning with Game and Inland Fisheries is a gentleman named Nelson Lafon, and he is willing to work with the city, the police,

I hope you don't mind.

I'm just going to hand you this Fairfax.

Thank you.

And I would just like to say for the, you know, we've heard from a fair number of people in the public who are really distressed at the idea of shooting deer.

You know, they live in the city.

They don't live in this country.

They're not used to that kind of thing coming up.

And, you know, we have a lot of animal lovers, including myself, and I just have to

kind of think about what I have experienced several times.

I live, my backyard backs onto the bypass and so I have seen the kind of culling that we're doing now in absence of a cohesive program.

We're culling them with cars and they scream, which I hadn't realized.

They lie in the road and die slowly, often wrecking a car, injuring people and that's not a satisfactory program for us to have and so what we're doing now I think is more humane for the deer as well as

I would also say there's no enthusiasm in having or wanting to do this.

There might be enthusiasm in arriving at a program, at a policy sooner rather than later, but this is a, it's grievous, it's not

And I would just like to add that in the years that I know that Council Szakos and I have been on the Council, it's been in the top five in terms of community concerns at every town hall meeting.

multiple times coming to city council meetings.

I've been hearing it at every holiday open house this year and every past four years.

So I think it's very much a community desire that we control the herd population of deer.

Good job.

Good job.

All right.

Yes, that is historic.

All right, moving on to item number four on our agenda.

This is the second of two readings.

We have 20 minutes allocated on the agenda to this, which should

15.

Yeah, we may have on the latest draft.

We'll probably, we usually take a break at nine o'clock.

We could push that a little bit.

Good evening Mr. Mayor and Members of Council.

I will be very brief.

The item before you this evening is the second reading of an ordinance concerning permitted uses at the Ragged Mountain Natural Area.

The first reading of the ordinance in a public hearing was held at your last meeting, December 5th, which followed the public master planning process that staff undertook for the last year regarding the uses at Ragged Mountain.

Mr. Signer, may I introduce the language that I pulled off the consent agenda?

So those of you who have read the agenda, we had a resolution for the actual kind of planning of where the ordinance itself just said there will be mixed use.

It doesn't say where and what.

And so the resolution was really an attempt to kind of give some direction going forward as to what that would look like.

And I've heard, and Councilor Galvin and I met with a couple of folks from the Parks and Recreation Board that they

There was still a concern by people who had come to us petitioning not to have bicycles in the first place.

We heard from several today.

But the main concern a lot of them had was that they be able to use the park on trails without bikes.

And that if there were bikes in the park, that wasn't as much of a big deal as being able to get through the park without being run over by a bike.

And so rather than having council who are not professional trail planners,

designed exactly where the trails would go or exactly what use each trail would have as we had kind of looked at doing in our previous resolution.

What we have come up with as a kind of a compromise really that we think gets more at that position without kind of

taking back the shared use approach.

And one of, well anyway, so let me just read this real quickly if you don't mind.

So whereas a majority of council indicated their support for shared use of Ragged Mountain Natural Area that would permit bicycling as well as walking and jogging, and whereas council heard clearly the importance to the public of having some pedestrian only trails where users do not have to share right of way with bicycles or runners,

Therefore be it resolved that the Charlottesville City Council hereby directs staff to amend the Ragged Mountain Draft Trail Use Plan to be in keeping with good trail planning practice that disperses faster moving visitors away from the trailhead as quickly as possible according to the following principles.

And so rather than doing an actual trail plan, we're actually saying according to these principles that staff will come up with a trail plan.

So separate trails shall be designated and constructed where needed to ensure that both pedestrian only and multi-use bicycle jogging and walking trails may circumnavigate the reservoir separately, except in rare circumstances such as on the floating bridge and the dam and where challenging topography or sensitive environmental areas require colocation.

So rather than one trail along the south side that we were hearing about that would be mixed use, it would not.

It would be two trails.

Multi-use trails will become available as, well actually,

I'm going to go ahead and read it as I presented it to all of you and then I think Council Galvin has a possible modification to it.

So two, multi-use trails will become available as they are constructed where they do not already exist.

Existing trails marked as pedestrian only on the map dated 11-1-16 shall continue to be so until separate trails for the separate uses can be constructed.

Construction of these trails should be conducted using best practices to ensure environmental protection and safety.

3.

A new planning map of use shall be developed within six months of this resolution and presented to Council along with timeframes and benchmarks for implementation.

Actually, I can go ahead and include part of what Councillor Galvin suggested because I actually agree with it.

Staff shall determine which type of trail is most appropriate for jogging, whether that would be the pedestrian trail or the bike allowing trail, and shall institute appropriate signage and direction as to whether runners may use pedestrian only trails.

Ms. Szakos and Mayor Signer, I have a friendly amendment to Councillor Szakos' proposed resolution and it would be that in item one, under therefore be it resolved, that the word walking be deleted.

Walking that is within parentheses.

Oh, I see.

Well, this is the second substantial change from what the public has seen over the last couple months and from the first reading.

So I have a question for the city attorney.

No, sir.

It was map E. Without getting into back and forth, this is a general discussion at this point of what are we doing here.

Without getting into a back and forth with the people who want mountain bikes and the people who want natural areas, the letter from the county, for me, overrode everything.

We have a neighboring municipality who asked for a very reasonable

Well, that's why I asked if this is the appropriate time to discuss this now, and I was told yes.

I think it's fine.

I would rather discuss them separately.

Yeah, but I'd rather allow Mr. Fenwick to just proceed.

Thanks.

