City Council Meeting   8/16/2010

Ms. Barfield, if you could call the roll, please.

Thank you.

We have one award slash recognition tonight.

This is an annual proclamation that we make in commemoration of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave women the right to vote.

This year is the 90th anniversary of the signing of that amendment on August 26th of 1920.

This is a proclamation that other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth are also taking into consideration.

I'm going to read the proclamation and then we have a couple representatives from the National Organization for Women here to receive it.

Whereas this year is the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution giving women the right to vote in 1920, and whereas in 1848, 162 years ago in Seneca Falls, New York, the need was recognized and proclaimed, but after great effort there is still no reliable protection in the U.S. Constitution for women against sex discrimination in general.

and whereas in the past years laws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia have unjustly discriminated against girls and women in general or against particular classes of women such as in matters of reproductive rights, sexual assault, marital property and sexual harassment and although some laws and policies have been somewhat eased, such improvements can be, have been and are being reversed

and whereas some institutional policies whether overtly discriminatory or facially neutral in public, voluntary and private institutions still have inequitable effects on women, policies such as those dealing with insurance, pension, family medical leave from employment, job promotions, occupational choice, recreational opportunities and access to medical care including reproductive and abortion services and stereotypes still exist which limit women's roles in activities,

and whereas young girls and adult women still must contend with unwanted touching, sexual, physical and verbal assault and rape and being viewed by men as objects to use thus illustrating that many stereotypes are still operating which reinforce unjust assumptions and whereas most of the care of the young, the disabled and the elderly is still provided primarily by women many of whom through economic necessity must also work in the job market and or at home

and whereas in many other ways the task of providing equal opportunities to women and men and the task of removing burdens which fall unjustly on women as compared with men remain uncompleted.

Now therefore be it resolved that the city of Charlottesville, Virginia does hereby proclaim August 26, 2010 as Women's Equality Day

in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable community which acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women and men with liberty and justice for all and be it further resolved that the City Council urges all citizens on August 26 and thereafter to treat all distinctions and classifications according to gender as initially suspect and to be questioned until they are justified by an equitable and compelling interest of the community, the institution or the individuals affected

and two, to require that the burden of justification for any distinction according to gender be borne by those who wish to discriminate against women as compared with men and three, to examine all facially neutral criteria such as physical stature requirements, occupational qualifications, child care assistance opportunities, home maintenance responsibilities, elder care benefits and disability benefits to determine whether they have disparate impacts on women,

and four, to promote affirmative action in the public, voluntary and private sectors in order to overcome the effects of past discrimination and stereotyping which have limited the life chances of women and girls as compared with men and boys.

And finally, five, to eliminate all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women and ensure equality of rights, privileges and responsibilities under equitable principles and practices for all women and men.

And here to receive

I have the actual proclamation.

I guess this is the actual proclamation, is that right?

We'd like to thank this body for its basically annual reaffirmation of being willing to look at differences, distinctions, classifications and to question what they are.

I think that is very, very important and I must admit not all localities are willing to do so.

Thank you.

And we'll now move on to announcements.

A couple of announcements.

We have Movies in the Park is continuing.

This Saturday, Forest Hills Park at dusk is The Princess and the Frog.

I know that's one of your favorites, Maurice.

It is, in fact.

On Saturday, September 11th at Penn Park at dusk is Up.

which actually is one of my favorites.

On September 6th, Labor Day, just as a reminder, City Hall is closed.

There is no CTS service Sunday or Monday.

There is normal trash and recycling.

The City Council meeting will be on Tuesday, September 7th instead of September 6th because of the holiday.

And one last reminder, I hope everybody is mindful that next Wednesday, not this coming Wednesday, the following Wednesday, August 25th,

There is the start of another school year here in Charlottesville.

So I know the children in the audience are quite excited going back to school.

But we do want all citizens to be mindful of the fact that children will be walking to and from school, riding bikes to and from school, getting off of school buses.

So please be careful as you're in your cars.

And a reminder there is a new change in some of the school zones

A reduction in the speed to 15 miles per hour in some of those school zones.

But there are some open houses and orientations that I want the parents to be aware of.

On August 23rd, Pre-K through Grade 4 will have their open house from 1 to 3 at every elementary school.

On that same day, Walker will have an open house from 3 to 5.

and Buford will have an open house from five to seven.

Thank you Ms. Edwards.

Any other announcements?

We are now going to move on to matters by the public.

And we do have quite a few people that signed up to speak.

And as is our custom, when you come forward, please state your name and address and keep your comments to three minutes.

Mayne Norris and members of the City Council and my name is Paul Long and I live at 1410 Grady Avenue here in Charlottesville and I have come here tonight to speak out against the proposed amendments to the Panhandling Ordinances.

In the newspaper accounts that I have read in the Daily Progress there appears to be sufficient laws on the books to deal with people who are aggressively panhandling and intimidating people.

With the economy being in such terrible shape for the past two years and with the unemployment likely to remain extremely high for the foreseeable future, we are going to see larger numbers of homeless people both in Charlottesville and nationwide.

I appreciate, Mayor Norris, all your efforts in past years working with the homeless and the efforts of this council with various projects to help alleviate the problems of the homeless in this city.

We should try to empathize with the downtown business owners who want to continue to encourage people to come to the downtown mall to shop and to enjoy the entertainment venues that are being offered and to allow people to feel comfortable doing so.

I hope that we can realize that the problems of the homeless are not going to go away and that people of goodwill should empathize with their plight as well.

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Hi, my name is Liz Palmer, 2958 Meacham Banks Drive, and I'm here talking for myself.

There are many misconceptions floating about the approved community water supply plan that it was hard for me today to choose what to talk about.

But I'm really hoping that counselors will meet with the professional water

Resource Engineers before making any decisions and getting the facts.

So I'm going to talk about something that doesn't get much attention.

With the enlarged Ragged Mountain Reservoir, this community will get 142 more acres of lake surface for fishing and boating and wildlife.

The Ragged Mountain Reservoir is a great bass fishing area.

The city has not provided good access for residents for fishing and boating.

There is no boat ramp.

The hill down to the reservoir is very steep and the banks in the area where the boats are tied is eroded and often covered with trash.

Therefore, the reservoir is used by a small percentage of city residents.

With the enlargement of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, the city could add a dock and a boat launch to the facility.

As you know, it was the Ivy Creek Foundation that put in and maintained the trails around the reservoir and put in the parking area for hikers.

But the foundation has nothing to do with maintaining the access to the reservoir.

I would bet that there would be many city residents who would use this body of water for fishing and boating if the access were better.

A handicapped accessible dock for fishing could be put in similar to that that the county put in in Chris Green Lake and Mount Mint Springs.

I have a handicapped father that uses the Chris Green Lake one to exercise almost daily.

I'd like to also mention the 324 acres that the Nature Conservancy hopes to donate to local government.

for parkland.

This land is contiguous with the 300 acres of Ragged Mountain that's south, Ragged Mountain land that's south of 64 and not accessed through the Ragged Mountain trail system.

This acreage added to the 900 acres at Ragged Mountain already owned by the city would form a 1,224 acre park with a 212 acre lake just outside city limits.

This extensive forest land would be large enough to allow camping and backpacking.

Together, the enlarged reservoir and the publicly owned forest would be a unique amenity that rich, poor, able-bodied and not-so-able-bodied citizens would benefit from.

Thank you Mae Norris and other counselors.

My name is Bill Kittrell.

I live at 1781 Whitehall Road and I'm also the director of conservation for the Nature Conservancy in Virginia.

First thing I have to do is say hello to my six-year-old daughter Maggie who is at home I think possibly watching this so I have to do that.

Hope that doesn't count on my time.

But thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight on the water supply plan.

I believe this comes down to making a good policy decision that balances fiscal responsibility, practicality and environmental stewardship.

and it's the last topic that I'd like to discuss tonight, particularly stream flows.

Before I get into these details though, let me frame the issue broadly.

The Conservancy and many other scientists have identified freshwater animals as the most imperiled group of life on earth.

While we often think about plants and animals that we can more easily see, like birds and elephants, our freshwater animals are the most endangered of all and that's in the chart that I've given to you in your handout.

And as you know, we have several of these in the Rivanna.

So why are they so imperiled?

Well, the leading reasons are altered hydrology, dams and impoundments, and pollution in the form of sedimentation.

For better or worse, these are threats that we are familiar with right here in the Rivanna, one of which can be improved through the existing water supply plant.

I'm pleased that streamflows have received a lot of attention lately because it's something that the Nature Conservancy has worked on for many years.

The concept of streamflows is about mimicking the natural variability of water levels throughout the year.

Given that variability, mother nature and all of her wisdom has helped her animals and plants evolve with these seasonal patterns.

Almost magically, high flows stimulate nesting and spawning by many fishes and insects in the spring, while low flows concentrate fish and bugs in pools, which make them easier prey in the summer.

And again, my six-year-old daughter gave a very capable demonstration of this last concept yesterday.

The existing approved dam provides dramatic improvements for flows in the Mormons and the Rivanna.

This is due to the construction of the new pipeline connecting the South Fork Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir.

Having the extra connected storage capacity gives you the flexibility to better manage stream flows year round and under all circumstances.

And I've heard comments that the flows in the Rivanna below the South Fork Reservoir dam will be worse under the improved plan than they are currently, and this is misleading.

If you are interested in maintaining flows in the Rivanna below the dam,

then you would want to avoid taking any river water from the Rivanna during times of drought by building the largest possible reservoir at Ragged Mountain so you can let the run of river water go straight over the South Fork Dam instead of into people's homes.

Having the current storage capacity or a smaller storage capacity than in the improved plan means you impact flows in the Rivanna more, not less.

To the nature of conservancy, the right environmental policy decision in this debate is clear.

Colette Hall, 101 Robertson Lane.

Consent Agenda Item L. At the last meeting, I asked if City Council would consider adding Lyons Avenue, Cargill Lane, and Lyons Court Lane to the list of tractor, trailer, prohibited streets.

No one from City staff has contacted me.

In the past we had a petition signed by the neighbors regarding a need for sidewalks and had discussions with Ms. Alexander about traffic calming in that area.

I am confident that the residents of these streets would be in favor of adding their streets as tractor trailer prohibited.

Under section 15-73, streets closed to certain trucks of the city called 1990 as amended, lists of several streets.

Usually these streets in several neighborhoods are steep, narrow, or very residential in character or zoning, which describes the streets I have mentioned.

It appears the safety and health issue is widespread.

and then my second point.

I have lived in many cities that have authorities.

In fact, in New York City, the Port Authority even has its own police department.

Unfortunately, sometimes authorities take on a life of their own that begins to supersede and erode the power and rights of the citizens for whom they were intended to assist, not dominate.

Most residents in the city and county who are very interested in the proposed water plan issue have read the four-party agreement of June 1973.

Article 4, Section 4.3 called Additional Facilities.

Quote, in the event that the city or the service authority deems the need for additional water impoundment, protection, transmission, and distribution facilities or wastewater interception and treatment facilities, Rivanna shall provide the requested facilities at the SOLE, S-O-L-E, cost of the city or the service authority as the case may be, end quote.

and I'm quoting from the four-party agreement.

According to the four-party agreement, if the service authority thinks the county needs a new or improved dam and pipeline, the service authority is solely responsible for paying for this.

This is not a matter of new allocation percentages, but falls to the Albemarle County Service Authority to pay for what it deems necessary.

Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Hall.

Good evening Mayor Norris, members of the City Council.

I'm here to share with you some of my reasons for supporting the approved water supply plan.

Much of the discussion on this issue has focused on details while avoiding debate on the fundamentals.

There really are only two questions that should govern the final decision on this plan.

Does it provide adequate water for this community for the next 50 years?

And does it do so with minimal adverse environmental impact?

The first question should be answered by the revised demand analysis to be released later this month.

The second question already was answered by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality when it awarded a Virginia Waters Protection Permit based on the implementation of the current plan.

That approval was based on the plan's restoration of natural stream flow to the Mormons River and the plan's greatly reduced impact on the flow rates in the Rivanna River.

Any new plan that continues to drain the headwaters of the Mormons River while drawing heavily on the flow in the Rivanna at times of low water will face major obstacles in gaining DEQ approval.

I've heard the arguments concerning the loss of mature forest for the larger reservoir at Ragged Mountain.

These concerns are real and I hope that the loss should be limited to what is necessary while still addressing the bigger concerns about the health of our rivers.

So in some ways this is a choice between rivers and trees, but it's really not that simple.

It has become obvious over the course of this debate that hidden agendas color much of the thinking by opponents of the plan.

It is evident that some view limiting the water supply is an effective tool for curtailing population growth in the county, an issue over which the city has no control and frankly the county has precious little control itself.

However, limiting the capacity of the community water system to support new development in areas that are close to the city is likely to push development into rural areas.

That will result in increased sprawl and likely the destruction of more mature forest.

I'm particularly concerned that some who object to the plan seem motivated by a general animosity toward Albemarle County.

I have heard references to the approved plan as, quote, the county water plan.

The arguments that the projected increases in demand in the county are the only reason we need to pursue this project are not true.

These people believe, I think, that the county users should bear the total cost.

However, much of the long-term cost is for infrastructure upgrades that would be required even if there were to be no increase in demand.

These include treatment plant upgrades, replacement of the Sugar Hollow Pipeline, repair or replacement of the Dam at Ragged Mountain.

All of these upgrades would be necessary to sustain even the current level of water use.

These costs will be split between the city and the county,

while costs that are solely related to the increased demand in the county will be paid for by county users.

We've debated this plan long enough.

Once the revised demand analysis is published, there should be no reason for further delay.

I ask you at that time to vote to instruct RWSA to proceed with design of the new dam at Ragged Mountain and to start us on the path to a reliable water supply system with minimal environmental impact.

Shirley Shotwell Hello everybody.

My name is Shirley Shotwell.

I live at 228 Douglas Avenue.

And as you all know, I wish I gave you a letter about diabetes.

Unless you have it, you don't know what it's like to say you can't have this to eat, you can't have that to eat.

My doctor has steadily increased my medication in the last four years because of all the stress, the lack of sleep by these two business places, First Sachs and Bell Rio.

I know Bell Rio is gone, but if history repeats itself, and I think it will, because of Jeff and Melissa Easter are the ones who released this building out, it will be the same thing.

And I hope and pray that it won't happen.

My sugar is finally beginning to come down a little bit, but it's not where it should be because I live in fear every day that the same thing is going to happen again.

And I think it's time that we have the 55 decimal and we cut out the amplified music in our neighborhoods for everybody concerned.

I have a niece that lives with me.

She gets up at 4 o'clock in the morning.

She has to be on her job at 6.

She works 10 hour days.

And it's not easy.

for her to lay there and listen what she has had to listen to and then get up and go to work at six o'clock and be on her job at six.

So I hope and I pray that you all settle it tonight and we don't have to keep this up and the restriction with this amplified music and this decimal level needs to go down to 55.

And if that doesn't take care of it in the future, maybe further down until we get our peace and quiet back in our neighborhood that we had before.

Thank you, Ms. Schama.

Hi, good evening.

Rebecca Quinn, 104 4th Street in the city.

And once again before you talking about water conservation.

Many of you may not know, but I am a water resources engineer.

I am engaged as a private citizen and an interest because this is where I grew up and where I now live.

And I am

concerned and interested in making sure that the best information out there is available to you for making these decisions.

We know that several things are coming together this week.

Rivanna is releasing two studies later this week, but I still don't believe that that means there's a rush.

It may feel like things are about to crest, the wave is about to break over you.

but there is no real rush to make a decision and anyone who suggests that failure to implement a plan or failure to move forward on a permit is somehow a violation of that permit I think needs to understand conditions of permits and how permits are issued.