So that's where I come down.

I mean, to me, when a neighboring jurisdiction

asked for a very simple default, especially in a situation where the Ragged Mountain Park, Ragged Mountain natural area is not going anywhere, to put this off in time to be respectful to that body.

That's where I'm going to come down on this.

There is a difference of opinion, I understand, between the two legal staffs.

To me, that's no justification not to respect

the elected board of Albemarle County.

I would like to make a comment, a general comment.

We are kind of talking about both an ordinance and a resolution as well at the same time.

The resolution is directing staff to determine how that would look.

And it's not an action that's changing anything now, it's really just directing staff to design a plan.

We'd vote on both of those separately in this proceeding right here.

Okay The one thing I would like to add to is this is separate from the comment I'm about to make but we have moved on from having we this is not a specific map that we would be passing with the resolution that that is a change what Ms. Szakos is doing and I want to

I want to thank you all for being here today.

give us something.

So principle-based regulations could oftentimes a very good way to go about things.

It's one of the things they do with financial regulation and so on.

So there were a couple of objections to passing a map specifically, which I was prepared to be responsive to.

But this is different than that.

So this is a significant change.

I would like to say a comment about the issue with our colleagues in the county, because I think we are talking about both these together.

We respect our colleagues in the county a great deal.

They're our friends and our colleagues.

As we saw at our last meeting, allowing mountain biking at Ragged Mountain is an issue about which very good people can disagree very strongly.

We had, I think, 21 comments before it and 18 comments.

I had to laugh at a letter to the editor a few days ago recently which said that the three of us who supported opening the area last time did so because we have quote insular lives.

I don't think we do.

I don't think I do.

I'm an ardent environmentalist.

My wife and I hiked Bragon Mountain right before we got engaged a few years ago.

We're frequently on other beautiful trails here.

We're going to raise our boys to

Love and respect nature.

There are sound arguments both for and against this change.

For me, the arguments for the change outweigh the ones against it.

I see this as an issue where inclusion is preferable to exclusion.

I think the potential harm from biking has probably been somewhat overstated.

I do understand the hope for secluded areas, but I believe the trail map plan, based on these principles, would address that concern.

It comes to a good compromise.

So why are we acting now to Mr. Fenwick's question?

The county has had ample opportunity to share these policy concerns with us on this.

I also don't believe, as a practical regulatory matter, that water quality is an issue.

and I believe where all other things are equal that we should act to move forward on issues like this rather than just debate constantly and stand in place, which we hear a ton of opinion about.

We are very strongly committed to cooperation and collaboration with our friends in the county.

We have seen that with four memorandums of understanding that are starting us down a path of cooperation, harmonization on four different really important areas, transit, natural environment, education,

Redevelopment Housing.

However, we are also sovereign bodies with the right to make our own policy decisions.

The county certainly has done that recently with the courts and parking.

We both are sovereign bodies.

We've been advised by our attorney that we have the right to move forward as both a policy and a legal matter.

Just a little to add to that, mostly

I agree with what you said about putting off this decision.

I think although one member of the public who spoke said that the county had weighed in on this with us a while ago, this was the first I had heard of it with this letter.

So if they did, it was not to the council.

and so the first reading on this matter was really a year ago when council voted to use to have mixed use and so we've had some from then and actually the several months leading up to then when we were talking about making that decision until now for the county to have weighed in on this and the county Parks and Recreation director I assume has has weighed in on it but more importantly the letter that we got from the county specifically says that the reason that they're objecting is because of

They are responsible for overseeing water quality for their own water system.

And in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, the authority for doing that is through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for both the city and the county.

And the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, both the former director and now the current director, have both weighed in saying that there is no environmental problem with bicycles as far as water quality.

It's perfectly safe for the water that they don't have any worry about.

Even if we had had had voted to have dogs there, that was not a concern.

And Mayor Singer, if I may make a comment before we vote on the motion and as amended, that's on the floor.

I just want to acknowledge the two members of the Parks and Rec Advisory Committee that Ms. Szakos and I met with on Friday, Mr. Hirschman and Ms. Hemingway,

Because it was in that conversation that the four of us began to realize that this was a principle-based issue that we were facing.

That actually the map that was from November 1 didn't do justice to the issues at hand any more than the map that was presented dated December 6.

And it was out of that conversation that we came up to the understanding that it was a principle based issue.

And Ms. Szakos was the one that volunteered to do the writing over the weekend, which I heartily think.

And I do also want to make sure that we acknowledge

the work of also the people that build our trails, including the Shonsel Area Mountain Bike Club and the Rivanna Trail Foundation, because they have been real strong advocates.

And in an email today from Mr. Daly, it was very well acknowledged that they are the ones that assist with building the trails and making sure that there is no erosion.

What causes erosion is a badly built trail.

It isn't what's on it, it's how it's built.

And so we have some of the best people in the area who are willing to roll up their sleeves and work with our staff to do so.

So I think this has been a very good situation overall.

I know this will not appease those that want only this to be a natural area.

This is actually a park around a reservoir and we will be very sensitive to the natural areas around it.

So thank you for that.

I'd like to make a final statement.

I understand what y'all are saying.

I've heard it over the past year.

But what I hear is a dismissal of the County of Albemarle's letter from the Board of Supervisors based on technicalities.

I would rather not build our relationship with the County of Albemarle based on technicalities.

I would like to base it on respect.

Further discussion, comments?

I'll make one comment.

This is done with utmost respect for our colleagues in the county.

We just have a disagreement and we've been advised by our attorney that we, that we're within our rights and I've communicated amply about these factors with my counterpart in the county in advance of them.

So received the letter, got notice of that beforehand.

I've communicated with Chair Palmer multiple times, trying to be extremely collegial.

We talk frequently about many of these matters.

I do, with a number of the other members of the board, and we have utmost respect for them.

We just disagree on this as they did with us on some components of the courts.

It doesn't mean that we're not all friendly and great colleagues, but there is tremendous

So I think it's important to note that while we may disagree on several different things, even this council disagrees on certain things and that's fine.

The respect is always there in regards to our colleagues in the county, specifically for those who made it over from the county tonight.

Thank you all for coming.

But I also think that we have an obligation to actually disagree with some of my colleagues

in regards to some methods moving forward in regards to Ragon Mountain.

I do think that it looks as if the votes are already there in terms of moving forward, and that's fine.

But I think it is important for us to find some form of compromise in some shape, form, or fashion for those individuals who still believe in which they want a peaceful, quiet place in which they can walk without

I'm not saying that we're not finding that, but I just think that we need to make sure that we do all that we can to do what's best for everyone.

And I know that we're all committed to doing so.

I'll make one more comment, which I'm hoping that when we read the

resolution that it will clarify that we are absolutely committed to that precise compromise, which is areas for both parties.

We're ready for a vote on the ordinance.

To come back with a plan within six months.

We have not done, so we're doing the resolution first.

But since this was in the agenda earlier.

Okay, so we're voting now on the resolution.

Okay, that carries three to two.

Oops.

All right.

Okay, now we're moving on to the

Ordinance.

This is the second of two readings.

Any further discussion or questions on the Ordinance?

Okay, all in favor?

All right, that carries three to two as well.

So I just wanted to mention we got an email today from our attorney who just noted that it would be helpful at this point to have a motion and I would like to make another motion about the Ragged Mountain

and I will continue to call it natural area.

It's not a wilderness area, but it is still a natural area.

So I move that City Council request that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors amend Albemarle County Code Section 11303, Ragged Mountain Reservoir, to delete obsolete references to the upper and lower reservoirs, to delete language that purports to give Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority exclusive control over certain activities in the city-owned Ragged Mountain Natural Area and Reservoir,

So we're going to pass an ordinance on the County of Albemarle to pass an ordinance.

Certainly, thank you.

This is property and this is an area where both jurisdictions have defined areas of authority.

The County of Albemarle certainly has zoning authority over the Ragged Mountain Natural Area and Reservoir.

For that reason, when the proposed rules were first sent to the county in the summer of 2015, one of the first things we did was to verify that the natural areas used as a public park was permissible under their zoning ordinance and we got confirmation of that.

The County of Albemarle also has the authority to prevent pollution that threatens the life or health of their residents when the pollution is to the public water supply.

In reading the ordinance,

A couple of things stood out which I highlighted in the motion I suggested to council.

Number one, there are numerous references to the Upper and Lower Reservoir.

We don't have an Upper and Lower Reservoir anymore since the expansion we have one reservoir.

Perhaps most disturbing, the county ordinance purports to give the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority certain decision making ability over the city's property.

As an example, fires are prohibited in the Ragged Mountain Natural Area unless they are required and approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.

I would like to think the city would have some say so in that.

and thirdly and most important I think is the county ordinance does not mention biking.

It authorizes certain activities and those are fishing, hiking, bird watching and picnicking.

I think there is a litany of additional activities which are innocuous which do not pose a threat

to the pollution of the reservoir, which should be within the city's jurisdiction to regulate as recreational uses.

So I think, and certainly the chair of the board of supervisors made an excellent point that we should strive to have consistent ordinances.

And the operative word in the motion made by Counselor Szakos is request.

That may be the operative word, but the operation is we are treading on Albemarle County's ground.

That's how I see it.

I just feel very, very uncomfortable.

They're perfectly able to take care of themselves.

And why didn't you just send this to the county attorney and you two work this out?

Well actually, you know, when we first began our conversation, the request was to let them know what uses the city wanted to permit and wanted to allow so that they could consider amendment of their ordinance.

So this is your best legal judgment on how to do this?

Okay, and I would just add into this discussion, we

Entertain the request from the county, which was a letter from them.

I would say that just it occurred to me while this debate was going on.

I think that I would have received that letter and I communicated this to them kind of sub rosa.

But if it hadn't had the word indefinitely, it said we request that you delay this matter indefinitely, which to me is a very different

request in this two bodies working with one another.

It's not for a month or two months while we resolve this.

It says we're not sure if we're ever going to resolve it.

But in the meantime, you all should just hang on.

And that's not what I think where we were.

And that's not what our constituents have been asking for on this.

But it is just a request.

I'm just giving that as one factor, I already voted, I'm just giving it as one factor for me as one councilor.

That I think it bears on this discussion and the topic that Mr. Fenwick has opened about a body requesting something of another body.

Any further discussion on this?

Okay.

I think we're ready for a vote.

It's properly framed and seconded.

Okay.

All in favor?

Okay.

That carries three to two as well.

All right.

Yes.

All right.

Let's take it all the way until 9.15.

That is going to be three minutes over our normal break time.

you

I don't know.

I don't know.

you

I don't know.

Music playing...

D.C.

Music playing...

Music

Music playing

I don't know what you're thinking.

I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what you're thinking.

I don't know.

and Michael

I don't know what you're thinking.

?

?

?

?

?

?

Music playing.

I don't know what you're thinking.

I don't know what you're thinking.

Music Playing

Music playing.