One of the studies that we expect to hear about or that we haven't heard about much recently is the I-64 embankment

As you may know, raising the proposal to raise Ragged Mountain 45 feet or so will put 30 some feet of water up against that embankment.

Now some of my friends chide me when I say as an engineer, well that's just an engineering problem.

It may be just an engineering problem.

It may be a very expensive solution.

We don't really know that.

I was puzzled

in contacting both the Federal Highways Administration and VDOT, that neither agency willingly engaged in conversation.

They are not permitting authorities.

I don't know under what authority they are sort of shrouding their deliberations, but I certainly look forward to and will be reviewing the

the draft plan that Rivanna is making available later this week.

We do know that there are significant hazardous materials concern as well given the traffic on 64 and having a water supply surrounding those embankments.

Another study we expect, it's actually not a study, is about conservation.

It's the consultant's review of the previous demand analysis.

It's not a revised demand analysis.

It's a review and an opinion regarding that demand analysis.

I do want to remind you that Rivanna has stated on occasion that it knows that the demand analysis done for the community water supply

is not going to satisfy the requirement for the 2011 water supply plan that must be submitted to the state in November.

And so we are puzzled as to why we have to have yet another review.

I want to leave you with one last point.

I think it's important for you to frame this decision and not the media.

The decision needs to be factually based.

We all get emotionally involved in our opinions, but I think that there's a mountain of information for you to sort through, but with careful review and guidance, and I urge the involvement of your professional engineers that you will sort through it and come to a good conclusion, and I appreciate your time.

Mayor Norris, council, city staff, I'm Bob Stroh, 1412 Kenwood Lane, resident of the city.

I come to you on behalf of the Downtown Business Association in support of the panhandling revision, our revised ordinance.

You all know I think the arguments for these changes, I think they've been well vetted by city staff.

They've been revised and changed to make them more amenable for various reasons and we just want to come to you and say please vote for this or allow the second reading to proceed

and allow these ordinances to take effect.

I think they would have a really beneficial effect on the downtown business community and the entire community.

Thank you, Mr. Stroh.

Hi, my name is Laura Brown.

I live at 911 Nassau Street in the city.

I'm accompanied tonight by my daughter, Anna,

and Ella and my husband and other daughter Emily are in the audience.

We're here to show our support for the proposed ordinance legalizing miniature goats.

We live on 0.2 acres and we live as simply and sustainably as we can.

So in addition to having chickens and honey bees and gardens would really mean a lot to us to be able to have two miniature dairy goats.

We'd keep these goats to produce milk and cheese for our family.

We'd compost their waste to use it to improve the soil in our gardens.

And it would help us to control invasive species that are in our yard, especially the kudzu.

So we ask for and appreciate your support of the proposed ordinance.

We believe that permitting miniature goats would increase our city's local resiliency and help us to be a leader in promoting sustainability.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor,

City Councilors, I'm John Falls, I live at 1503 Rugby Road.

I've come because there's an interesting classified ad in the Sunday paper.

The city is seeking a climate protection program coordinator.

And I'm very curious, what are we coordinating?

Are you trying to coordinate federal with state?

Climate protection moves?

Very interesting.

I'd much prefer to see money spent for, well, like cleaning up some of the still remaining wood that is in city-owned land.

We have trees near us that are broken off as stumps and stuff.

Much better use of money.

But on the other hand, I'm really very pleased.

I looked at this and I said, this is neat.

The city is so awash in money that it can afford a feel-good position.

Now the budget's coming up this fall and you'll see more of me, as you know, because I always come in, but this is a real statement.

You guys don't need money.

You can afford to spend another $45,000, $50,000 and

Medical expenses and retirement and add even more to our city staff.

Sounds pretty good for the fall, doesn't it?

We'll get a reduction in the real estate tax, won't we?

My name is Kimber Hawkey and I live at 709 Belmont Avenue and we are here once again as we've been working for years now to reestablish the quality of life that we had when we moved into the Belmont neighborhood.

We are again asking that you vote for the 55 decibel limit in order to protect the values of our homes.

As we have been told by realtors that buyers do not want to deal with the noise and the accompanying security issues that we have seen in Belmont.

And these issues are brought by businesses that choose not to respect our quote-unquote established residential neighborhood as mandated by the NCC code.

In my opinion, the money lost in city revenues by a decrease in home values

cannot be made up for by bad business practices.

The current decibel levels attract an unsavory crowd into our established residential neighborhood.

Residents have witnessed customers coming back and forth from these businesses to their cars to drink alcohol, to do drugs in their cars, and even have sex.

Everyone is well aware already

of the fact that our property has been also destroyed multiple times in the neighborhood and that customers use our yards as bathrooms.

So it is clear that we need you to vote to protect us from those businesses which engage in practices that do not respect our neighborhood and whose practices have even entailed some criminal activities as we've seen of late.

We know also that you have received emails from those businesses that do respect our neighborhood and who agree that the 55 decibel limit is a good thing for our neighborhood.

So after all this time, would you please vote for us residents and restore our neighborhood to us?

Thank you, Ms. Hawke.

Hello, I'm Megan Vale, and I'm actually reading on behalf of my mother and father who live at 226 Douglas Avenue.

They can't be here today.

But they wanted me to say that they cannot bank on sleeping at night.

They don't feel like their house is a home.

They've put their house up for sale.

And if the 55 decibel bill doesn't get passed, then they're going to sell their house.

They say there is no reason the aggravating drums and pulsating bass couldn't invade our late nights again.

Council should finally after years of aggravation give the neighbors the peace of mind that they will be able to sleep in their homes.

So personally I can attest that this lack of sleep has had a negative rippling effect through lots of families far, much farther than just the Belmont area.

Thank you.

Mayor Norris and members of council, I'm here this evening and I'm a little disappointed.

Two or three weeks ago I was here for the first reading of the Jefferson Project and I came back tonight

I'm feeling for sure we were going to do the second one.

I'm very disappointed because that idea of holding us up on our plans is just putting a big obstacle in our way.

I don't know what kind of hurdle you want us to jump.

Now we've been doing this for, I looked at my records today, I think since 1999,

Thank you, Ms. Price.

I'm Martin Burks, president of the Jefferson School partners, Mr. Mayor, members of council.

I want to reiterate the importance of Jefferson School.

It's not only just important for a small community, but the whole community.

And the partners have been working very hard to make sure that this happens.

And I just want to stand before you again to tell you the importance and the hard work

Thank you, Mr. Burks.

That's the last person signed to speak.

Good evening.

I'm Jeff Warner.

Since 1998, I've lived at 212 Wine Street in the city with my wife, my son, and my daughter.

I work for the Piedmont Environmental Council but my comments tonight are mine alone.

And I want to make some comments on the water supply plan.

In 2005 it brought together a diverse group of individuals and we successfully pushed for a local solution to the water supply plan.

With that solution we achieved environmental benefits that would restore flow to a dying river, replace lost trees and wetlands, and preserve several hundred acres of our watershed.

However, I've been long frustrated by the insinuations that opponents of the plan have made about plan supporters.

Offering factual information is the way to present an opposing point of view, not personal attacks.

Subtle and not so subtle inferences questioning the integrity of good people like Tom Frederick with Rivanna or Ridge Schuyler who was with the Nature Conservancy.

These should not be tolerated by the community or by city council.

I regret that I'm a few years late in speaking up about this.

Appliance of the plan have posted such things on their webpage and I quote, there has been incomplete and misleading information about the plan.

and Red Herrings are being spawned to discourage debate about the community work supply plan.

Given everything I know, I continue to support this plan and I have heard and read the accusations about my own involvement in the support of this plan.

This is disappointing since I personally know several members of the group that's opposed to this and I'm amazed that any one of them would think that I would ever intentionally lie or misrepresent facts on any issue.

Then I read the August 4th Daily Progress and in it, Mr. Norris, on the Black & Veatch study you said, the findings go against a lot of misinformation and fear mongering and speculation that has been going on about the dam.

Mr. Norris, you know as well as anyone that the State's Division of Dam Safety long ago informed the community about concerns of the reservoir.

The following is from the 1978 phase one inspection of that dam and it's, I quote, the spillway is therefore a judge as seriously inadequate since the spillway capacity is unusually small and the consequences of dam overtopping and failure could cause a catastrophic event.

The dam is classified as unsafe.

When people have asked me over the past couple years about this issue, I have often cited these DCR findings.

So I asked tonight, Mr. Norris, does that make me a fear monger?

I have no issue with members of City Council acting on what they believe is in the best interest of city residents.

However, you have no right to allow this argument to include personal attacks or to make them yourselves.

I'm learning a lot about how the City of Charlottesville works and no doubt my comments tonight will garner additional personal attacks and I'll be curious to see how you all respond to those.

City Council has already allocated several hundred thousand dollars for additional studies and consultants.

How much more money are you going to spend?

How long will City Council continue to delay a decision?

And if we delay moving forward so long that it brings with changes in the economy, we get a more expensive Ragged Mountain Dam.

Who pays for that?

It is very clear, and this is clear to everyone I talked to, that nothing short of starting over is what the opponents of the plan want.

Thus, I am very concerned that at no time in the foreseeable future will you all on Council have enough information

to warrant moving forward with this approved plan.

And if you are unwilling to move forward, please tell city taxpayers like myself, my wife and my neighbors how much more you are willing to spend to seek alternative opinions, analysis and subsequently to start over.

Thank you, Mr. Horner.

Thank you.

My name is Naomi Roberts and I live at 1140 St. Clair Avenue and I have a couple of issues, well a few issues of importance.

I challenge each of you council members to travel hydraulic roads since the new light was installed for the new grocery chain store, especially early morning and early evening when people are going to and from work.

I've discussed the situation at Micah Drive a few years ago with Angela Tucker long before this new light was installed and the others shut down.

I've been told by a resident and a worker there how much worse it is now with the new light.

This has always been a dangerous intersection when trying to enter or exit and

and that a light was needed there.

The new light was installed above that intersection for the convenience of one store and at the cost and inconvenience of the present long-lasting two tax-paying retail grocery stores above it, Kroger and Kmart.

Putting this light closer to Emicke Drive only makes it even more harder to enter and exit there.

You just can't get in if you're entering from the left and exiting from the left, and it's even more difficult to even exit to the right as well now.

It doesn't make any difference which way you exit and enter.

In other words, it's an impossibility trying to get out of there, period.

Regardless of the direction in which you try to travel and even worse now.

You have giant buses coming in and out for the disability and most of the people living there are low income residents and I thought your prime interest was safety and convenience to low income housing.

Mickey Drive was a very dangerous place before closing down

the upper light and even more so now.

Something needs to be done for these people and the businesses that are there for safety of all concerned.

You have several businesses there and Region 10 houses their offices there as well.

My suggestion would be I know you aren't going to put up another light but proper signing of do not block intersection hopefully would help the situation.

I travel that street every day and I know what I'm talking about and I might add this is a

Warning, if any member of my family gets hit there, if you do not do anything to eliminate this danger, I will hold the city responsible.

Continuing Hillsdale Drive is too far away to help the situation.

No offense to you, Dr. Brown, but I'm speaking on bicycles.

Bicyclists.

I have observed so many reckless bicyclists on the road.

Two on my way just Friday from the grocery store and almost broadsided by a third.

An old man and young kid following him headed the wrong direction.

Another passing three cars on the left of several vehicles.

If you're going to inconvenience our streets by narrowing them for bicycles, then my suggestion is to make them buy tags like we do, get a license to operate one on one on city streets, liability insurance, city stickers and property taxes like the rest of us.

If farm animals are allowed in the city, then I'll fight to get me a cow, so I have milk too.

Who's going to clean up the feces and the urine smell?

We're putting up with pinned up dog odors and cats that are allowed to roam the streets and using our yards to expel their body waste.

If people want

If people want farm animals, then move to the country.

I'm from the country incidentally, so I know what I'm talking about.

One person can cause a lot of commotion about nothing disrupting our way of city living.

Number four, I would like to know if the city supports anything toward our local rescue squad.

I know the county has in the past for those in the county.

Cause is one of the most wonderful necessities we have here in the city for all citizens and they do not charge

Number 5, the police department has discontinued assisting escorts to funerals.

What a shame when they are putting reavers and family friends in jeopardy because citizens do not respect the dead.

They could use CSOs for this as they have been used in the past just to get them through the city lights.

Police officers will still be left to do their regular duties without interruption.

And I know that Chief Arngo wants to charge families now for these escorts, but I was in one today and even the body, the vehicle carrying the body

had to wait for traffic before they could proceed on and I do think that you need escorts and I don't think citizens should have to pay for it.

We're paying our taxes.

Alright, the time is up for matters by the public.

Thank you all to all who came and spoke.

I noticed that there was still a hand up of somebody who wanted to speak.

First I want to say I just appreciate how hard all of you work and I feel bad hearing animosity directed at you because I know you get paid nothing and you work long hours, so thank you for that.

My name is Nancy Hurlbrink.

I live at 1020 St. Clair Avenue and I have several reasons for wanting to keep goats.

First, my family drinks a lot of milk and we currently have two herd shares at a farm in Kieselton, Virginia, which is 90 minutes drive from our house and we're lucky to be part of a group

with eight families that take turns picking up the milk.

But the drive concerns me in that the time it takes, sorry I lost my place, the time it takes and the carbon emissions and the cost of it is likely to go up as the price of oil rises in the year ahead.

Another reason I like to have goats is they make great companions.

They're intelligent and adventurous, hardy, deeply curious.

They're also quieter than dogs.

and our children love helping to take care of our chickens and I think they'd fall even harder for goats.

Third, our house is on a one acre lot, half of which is a jungly little forest that's begging for goats to come and clean it up.

I hate the thought of heading back there with chainsaws, power trimmers and weed whackers to make a lot of noise, get soaked with sweat and release a lot of carbon.

when a few goats would make short work of the place.

They'd probably feel right at home given that less than 60 years ago my lot was part of the Smith Dairy Farm which had cows grazing all over the Locust Grove neighborhood.

Finally, I'm concerned about food security in our area.

As the price of oil rises in the years ahead, food grown on petrol-dependent factory farms and shipped from California, the Midwest, and other distant locales is going to be much more expensive, if available at all.

Growing gardens will become less of a hobby and more of a necessity, as it already has for many.

That little six dollar, six ounce round of goat cheese you can buy at the city market will come to seem like a bargain, even more so if you can produce it yourself.

A recent trip to Charleston where the farmer's market had more crafts and produce and certainly no goat cheese made me grateful to live in a place that's surrounded by vibrant small farms.

But let's take things a step further and become a city of urban farmers.

Havana, Cuba has more than 10,000 gardens

producing over 60% of the city's produce.

According to a report by UVA architecture students, Charlottesville has almost 200 acres of undeveloped land.

That's not counting backyards like mine where chickens, bees, and small dairy goats could thrive.

I hope you'll vote to overturn the goat ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Well, I'll go first.

First, Ms. Roberts, good to have you back.

I'll respond to a couple things you brought up.

One is the light for the beginning of Hillsdale Drive.

Hillsdale Drive has been a road that's been, it's an area in which the city and county have cooperated.

I think both the City Council and the Board of Supervisors have thought strongly that's a road we need and we agree on and this is the first phase of it being built so I don't think it's just a matter of it being done for any particular business concern.

It's the beginning of something we've been working on.

As a bicycle I agree.

Some bicyclists need to be scolded and I was glad to have you do that.

I think that what we really need to do and what a lot of people in this community are working on is trying to get both bicyclists and drivers to really be thoughtful, to realize their responsibilities.

and to figure out how to share the street safely.

And I do think it's very irritating to drivers who may be trying to be responsible to see bicyclists completely ignoring responsible behavior, but at the same time, it's a two-way street and we all need to cooperate.

And finally, I'll disagree with you on goats.

I think there's no reason we shouldn't have goats in this community.