Thanks Mayor Signer.

Two really quick announcements.

One, just want to make sure that everybody is aware that City Hall will be closed on Monday December 26th in addition to Monday January 2nd and also we got this announcement for the curbside Christmas tree collection.

Charlottesville curbside Christmas tree pickup will be the week of January 9th 2017.

Trees need to be at the curbside at 7 a.m.

Shortly after the curbside pickup, the City and Albemarle County Park crews will join forces and chip and estimated 2200 trees at Darden Tow Park.

Decorations, stands, and nails must be removed from trees.

Please no yard waste.

Free mulch from the recycled trees will be available starting February 1st, 2017 at Darden Tow Park.

So there we are for community and

Some of us haven't even put our trees up yet.

Well, we're, are we almost up?

I want to, I want to just, I think they probably have laughed right now, but we had two of our colleagues in the county actually with us.

The prior portion, I just wanted to thank them for having been with us.

Diana McKeel and Rick Randolph were here in the chamber with us, so our counterparts in the Board of Supervisors.

And are we good?

OK. All right.

We're going to move on to the second to last item on the agenda, which is the Blue Ribbon Commission final report.

We have allocated 60 minutes for this item on our agenda.

We're going to be we may not go that long, but we may.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown, and Councilpersons.

I want to make sure that I take a moment to tell you all thank you for this opportunity, not only from myself but from the other commissioners.

This has been a very long, very arduous and very daunting task and you all have a very comprehensive report that is some 328 pages including the appendices for the public that is available online.

If you want to make arrangements with the city, I believe that they can arrange to get that or have that available for you at City Hall.

We have a PowerPoint presentation.

Hopefully you all have the document with you so that we can just go through it slowly, item by item.

Some background.

Back in May, the Council and the Mayor created an ad hoc Blue Ribbon Commission to address the questions and concerns brought before Council regarding race memorials and public spaces in Charlottesville.

Commission members were appointed after an application process and they or we were charged with providing council with options for telling the full story and full narrative of Charlottesville's history of race relations and for attempting to change the city's narrative through our public spaces.

Discussion centered on the commission

Removing or adding context to existing Confederate statues, augmenting the slave auction block at Court Square, completing the Daughters of Zion Cemetery, providing a further narrative for the Vinegar Hill community, highlighting and linking existing historic spaces such as Tonsler House and the Drury Brown Memorial Bridge, designing a new memorial to African American civil rights leaders, or any additional opportunities within the city to enhance the holistic reflection of our history.

Further, we were tasked to amply engage with the Charlottesville and Albemarle community through public hearings and forums to evaluate and advise counsel on the full range of options within the mission to coordinate with the city's attorney's office to provide full legal review of options to identify and communicate with other efforts underway relating to this mission.

As just a preface, a few institutions and communities in the United States, if any, have ever fully explored the truths and legacies of slavery, the Jim Crow era, and white supremacy.

Charlottesville is truly no exception.

Many of the ways in which our history is presented in monuments, memorials, and history books do more to hide these wrongs, to justify them, and to even glorify them than to reveal them.

across the nation, institution and community struggle over whether and how to take action on these issues.

Public meetings and rallies see intimidating confrontations, threats and anger that verge on the occasional cross into violence.

Even when attempting to balance change occurs, such as the placement of a statue of Arthur Ashe in Richmond, the change really connects our difficult history to contemporary issues of race and inequity.

These types of corrective issues instead create a superficial understanding of both history and problems in the past or the false sense that these problems have been resolved and do not necessitate further action.

While these conflicts may be painful, the attention brought to our racial history and problematic racial narratives is an opportunity to tell a more complete and comprehensive racial history and to change these narratives that may not happen again.

The Commission wishes to acknowledge and assert the following as fundamental to our work contained in this report.

That far too many African American history, far too often African American history has been ignored, silenced, or suppressed.

That far too often our public spaces and histories have also been ignored, silenced, or suppressed to the story of white supremacy and the unimaginable harms done under that cause.

That the narratives that support white supremacy that began as long ago as 1619 in Virginia, although challenged by many, continue in various forms today.

That the impacts of these narratives today are evidenced around us in the loss of African American population and in racial disparities involving health, employment, family wealth, public safety, education, and more.

that to tell a more complete racial history and to transform these narratives in order to become the community we want to become, it is necessary for us to use our public spaces to promote understanding of all our history, both good and bad.

Some of the places identified in this study included cemeteries, parks, monuments, a slave auction block, houses, churches, schools, and other sites located throughout Charlottesville.

While many of these historic places have been recognized through markers, plaques, or other designation, they're often overshadowed by the city's dominant historic narratives focused on Thomas Jefferson and the World Heritage Site associated with him, Monticello, and UVA's Academic Village, and by the Paul Goodlow McIntyre legacy of monuments that depict Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Stonewall Jackson.

This report then offers a range of recommendations addressing many of these sites and structures.

Some recommendations may be relatively easy and inexpensive to achieve, and others may be more costly and difficult.

However, the cost and work associated with each recommendation should not imply anything about its importance.

There may be strong symbolic importance associated with even the smallest of the changes recommended in this report.

Please note that many of the Commission's recommendations are conceptual in nature and are provided for planning purposes.

Supplemental planning and design will be required to implement many of these options.

The Commission empaneled included Commission members Mr. Melvin Burress, Ms. Andrea Douglas, Mr. Frank Dukes, initially Mr. Gordon Fields, who had to step down for personal reasons and was replaced by Ms. Susan Lewis,

Rachel Lloyd, John Mason, Margaret O'Brien, Jane Smith and myself.