I grew up in the country and we had a goat.

It was basically clean, it didn't smell, it was kind of a fun little animal and when it got loose it would climb on top of the car.

So I don't see a compelling reason why we shouldn't be able to have goats in the city.

To Ms. Price and Mr. Burke, you know, I think

I think I speak for all of council.

We're very committed to Jefferson School.

I see your disappointment, and I'm sorry about your disappointment, but I think it's just a matter of getting it right, and it should happen very soon, if anyone knows anything differently.

I hope they'll correct me.

To John Faults.

John's still in here somewhere.

You know, your eagle eye on the budget must have missed knowing that this is a new position, but rather it's some replacing.

We've had a climate protection coordinator working for the city for the last year and a half, two years, three years?

Three years.

But I appreciate you keeping an eye on things for us.

It's a strong priority of the city and when you have a strong priority you need the people to get the work done.

And finally to Jeff Warner, I'm sorry that you saw it necessary to come and I guess to some degree to try to say we should keep this fact based and not personal.

And sometimes it has gotten personal.

I feel like sometimes I've

I've done my best to try to point that out, but not always, and I think we should keep it to facts.

I guess I would also just like to kind of weigh in on Jeff Warner's comments about personal attacks.

I think that this is a free country and people are allowed to talk however they want, but I don't like it.

I don't think any of the counselors like it, and I think that it's not very effective as well as just being uncivil.

I think that when people come and say unpleasant things about other individuals in our community who are also trying to do good things, even if they disagree,

It doesn't help their case, so anyway.

Thanks.

Mr. Huja?

And I think that Council Brown kind of eloquently summed up some of the things that I was thinking in addition to, there were some streets that Collette Hall mentioned in terms of the truck restrictions.

We could just kind of follow up on why those streets were included or whether or not that should be part of the plan.

As far as the bicycle riders, I agree too with the safety issue and even thinking in the immediate.

A car does something wrong, he had a license plate.

What can we do if a bicycle rider does something that we know is inappropriate or dangerous in traffic?

How can we go about reporting that?

So just for all the bicycle riders, just know that you're on notice as well.

So we really do have to work on shearing the road.

The question about does the city support cars and I have, I'm not sure about the answer to that, so if you could follow up.

on that and to really emphasize how really difficult it is to get in and out of Mickey Drive now.

Just to add to your comment to Ms. Edwards, I think once the signs are up and the project is completed, it will be much better than what it is right now.

Within weeks, certainly.

And we can look into the issue of the do not block the intersection.

And I agree.

about the importance of the Jefferson School and the journey that the entire community has been a part of and the journey that I've been able to take on since I've been on council.

We have come too far to turn back now and we've come too far to, we have to make sure we get it right and we do it well.

And I think that every time we have any kind of

I want to say roadblock of a barrier that keeps us from getting to the next step.

It just makes the journey even more stronger and know that we're going in the right direction.

And so I think with Tom, we'll be able to work through whatever issues we have financially, socially, culturally, we'll be able to work through it.

And at the end of the day, it's going to be a good project for the city.

I'll reiterate a couple things that have already been said.

I too stand with all of my fellow counselors in maintaining our strong support for the Jefferson School project.

I don't see this thing dragging on for months more.

Is that safe to say, Mr. Jones?

That's exactly correct.

So I expect this will be back on our agenda and hopefully in September.

There's no reason why it should take much longer than that and we can keep moving forward.

So you have our full support and our full trust.

I'm sorry Mr. Werner left, I believe he left.

I fully agree with the comments that have been made by other councilors about the need to keep this fact based and not personality based, the discussion about the water supply plan.

Jeff Warner, I actually fully agree and have always and consistently fully agreed.

In fact, all of my friends here with the Sustainable Water Supply Plan have fully agreed there is a safety issue at the Ragon Mountain Dam regarding the spillway of the dam.

Everybody's acknowledged that.

That's not the issue that I was referring to in the quote in the paper when I was talking about fear mongering and misinformation speculation.

That had to do with the structural integrity of the dam itself, where there has been a lot of misinformation and speculation and fear mongering.

and in fact there was somebody on the radio that very day making some pretty wild speculations about the structural integrity of the dam and thankfully we paid for that study and found out the dam is very safe.

The dam itself, the spillway needs to be repaired.

That is a safety issue, we all acknowledge that.

But I do fully agree that

the personal attacks and questioning people's motives on both sides doesn't really help.

Let's see, Mr. Falls, I would think that as a good fiscal conservative that you would be cheerleading us for replacing the climate protections.

The woman who was in that position

First of all, I was able to leverage millions of dollars now from private sector and federal sources in order to help kickstart an initiative that's going to help save taxpayers in the city and the county millions of dollars in utility costs.

So that's a great investment of a small amount of city dollars that's paying off exponentially.

So I hope we have your full support.

It is, it is actually fascinating.

The LEAP initiative with Cynthia Adams who was our climate protection coordinator was responsible for getting off the ground is one of the best things going and it's a city-county initiative with the full support and engagement of the private sector.

Anyhow, that's a great program and I'm pleased that we're moving forward on that.

I would like some more information because this is the second time now that I've heard about this concern about the police department no longer providing escorts for funerals.

And I have to say the first time I heard it was just within the last week and it came as a surprise to me.

I didn't realize that the police department was no longer doing that.

And so I'd like some information from staff.

What was the rationale that went into that decision?

What are the costs?

you know what would it take if we as a council decided to continue that service just some of the pros and cons if you could provide that to council that would be great and we do you know we support cars in many ways we we work very closely with the rescue squad we're very proud of the rescue squad here they do wonderful work they're one of the busiest rescue squads particularly all volunteer rescue squads in the country and we're very proud of them and and we we've

We've provided all kinds of support to CARS over the years.

They sort of like to keep us at arm's length when it comes to funding.

They've not come to us and asked for dollars other than specific allocations for specific purposes like technology improvements to their ambulances.

But they want to be seen as an all-volunteer, community-supported rescue squad that is not dependent on government funding.

Mr. Mayor, I want to make one more comment.

We will now move on to our consent agenda.

On our consent agenda tonight, item A is minutes of August 2nd.

Item B is an appropriation of $1,500 for the Charlottesville Sheriff's Office calendar sale, second of two readings.

Item C is an appropriation of $65,000, teens give, service learning, and life skills program, first of two readings.

Item D is an appropriation of $225,400, new police cruisers and related equipment purchase and financing, first of two readings.

Item E is a resolution initiating of zoning text amendment, retail alcohol beverage stores, first of one reading.

item F is a resolution new police cruisers and related equipment purchase and financing agreement first to one reading item G is a resolution allocation to Charlottesville housing fund first to one reading item H a resolution agency budget review team and budget office community agency funding for fiscal year 2012 prioritization process recommendation first to one reading item I is an ordinance NDS fee schedule edition second of two readings item J is an ordinance density regulations for townhouse development second of two readings

Item K is an ordinance amendment to mixed use districts, second of two readings.

Item L is an ordinance truck restrictions on Alta Vista Avenue and Shamrock Road, second of two readings.

And item M is an ordinance street vending during certain hours, first of two readings.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

And it carries unanimously.

Thank you very much.

The first item on our regular agenda tonight is a report in public hearing.

Actually, I'm wondering if we shouldn't flip this around because we don't have anybody sign up to speak for this public hearing.

And we do have quite a few people here to hear about.

They were for the other.

We do have quite a few people here to hear about the noise ordinance.

Is that OK with you?

OK.

This is a report and an ordinance on the noise ordinance amendment, second of two readings.

Unfortunately, I think I threw Jim Tolbert off schedule here.

He's probably down the hall, but I'm

That's okay.

I mean obviously this is not a new issue to us.

We've discussed this issue several times this year.

And even though the one particular business that was causing a lot of this is no longer in business, we felt and Council felt that it was still a priority for us to address this issue so that if in the future we have another issue like this or another business that were to come in,

that would affect the noise in Belmont in the same way that we'd have a tool to address that.