Why the change matters.

Telling the full story of Charlottesville's history of race and doing so in ways that change the city's narrative matters for many reasons.

Certainly a community that admits to the distortions and omissions of history that begins an effort to be honest about that history

and that demonstrates truth seeking and truth telling as public virtues provides an example that goes beyond the meaning of that history alone.

But there is a greater purpose to the charge than merely realizing the truths about our racialized past.

For our past and the way we understand our past continues to shape our present.

The way we understand our history is linked to the ways we explain and live in our world, our narratives and our failures to confront these faulty narratives

have kept us trapped in desperately unjust systems.

Learning our history and just as importantly understanding the power of the narratives that have emerged from this history help us understand much.

How do we break the chain, the oppressive chain of racist transmission?

An honest confrontation with our history seems to me the best place to start.

City staff has provided extensive support to the Commission's work.

City Manager Maurice Jones, Assistant City Manager Mike Murphy, Director of Human Services Kaki Demmott, Manager of the Office of Human Rights Charlene Green, Deputy City Attorney Lisa Robertson, and Executive Assistant Terry Bentley set up meeting space, led meetings, moderated the public forum, provided food transcribed public meeting notes, led the bus tour,

offered interpretation of legal issues and provided researched background information along with other critical tasks.

The Commission is extremely grateful for this coordination and support and I will tell you that none of the work that we were able to put together and do, including this comprehensive report that you have, would have ever been possible without the assistance of the city staff that was appointed to us and we're truly grateful for that.

Research and Data Collection.

An ad hoc advisory group on Confederate memorials and street names in Alexandria was included in this collection.

This issue is not only us, we're dealing with, people are dealing with this all over the country.

Some of the other localities include St. Louis, Missouri, the Unmonumental Group, and the Sacred Ground Historic Reclamation Project in Richmond.

There were also actions in New Orleans and in Baltimore that we followed very closely.

City staff also provided us information on the City Beautiful Movement, the design context for the Lee and Jackson sculpture.

We invited several speakers to our commission meetings.

They included Karen Van Linden,

UVA Architectural School, Kurt VanDack, UVA History Department, and Gary Gallagher from the UVA History Department as well of the NOW Center and the Civil War History.

They all shared ideas and information relevant to our work.

We also made a trip to Richmond to meet with Kelly Libby of Richmond's Unmonumental Movement.

We formulated four subcommittees that included public engagement,

Subcommittee on Case Studies, Inventory of Historic Sites, and Historical Context and Background.

We received a legal review from our Deputy City Attorney, Lisa Robinson, who provided us a summary of the legal issues raised by the 2016 Virginia Assembly Bill HB 587.

The Governor's subsequent veto of that bill

and the related course case in Danville that resulted in the removal of a Confederate flag from a monument on the grounds of the Sutherland Mansion.

The City Attorney's Office also provided us legal interpretation of the terms of the deeds for the Lee Park and Jackson Park.

The memo provided on September 28th is included in the report's appendix.

We coordinated with several other agencies and commissions

that included ideas for the Blue Ribbon Commission, including the preservers of the Daughters of Zion Cemetery, the Ivy Creek Foundation Board, Preservation Piedmont, and the President's Commission on Slavery at the University of Virginia, the Historic Resources Committee, and others.

Regarding public engagement, the committee's deep interest in the topic of race memorials and public spaces resulted in continuous and vigorous engagement between the Commission

and the citizens of Charlottesville.

Every regular Commission meeting included two public comment sessions totaling approximately 20 minutes or more.

Then, trust me, it always was more.

The Commission received emails from the public through a group address in a comment section on the webpage, which was regularly updated with Commission information.

Members of the public also attended with us

a bus tour of the historic sites.

In addition, the commission hosted three public forums.

The first of these forums was at the Jefferson School.

The forum was intended to be a listening session and included two open public comment periods and a small group discussion period organized around four separate topics.

Thank you.

Number one, what are the stories you want told about Charlottesville?

And thank you.

Anyone else?

Number two, what places need to be memorialized that are not being memorialized sufficiently?

And who are some of our hidden heroes from Charlottesville?

Number three, what does the statue of Stonewall Jackson mean to you?

What would you like to see happen in that location?

And number four, what does the statue of Robert E. Lee mean to you and what would you like to see happen in that location?

Approximately 150 people attended that first forum.

The attendees were divided into eight separate groups for the discussion topics.

The comments and ideas shared during this discussion period are appended in this report.

Members of the public spoke for and against removing the Lee and Jackson statues, although a preponderance of speakers recommended retaining the statues and monuments and adding new interpretive information that recontextualizes them for contemporary times.

The small group discussions revealed a powerful desire within the community to publicly interpret the city's full racial history through an inclusive and complete approach that proclaims our hidden stories, places, and heroes.

Members of the public focused primarily on the city's African American history, but also expressed an interest in the region's Native American history and working labor history.

The second forum took place at Beaufort Middle School,

This forum was intended to elicit the public's input for a select group of concepts and actions and options related to the Commission's mission.

Members of the public were allotted time at the beginning and at the end of the meeting for general public comment and then voted with stickers for various recommendations listed at different idea stations.

Members of the public focused primarily on the disposition of the Lee and Jackson sculpture and spoke equally in favor of removing the sculpture and retaining it in place.

The third and final public forum took place at Walker Elementary School.

This public forum provided the Commission with an opportunity to share information about the recommendations that we will be providing to you in this report.

The Commission read a synthesis of the complete set of recommendations and heard public comment about them.

Most speakers focused their comments on the recommendations related to the statues and a large majority speaking in favor of moving the statues.

Expenditures.

City Council did indeed expend or allocate $10,000 for the work of this commission.

We are more than happy to report to you that we spent just slightly over half of that.

I would love to see that be given to the city staff as a bonus, but that's not my call.

And now we'll get into some of the options that we, or charges that we actually dealt with individually throughout the process.

The first one being the Court Square Slave Auction Block.

Under options considered, members of the public strongly supported the memorialization of those who suffered enslavement during Charlottesville and Albemarle's antebellum era.

particularly when it became known that more than half of the county's population was enslaved during the Civil War years.

Two options gained support during the process.

Number one, replace the current plaque with a new plaque that is legible.

Number two, create a new memorial for Charlottesville's enslaved population.

We all found it completely reprehensible the state of the existing plaque that exists in Court Square

to depict and to memorialize the slave auction block for the city of Charlottesville.

Preferred option, the concept, the commission voted unanimously to support a two-phase process for interpreting the slave auction block and memorializing those who were enslaved in the Charlottesville area.

First, to install a proper visible historic marker to replace the current illegible marker

and second, to commission a new memorial through a competitive RF&P process.

The commission suggests that the memorial be located on or near Court Square.

Members of the public consistently supported the replacement of the slave auction block plaque and an addition of a new memorial for those who were enslaved in the Charlottesville area.

Under legal issues, the installment of a new plaque and memorial on private and or county property may require some negotiations between the city and the other entities.

Under cost, the cost to design and fabricate a new plaque is likely very low, between $500 to $1500.

The exact costs associated with commissioning a substantial new memorial are unknown.

However, the proposed Vinegar Hill monument provides a recent cost comparison.

suggesting that possibly 300,000 to 500,000 is a reasonable estimate.

Our next issue was the Daughters of Zion Cemetery.

Some brief background, the Daughters of Zion Cemetery is a historic community burial ground located within the city of Charlottesville.

The cemetery has already been recognized as significant in the history of the community.

through listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The cemetery derives its significance from its association with the Daughters of Zion Mutual Aid Society, a Reconstruction-era women's organization that sought to provide a place of dignified burial for the African-American community within the context of a segregated society.

Established in 1873, the cemetery remained an active burial ground until 1995.

It is currently owned and maintained by the City of Charlottesville.

Many members of the Charlottesville community retained family bonds with those buried at the Daughters of Zion Cemetery.

Over the course of 2015, several individuals and groups, in addition to the city, began discussing ways to address the concerns about the deteriorating condition of the cemetery.

Several individuals formed a group known as the Preservers of the Daughters of Zion Cemetery to serve as the core organizers

of the effort to improve the condition of the cemetery.

The cemetery has been the subject of a preservation strategic plan back in April 2016 and a historic American landscape survey in June 2016.

This plan provides a prioritized list of projects that addresses the cemetery's needs.

The options considered, the commission endorses the planning currently underway for the Daughters Design Cemetery.

and did not formulate or consider additional conservation options.

The preferred option concept daughter's design cemetery preservation strategic plan from April 2016 recommended a series of actions designated to conserve the cemetery.

These recommendations are based on sound federally recognized standards and best management practice

and focus on the need for prioritization, landscape stabilization, and maintenance.

The Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City continue to provide financial support for the efforts of the Historic Resources Committee and the preservation of Daughters of Zion Cemetery to protect and maintain this important landscape.

Under public response, the Daughters of Zion Cemetery was one of the top five places identified for memorialization during the Commission's first public forum.

Under legal issues, legal documentation may be required for the incorporation of nonprofit friends groups that could support the preservation of the cemetery in the future.

Under cost, the Daughters Design Cemetery Preservation Strategies Report provided planning-level estimates of probable costs for priority projects ranging from $50,000 to $122,500 in total.

Our next item was the Vinegar Hill community.

Vinegar Hill is one of the city's first neighborhoods and was bordered loosely by Preston Avenue, West Main, and 4th Street.

It was established by Irish families back in the early 1800s and was incorporated into the city of Charlottesville in 1835.

African Americans first moved onto the hill after the Civil War.

From the 1920s to the early 60s, it was the city's principal black business district and the vibrant center of the community's social life.

Despite barriers to education and employment, African Americans gained economic opportunities through a wide range of small businesses in the Vinegar Hill area.

Though many rented their Vinegar Hill housing, which often lacked running water, indoor plumbing, and electricity,

Residents lived and worked among their homes, schools, and churches in a very close-knit community.

Over 55 of the homes and businesses in Vinegar Hill were owned by African Americans.

In the 1960s, noting Vinegar Hill's large number of substandard homes, the voters of Charlottesville decided to develop, sorry, to redevelop the 20 acre neighborhood.

Because of the implementation of a poll tax, many of the residents were denied a say in their own future.

By March 1965, one church, 30 businesses, and 158 families, 140 of them which were black, had been relocated as part of the city's urban renewal process.

The commission's preferred option concept, the commission voted unanimously to recommend that the city provide financial assistance for the completion of the proposed Vinegar Hill Park or Plaza.

The commission also voted unanimously with one abstention to recommend that the city council provide financial assistance for the fabrication and installation of the Vinegar Hill Monument as designed.

Finally, because of the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center,

In preeminent position in telling the public's history of Charlottesville's African American community, the commission voted unanimously with one abstention to recommend that the city council provide financial assistance for the fixed costs of the center, which would include rent and common area costs.