So the ordinance before us tonight in essence

reduces the allowable decibel limit in our neighborhood commercial corridors only.

This is not a city-wide noise ordinance change.

This is our neighborhood commercial corridors, which right now we only have two.

One is what we call downtown Belmont, and the other would be Fontaine Avenue.

This would reduce the allowable decibel limit in the hours between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. from 65 decibels, which is where it currently is now, to 55 decibels and clarify that it applies

to restaurants and music halls, even though we no longer allow music halls.

The reason the restaurant and music halls is in there is that's a piece that applies citywide because we amended the zoning code to put in a definition for music hall, but the restriction of 55 only applies, as you said, in neighborhood commercial.

I'm sorry, the other part being...

Oh, the definition.

If you read this, it says, no person shall permit operator calls, any amplified sound to create a sound level emanating from a restaurant or music hall.

That piece affects every place that we regulate sound in the city.

And then when you come back and read it, it says, there it's between 11 and 6 in excess of 75 dBA.

and in the neighborhood commercial corridor district at 55.

So it's the ordinance just changes.

The current ordinance refers to music, excuse me, restaurants, dance halls.

We no longer have restaurant dance hall in the zoning code.

We have restaurants, we have music halls.

So we had to straighten that out.

Okay, so that's more of a technical amendment.

That's right.

Okay, got it, got it.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

I am glad that is on the agenda and we are ready to take some action on that.

You know if I was living and having this kind of noise next to my house I wouldn't want to live there either.

Well, I think we'll have discussion after the...

There's no public hearing.

That was quick.

I thought all along that this issue was we were taking a broad tool to deal with a particular one particular business and it's always made me uneasy to try to craft policy that's not addressing

a broad range of issues, but it's pretty much designed to single out a particular location and particular business.

So when I heard that business had pretty much gone under and left town, I was a little surprised that we were continuing to have this on the agenda.

I certainly understand all the concerns people have expressed.

So today I asked, first I called Mr. Tolbert and I asked him first had there been other complaints about noise in this neighborhood from any other restaurant other than Bel Rio and the answer was to his knowledge no.

It was pretty much that there was a single location that was generating complaints.

But then I did learn, I asked him well the previous restaurant or nightclub or I guess music hall is the definition that's in there today

when it was SACS, did that generate complaints?

And he said yes it did.

And so I can understand then, I think, how if you've had two

venues in a row that have been troublesome, you know, that I can understand why people would seek to do this.

I'm prepared to support it primarily because of the feedback we got from the other establishments in the neighborhood who felt like this would not be an onerous restriction

I personally think that the other change, I said this at our last meeting, the other change that we made regarding no longer allowing music halls and nightclubs in neighborhood commercial corridors is a much more, that's going to have much more of an impact than this change so it's sort of a one-two punch if you will and at that I will be happy to call for a vote unless there's any further comments so please indicate your vote.

Carries unanimously.

Thank you very much.

This is a report in public hearing setting priorities for the community development block grant and home program for year, fiscal year, or I don't know if that's calendar year, 2011-12.

For 2011 and 12.

So, Mayor Norris and Councillors, this public hearing is intended to aid City Council and staff in gathering information about the city's needs.

Goals and priorities determined as a result of this public hearing will be the framework for funding recommendations made by the Community Development Block Grant Task Force.

Based on current projections, the city can expect a level of funding similar to that received in fiscal year 10-11, which is about $580,000 in CDBG and $170,000 in HOME.

Just to kind of refresh your memory, this current fiscal year priorities were workforce development with an emphasis on teens and young adults and the construction of new affordable housing.

Secondary priorities were economic development, neighborhood stabilization, and safe and affordable housing for seniors.

Following the public hearing, staff is asking council to make the following decisions.

Regarding priorities for the CDBG and home programs, staff solicited comments from members of the CDBG task force.

Of those members who responded, members wish to see a list of priorities that emphasize creating new supported affordable housing units from the existing housing stock through programs that support homeowner and rental rehabilitations and home ownership opportunities.

Task Force members would also like to see priorities given to projects that offer collaboration between one or more agencies, projects that result in the creation of jobs or workforce development, and projects that leverage city resources to a high degree.

Council is asked to decide what its priorities are for fiscal year 2011-12.

It may keep the existing priorities, it may take the task force recommendations under consideration, or it can change them as it sees fit.

The second decision that needs to be made is determining if a priority neighborhood should be designated.

Task Force members who responded to surveys indicated that they would like to see funds set aside for a priority neighborhood.

Looking back through the past 20 years, it's Fifeville's turn to be the priority neighborhood.

In the past, priority neighborhood funds were set at $200,000, but this amount can be changed as Council sees fit.

Other options would be to designate more than one priority neighborhood across the city or to not allocate any funds towards a priority neighborhood.

If funds are set aside for a priority neighborhood, it can just be handed out as a general allocation grant or it can be subject to an RFP so that the best projects for that neighborhood come forward.

A third decision is to determine the percentage for social programs.

The maximum that HUD allows is 15% and that's what ours has been capped at for many, many years.

The council can reduce that and that would allow more money to be available for housing programs.

The fourth decision is administration and planning.

This amount has been set at around $110,000 for years and years and years.

We're allowed to have it at 20%.

Our current is right around probably 15 to 17%.

and then any other additional guidelines that council would like to give the task force in making their funding recommendations and to let nonprofits know when they're applying for funds what council would like to see.

Okay, thank you very much.

We have a public hearing scheduled for this matter, so I will now open the public hearing.

Is there anybody from the public who would like to speak on this particular topic?

All right, I will close the public hearing.

I think I'll go to the decision points if you don't mind and make some suggestions.

I think if you look at the first page there are five different objectives or goals or priorities if you want to call.

First was the workforce doable.

I think that should still be a priority in our efforts.

Second, it relates to construction of affordable housing.

I still think that there ought to be a priority.

Third, and the fourth thing which interests me is neighborhood stabilization.

and basically normal rehab of rental properties and other properties.

So those are the three goals which interest me.

I also like the goal of leveraging from our public funds because I think we can get a lot more knowledge if there are proposals to leverage our funds than just use one for one.

I gave an example on the 10th and Page leveraging I think close to one to eight.

that effect and we were able to do a lot more.

Second item, I want to speak at all one time if you don't mind and you guys will have different versions of it.

I do also agree that there ought to be a priority neighborhood, Fifeville would be a good neighborhood, nothing else.

If you're going to have a neighborhood, priority neighborhood, you have to sell at least $200,000 because you can't get anything done with $100,000.

You can barely get one sidewalk built.

so if you're going to have it, you have to have at least $200,000 and the administration should be probably 17% or less and the social program 15% or less.

Thank you, Mr. Huja.

I have a question to start.

You several times referred to task force members who responded.

We currently have

exactly what we're talking about but it's a question that I have that kind of determines how I feel about the priority.

It can be a combination of those things.

In the past it's been agencies such as Offender Aid and Restoration helping recently released offenders.

It could be aid services group, it could be counseling, financial counseling, education counseling,

match programs.

It's been a whole slew of things.

When I was a grant writer I've applied for those.

But one of the things that I was just wondering is how we can get the schools more involved in doing projects like after school programs and things like that in neighborhoods.

Talk about leveraging, getting different agencies involved as well as non-profits.

I guess that's

I was wondering if someone could talk a little bit about the merits of establishing a priority neighborhood, what would be the arguments for it and what against.

I know that last year we didn't, didn't we?

We didn't have a priority neighborhood.

For this fiscal year that we're in currently there's not a priority neighborhood.

And before that we did the Housing Authority for a couple years in a row.

as a neighborhood.

And I was just wondering if we could talk a little bit about in terms of the use of these funds, kind of what arguments compel for going back, because I assume if we chose a target neighborhood that would kind of imply we're going to cycle through them again, perhaps, or perhaps not.

I'd welcome comments from you or Mr. Tolbert or Mr. Norris, anyone else?