Public response, many members of the public have expressed a strong interest in telling the history of Charlottesville's lost African-American neighborhoods.

We could come across no legal issues that anyone could fathom.

On the cost, the new Vinegar Hill Park signs are estimated to cost approximately $5,000 to $10,000.

The fabrication and installation of the Vinegar Hill Monument is estimated to cost $320,000, a portion of which the city has already committed to funding.

The memorial also has a $100,000 matching grant from the NEA.

Our next item is highlighting and linking historic places.

The historic sites inventory process identified over 70 places associated with the important aspects of the city's African American history as well as sites associated with the Native American and labor history.

The inventory is appended in this report.

These places include cemeteries, neighborhoods, schools, churches, and other buildings, such as houses or businesses, roads and bridges, parks, memorialized lost sites, and lost sites with no memorialization.

While many of these sites are well documented, interpreted, or protected, many others are not.

The preferred option concept from the Commission, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend two concepts.

Number one, to applaud first the Bridge Builders Committee work to improve the visibility and appearance of the Drury Brown Memorial Bridge and to encourage Council's continued support of these efforts, including the inclusion of the Bridge Builders' work in the Main Street design process.

And number two, to recommend that Council provide financial and planning support for historic resources surveys of African American, Native American, and local labor

local labor neighborhoods and sites seeking national register listing and zoning.

Legal issues are likely none, although zoning and design concepts can possibly impact property values.

The cost associated with historic resources surveys will vary based on the size of the areas.

Costs for any changes or enhancements in the design of the bridge may be estimated based on schemes provided through the West Street schematic design plans.

Under the place names options considered, the Commission discussed options for naming and or renaming public places and features and agreed to avoid renaming current places with the exception of the Lee and Jackson Parks as described earlier in the report.

The commission understands that there is a city policy that governs the names of new features.

Under new memorials, the commission considered options.

The public offered many ideas for new memorials through the public forums and through other communications with the commission.

Suggestions included hidden heroes and other people in communities significant to the history of Charlottesville, such as the enslaved workers at UVA, lost neighborhoods such as Gospel Hill, Isabella and William Gibbons, Queen Charlotte, with Charlottesville's namesake with African ancestry.

Peter Fawcett, Julian Bond, Eugene Williams, Sally Hemmings, Rebecca McGinnis, local Native Americans, and the Griz of Ivory Creek, Shadrach Battles, and many others.

The commission noted these suggestions but also expressed a belief that the other two new monuments recommended for Charlottesville, the Vinegar Hill Monument and a memorial to those enslaved in the Charlottesville area,

will be substantial new additions to the city's public art collection and will require equally substantial financial commitment.

The commission also noted the ability of other types of public art to convey more complex information than is possible with memorials to individuals.

The preferred option concept, the commission unanimously recommended that the city not pursue the addition of other new monuments to specific individuals at the writing of this report.

The commission recommends that the city explore other ways to recognize the city's leaders and hidden heroes and invest in other creative ways to memorialize the full story of race in this community's history, including but not limited to new murals.

The commission identified several additional opportunities to enhance a holistic reflection of our history.

These focus primarily on programming and education.

The commission chose six options that received unanimous votes.

Number one, recommend City Council sponsor research on the history of Charlottesville together with the African American Heritage Center, UVA,

Albemarle, Charlottesville Historical Society, among others, which may provide the basis for a new, more comprehensive story of the city.

Number two, encourage the Charlottesville City School Board to ensure that the curriculum creates an opportunity for all students to learn the fuller history of our community, including the difficult history of slavery and racism.

This resolution also supports the teacher education required to carry out an effective educational program in local history.

Number three, we encourage the Charlottesville City School Board to ensure that courses in African American and Native American history are taught in local schools on a continual basis.

Number four, support the ongoing efforts of the African American Heritage Center to develop curricula related to our complete history

and encourage all the institutions that hold that history, the history of Charlottesville, including the Albemarle County Historical Society and the University of Virginia, to be part of that development.

Number five, we urge the city to participate in the Equal Justice Initiative Memorial to Peace and Justice by retrieving the memorial marking the lynching of John Henry James and displaying it locally as a commitment to confronting the truth and terror

of white supremacy in the Jim Crow era.

And number six, we recommend designating March 3rd as either Liberation Day or Freedom Day in an annual commemoration from March 3rd, 1865.

And now, to the meat of the matter.

Recommendations on Lee Park and the Robert E. Lee sculpture.

Just a brief background.

Philanthropist Paul Goodlow McIntyre donated the Robert E. Lee sculpture to the city of Charlottesville in 1924.

The sculpture was the second of four given by McIntyre to the city and university between the years 1919 and 1924.

The others included the Jackson, Lewis and Clark, and Clark sculptures.

Lee Park, a formal urban square, was also one of five public parks that McIntyre gave to the city.

The sculpture, a heroic-sized sculpture of Lee and his horse, Traveler, is located in the center of the park.

Conceived by sculptor Henry Schrady, the initial models for the sculpture exhibited a strong vitality and conceptual tension.

After Schrady's untimely death, Italian artist Leo Lentelli completed the bronze sculpture,

although in a manner that did not fulfill the original vision of meaning of the work.

The Lee and Jackson statues embodied the lost cost and reputation of the Civil War which romanticized the Confederate past and suppressed the horrors of slavery and slavery's role as the fundamental cause of the war while affirming the enduring role of white supremacy.

The Lost Cause interpretation was a key element in the ideology justification of the disenfranchisement of African-American voters and the segregation of African-Americans in virtually all walks of life, including employment, education, housing, health care, and public accommodations.