Well historically speaking the priority neighborhoods pre when the housing authority became a priority neighborhood it was sort of a I guess the best way to say it is a neighborhood blitz the money could be used for infrastructure it could be used for parks and rec and it would also kind of focus in housing providers so that it would kind of everybody would work together to collaborate in one neighborhood and all the projects would come together and it would sort of in one swoop be able to transform a neighborhood

and historically speaking priority neighborhoods would be designated for two to three years so that you can really make a big impact in one neighborhood and then change focus on another neighborhood and the idea was that these funds would kind of slowly be filtered throughout the city in order to really target those projects.

Whether or not that's how it continues to be is completely up to council's directions but if there was a priority neighborhood

Also, if you have a priority neighborhood, what is happening now, the small amount of money we have, basically is scattering here, there, doesn't seem to be any major impact in terms of improvements.

Whereas if you have a priority neighborhood, I think you can make some visible impact on the neighborhood, improve the neighborhoods.

They can be defined further by this group.

I'll do this.

Right.

In other words, you could take one and cut it in half.

Add anything to it, or anything of that nature.

This is based on the year 2000 census?

Right.

Because I know Belmont has changed a lot since the year 2000.

Right, it would for this upcoming year, for one year, but it might drop out.

So the fact that one neighborhood might be smaller probably indicates that there's more of a density of poverty in that neighborhood?

Could you tell us a little bit about maybe some of the projects that have been done in the past and the neighborhoods that have been targeted as priority?

Thinking back in my tenure here, the Hartman's Mill Road sidewalk was one of the biggest.

That was in the Ridge Street neighborhood.

That took about $600,000.

So it took a three years allocation they saved up to do that one sidewalk.

In the Belmont neighborhood, I know we did the Rialto Street sidewalk and helped pay for the spray pool in some of the Belmont Park

improvements.

That predated my involvement so that's what I think I remember that and then there's been some of it has been targeting I used to target rehab actually with the monies that AHIP got to say

want to use those in a particular neighborhood it came out of that.

You know the reality if you create a target neighborhood you basically reduce down to about a hundred and eighty thousand what's left to do everything other than social programs and and go around citywide so that is that's we used to get some more money we took 200 it was 200 out of a larger pot but it has been reduced now to such that

I have a question.

Well, that's a decision we could make.

If there was a sidewalk that was on the list of 20 that we come out with,

then maybe that sidewalk is paid for out of these dollars or it could be something that the neighborhood felt there was something totally different.

In the past it was used, the neighborhood determined a priority but if it was on the other list it just replaced the money that was on the other list to do the work.

That's why if you look at the list from 1997, you'll see that we've done the top 45, but number 80, number 85 may have been done.

I guess I'd like to see this as an opportunity to

set priorities for funding for the redevelopment process with the housing authority to see if we can leverage funds for that because it's not just about redevelopment of the public housing sites, but it really is revitalization of our neighborhoods as a whole.

And I don't think we've done a real good job of expressing it, using that language in terms of how the public housing site redevelopment will impact the entire city.

In terms of workforce development,

with CDBG and HOME funds.

Those are federal funds that come from HUD, which have a Section 3 requirement anyway.

So workforce development should not only be a priority, but it should be.

a given that workforce development will take place because of Section 3 and maybe over the next year so we can figure out how to develop a policy, adhere to the policy and not just turn in the reports but actually see what jobs we can develop because I'm not sure if we really made a good impact with our workforce efforts.

So now it's just an opportunity to do that.

And as far as the Fifeville community,

Ironically enough, Fifeville has been designated through that census tract to be eligible for a federally qualified health center.

The physical part of it can be done, but not the social part of it.

In terms of expressing an opinion, I like the priorities that Mr. Huja came up, you know, mentioned that the workforce development, new affordable housing and neighborhood stabilization and leveraging of funds.

I have to say, I'm kind of, I think in an era of tight dollars, I'd prefer to see us not designate a neighborhood but instead have the flexibility to

I'll just speak to the priority that nobody's mentioning which is code compliance.

I think that

Yes.

Oh, okay.

That is part of the neighborhood stabilization.

Neighborhood stabilization includes home rehabilitation,

So let's just start with the priorities then.

Is there a general consensus around the priorities that were spelled out by Mr. Huja?

I heard Dr. Brown voiced support for them.

I'm happy with them.

So workforce development, affordable housing and neighborhood stabilization as the programmatic priorities with an emphasis on projects that leverage city resources to a high degree.

I'm seeing a lot of heads nodding.

I think there was a comment made about ensuring that we have school involvement and I don't know if the schools have any kind of

Representative, or anybody from the schools that ever attends these meetings, but certainly we should extend.

There is a school board member in the task force.

Okay, great.

Perfect.

Perfect.

So just to make sure we have that good partnership in place with the schools.

Priority neighborhoods.

I guess it's such a small pot of money in general, generally speaking, compared to what the need is, so that, you know, I think Mr. Huja made a good point.

If you've got a fairly limited pot of money and you're applying it citywide, you're really not going to make as much of an impact as if you focused on a particular neighborhood.

My preference in the out years, and I've said this before, and I will bring this up again next year, would be once the redevelopment plan is actually in implementation mode, that we have all of these monies be dedicated to that.

But for now, it's not in implementation mode yet.

I actually agree with that caveat because I think that it should be part of that process after that.

And is that accurate that it wouldn't

I guess that would be something that we would readdress next August to see where CRHA is.

My biggest concern would be if we give any money to CRHA too soon, it would get us into trouble with our timely spending deadlines that we have.

I think I want to be a little bit more deliberate.

Okay.

I mean, that's me.

Is that weird?

Because Fifeville did qualify for the Fairly Qualified Health Center, I think that gave us an indication that there were some neighborhood needs, neighborhood issues that can be addressed.

So I just think it's an opportune time to do so.

Okay, so we'll do Fifeville with the $200,000 set aside.

Percentage for social programs right now?

15 is the maximum.

Everybody okay with that?

and I think that's it.

Just want to emphasize again, because I brought up the Section 3 policy before, that as we move forward with workforce development, using HUD funds means we should have a Section 3 policy in place.

I think what would probably give us the biggest impact is addressing a policy that HUD's threshold is a lot higher than the type of projects that the city typically sees.

So in a city like Baltimore, say, that's receiving multi-million dollars, it's easy for them to

Because I'd like to, and I'm just wondering if as we establish what our policy would look like in the same way that we were able to be creative with the re-breaking of the downtown mall

is a way we can be as equally creative as we're considering applicants that you would get so many more points if you had the Section 3 policy, if you have a plan for that.

That could be one of the RFP criterias.

I think it's in there now, right?

That they have to comply with HUD standards, but we could make it one of our priorities that applicants will be given greater preference if they demonstrate Section 3, even if they're not federally required to do Section 3.

We could make it that way, too.

All right.

So have we addressed everything on your check-off list there?

And do you need a formal

I don't, it doesn't really have to be formal.

Just go forth and do great things.

Thank you very much, Ms. Thaxton.

I'm not getting used to that.

I'm never getting used to that.

Okay, next item on our agenda tonight is the report and ordinance amendment to the Panhandling Code, second of two readings.

I apologize, previously I had a citizen in the office and heard my name.

Came running but not fast enough.

This is second reading of an ordinance that you have before you that makes a few changes to the panhandling ordinance.

The first is it changes the name from panhandling to solicitation.

The second is that, well let me, our current ordinance, just to refresh,

restricts panhandling if it's in an aggressive manner and then if it's in any public transportation vehicle, bus station or stop, within 15 feet of an entrance or exit to a bank, within 15 feet of an automated teller machine, and firmer to any person seated within an outdoor cafe.

The changes before you tonight would add to that firmer

to any person who is conducting business at a vendor table or cart and on the downtown mall within 50 feet in any direction of 2nd Street West and 4th Street East, which are our mall crossings.

And to that, since your first reading, the city attorney has added, as has been suggested, a clause that says when those streets are open to vehicular traffic.

As you know, we close them at certain times.