In March 2016, City Council received a petition to remove the Lee Sculptor from the park and to rename the park in recognition of the sculpture's

Troubling symbolism in the city.

The options considered as the statues now stand, there is nothing that indicates any challenge to the values of the lost cause and white supremacy that they represented when they were erected and that they continue to represent to many people today.

The commission suggests that the Lee and Jackson statues belong in no public space unless their history as symbols of white supremacy is revealed and their respective parks transferred

transformed in ways that promote both freedom and equity in our community.

The commission, therefore, considered multiple options, including removal entirely from public view.

After months of presentation, public comment, and discussion, two primary options for the Lee sculpture emerged as the best ways of meeting our charge.

These included, number one, moving the sculpture to McIntire Park and confronting its history there in a new context

or number two, confronting the sculpture in place by redesigning and transforming Lee Park.

The work for either option may be accomplished through a design competition, the commission of new public art, or a standard request for proposal, RFP process.

The commission did not identify specific park designs, treatment for the sculpture, new art, or new interpretive narratives as a part of the option development process.

Instead, the commission identified a list of basic concepts, parameters, opportunities, and constraints for each option in the hopes that these ideas will assist council in their decision.

Under the relocate option, relocate option suggests moving the Lee sculpture to an unspecified site within McIntire Park.

Interpretive information and design setting would accompany the sculpture at its new location to help transform our understanding of its meaning.

Lee Park would be renamed and redesigned to reflect its history and maintain its use as a central public gathering space in downtown Charlottesville.

City staff confirmed that the master plan for McIntyre Park included potential locations for public art.

However, the commission cautions that the site selection for the sculpture must be undertaken with great care in order to establish an appropriate context for the art.

For example, placing the sculpture on hilltops or other commanding locations may allow the artwork to visually dominate large areas of the public park, which would then perpetuate a supremacy narrative that the city wishes to avoid.

On the other hand, the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial and other historic places within the park may help provide a new but relevant physical and conceptual context for the sculpture

that situates it in a broad scope of local and national history.

The rationale for moving the sculpture to McIntyre included several key points.

McIntyre Park and the Lee Sculpture both share historical association with Paul McIntyre.

McIntyre Park contains other major veterans memorials which provides a new context for the Lee Sculpture.

Back in Tower Park is a larger landscape that would not necessarily be dominated by the monumental scale of the Lee Sculpture depending on the site selected for the sculpture.

Moving the Lee Sculpture provides an opportunity to redesign the central square, Lee Park, to better fulfill its current role as a space for public activities.

We then move to the transform in place option.

The transforming place option focused on the historic significance of the sculpture and its unique ability to convey an important, although difficult and complex story about Charlottesville's past and its legacy today.

Using an additive approach, this option's success would rely on the inclusion of new, accurate historical information and the transformation of the sculpture itself and its place in the city's evolution.

The commission believes the revision needs to be done clearly,

unambiguously and on at least the same scale as the statue exists now, such as by lowering, covering, de-centering, or otherwise indicating the rejection of the Jim Crow era narratives that dominated when the statue was erected.

New design that de-emphasizes the centrality of the sculpture and counters the lost cause narratives could achieve a real transformation of both space and the narrative

I'm sorry, could provide a real transformation of both the space and the narrative.

Council may wish to consider the desired future use of the park as part of those deliberations.

For example, major transformation of the entire park landscape to accommodate an interpretive program may limit the park's use for other public functions such as festivals, other equally but powerful and smaller scale transformations of the sculpture's immediate context

could address the need to challenge the meaning of the sculpture while also preserving the full spectrum of current programming within the park.

Please note commissioners also did recommend renaming the park.

The rationale for transforming the Lee sculpture in place included several key points.

Retaining the sculpture in the park provides an opportunity to tell the complete story, both good and bad, about Charlottesville's past

and enables the city to confront the Jim Crow era narratives of the sculpture and park in the public place where its prominence was and is obvious.

The Lee sculpture is a significant work of public art located in the authentic historic fabric of downtown Charlottesville.

This transformation may also create new interest and uses for the park.

Significant transformation of Civil War hero and Jim Crow era monuments has never been done.

to do so in Charlottesville would be of national and global interest and could serve to inspire many other communities to take action.

Numerous Charlottesville's African American residents who had lived through decades of suppression of their history opposed removal on the grounds that it would be yet another example of hiding their experience.

For them, transforming the statues in place forces remembrance of the dominance of slavery and Jim Crow white supremacy.

Transforming the sculpture in place may be a less costly solution, freeing up funds for other worthy causes.

Some commission members did express concerns about this option, noting that the Lee sculpture physically dominates Lee Park through its central location and size, which could complicate the efforts to successfully transform the space.

Also, no matter how dramatic the changes, any visible evidence of the statues may be insufficient to transform the park into a welcoming place for all.

The preferred option concepts, the Commission deliberated and voted on the two primary sculpture options in a two-step process.

Actually, it was three.

We initially had a vote on

the removal or moving of the sculptures or keeping them in place with transformation and contextualization.

That initial vote early in November was six to three to keep them in place.

Later in the month, during one of our final work sessions, another vote was had on the sculptures.

and this is where it gets a little dicey and a little foggy for you all I'm sure.

The commission voted 7 to 2 to move the Lee sculpture to McIntyre Park.

We then had a subsequent vote where the commission voted 5 to 4 to retain the sculpture in the park and to transform it in place.

Well, let me say that that was intended to give you two options.

So we voted on two options separately, but with the goal of presenting you with two options.