That's correct Mr. Mayor and members of council there's a revised copy of the ordinance on the dais in front of me if you look down in section A9 previously it

extended the prohibition to the downtown mall within 50 feet in any direction of 2nd Street West and 4th Street East and the phrase that's proposed to be added is when those streets are open to vehicular traffic.

Thank you.

Any comments, questions from counselors?

No, I was not here, you're right.

I think it's a question, this will include non-profit organizations that solicit

playing a violin and laid your case down for contributions, again, within those 50 feet of the two crossings.

Is there a second on that amendment?

Second.

Any discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote on the amendment.

The amendment passes.

Now we have an amended ordinance before us that's been moved and seconded on first reading.

Any further discussion?

I'd just once again say for the record that I was prepared to support an even stronger ordinance that would restrict panhandling within 15 feet of any place where money is, financial transactions are occurring but we understand that the

There's some serious issues raised, constitutional issues raised on that matter, but we do have an ordinance before us, so move in second any further conversation.

If not, please indicate your vote.

Thank you very much, and it passes unanimously.

Next item.

A report and ordinance keeping goats in the city of Charlottesville.

First of two readings.

I think the citizens that spoke earlier probably outlined this as effectively as I could, but today and at a recent council meeting you were approached and asked that we come up with an ordinance to allow goats to be kept within the city limits.

It was suggested that we look at the Seattle ordinance and take our lead from Seattle.

The staff has actually done that.

We also looked at ordinances that we could find.

Austin, Berkeley,

Portland, various other places and came to the conclusion that the Seattle ordinance probably was the most effective and the easiest to figure out.

So what you have before you is an ordinance that is based on that ordinance and it would do several things.

When it would

Define miniature goats as a goat weighing less than 100 pounds commonly known as pygmy dwarf or miniature goats and add that definition and then it would allow miniature goats to be kept in any residential zoning district in the city subject to the following.

One, males must be neutered.

Two goats must be dehorned.

No more than three miniature goats may be kept at the same time on the same property except that nursing offspring may be kept until the age of 12 weeks and should not be included in the number of goats allowed.

The question I've been asked earlier about fencing, you have the current ordinance that deals with livestock that says that no cows, horses, pigs, goats now may run at large in the city which essentially means they have to stay on their own property no matter how you keep them there through fence or being tied down or whatever.

So that's the way that is covered.

We recommend, staff recommends that

Thank you, Mr. Tolbert.

Is there going to be public hearings?

No, there's no public hearings.

So, I obviously support this idea very much, I think for sustainability-wise and many other ways, as has been outlined.

But I do have concerns about

Mr. Huja, we'll be happy to include something like that if you'd like.

I think our position is the ordinance already requires that by saying they can't run at large and in talking to

The other communities that have these, if we can find a way that keeps them on property, everybody wants to know what we did because they said that goats are probably harder to keep in a fence than any kind of animal that you can get.

I am familiar with at least one goat a few years back which was on a big rope and it managed quite well.

Again, the code now would require that they be kept on their own property, but if you would like to amend it to say fence or tide or something, that doesn't...

Well, if nothing else, just restate in this section of the code what's already stated in the other section of the code.

I don't personally see any reason for that just because it does say that they can't run at large and that they're not allowed to go on other people's property.

Just for clarification, what has been proposed is to add goat to the list of animals in section 4-7 that are not allowed to run at large and then the code currently defines the term running at large which is

I do.

The indication we got was that they had not had any issues.

That's a good question.

And if somebody, this was actually just a question that came up when I was talking to somebody at church.

If a goat got out and was impounded, is the SPCA willing to take them?

Mr. Mayor, I move the ordinance.

It's been moved.

It's been moved and seconded.

It will carry forward to our next meeting.

Thank you, Dr. Brown.

And thank you, Mr. Tolbert.

When City Council entered into a lease agreement with the Virginia Supportive Housing for the property previously owned by Region 10 on 4th Street, one of the requirements you put in before the actual signing of the lease was that the final plans for design would be presented to you and that they would be reviewed with recommendations by the Board of Architectural Review.

These plans have been submitted to the Planning Commission and actually have obtained site plan, preliminary site plan approval.

As you know it's been through the special use permit approval and they have been submitted to the Board of Architectural Review for their recommendation.

They are not in a

an interest card or in a design control district so the BAR does not have any final approval you just ask that they make a recommendation to you.

They reviewed on July 20th these designs recommended 6-0 to endorse the scale, materials, massing and general design of the project and then they had a series of recommendations

essentially a few more or less modest changes to the plans that they'd like to see.

The plans you have before you tonight have addressed all of those.

Ms. Galla has reviewed them as requested by the Board of Architectural Review to see that they have addressed the items that the BAR had concerns with.

So the plans before you tonight are, reflect the design presented to the BAR with the changes

that were recommended at that time.

If you've got any questions, Mr. Wardell, who's the architect that's here, along with Allison McDonovitch, who is with Virginia Supportive Housing and can answer any questions that we might not be able to.

We would recommend that you approve the design and allow the project to move forward.

Just to clarify, this says a resolution.

I'm sorry, just a motion to approve.

I was wondering, the fence that you showed sort of bothers me.

My name is Bruce Wardell.

I'm the architect for the project.

The fence was a programmatic requirement from Virginia Supportive Housing.

I'm not sure it's a state requirement.

That was one of the comments that the planning commission raised during that issue and they described three or four options in which we could make the fence more transparent.

We lowered the sort of base of the fence.

We are planting and the landscape plan has plantings that will eventually grow up on the fence.

But given the site and the configuration, there really was no other place contiguous with the building itself.

We also provided, if you notice on the site plan diagram, we pulled the common exterior terrace

Yeah.

The reason I'm sorry is just I hate to point this example

We have had this concern before expressed to us in a friendship court, for example, that we don't enclose people when there is a jail.

It reminds me of that.

and plus the visibility of it is crucial location.

When you're imagining a brick wall, you imagine a brick wall that's sort of hip height, bench height, or whatever you require.

A six foot brick or four foot with a top on it or something I think?

I mean we could make the boundary of that seating area a very nice brick wall with a bench and have a tree there.

What is the programmatic reason for having the fence?

It's actually more to

make sure folks have one entrance and exit into and out of the building.

Controlled entry and exit is an important part of the program and we want folks to be able to use the courtyard just like they use the building.

And so to do that we need to have some way to cordon that off.

The walls of Court Square have a sort of semi-circular cap on the brick wall.

Right, yeah.

Well, the plantings are still there.

In fact, we relocated a

I think the B.L.

Other comments or questions?

I still don't quite get the control, you know, having, could you just elaborate on why it's necessary?

You have security at the front desk, you have to check in.

People can exit at many different places, but in terms when it's not an emergency, we want folks coming in and out of the front door, past the staff, past all that

Right.

And they are.

Alright, it's been moved.

Is that just at that one end?

It's my understanding that the brick wall that you're recommending on this plan, if the top of the page is plan north, that the brick wall goes from north to south

I will mark it as...

but I just marked on this.

Yeah, that's fine.

Even if you could turn the corner, that won't be harmful to either.

Right.

All right, so we have a motion on the table.

Was the other suggestion from the BAR that you're already looking at?

I'm just looking at the west elevation and the pages aren't numbered but it's maybe three from the end in this.

If I can get my book back.

Actually two and three from the end.

In the picture it shows a black fence across the whole building.

That's actually the rear elevation.

Alright, been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

If not, please indicate your vote.

And the motion carries unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

The last item on our regular business agenda tonight is a report and resolution approving an economic development performance agreement that provides tax increment financing for downtown development.

Excuse me.

Got the important part out of the way now.

Mayor and Members of the Council, the item before you is a resolution authorizing a performance agreement that would actually be activated by CETA to allow for an important development in their downtown area.

This is a new approach on behalf of the city to provide an incentive to help make some projects occur here in the city.

And it's important projects of some scale and size and in this case any project over 20 million dollars in finished value of the project would be eligible.

In this case we're proposing a 50%

Grant back to the developer for the first five years of the new real estate taxes generated by the project.

But it's the improvement.

The base real estate taxes which are currently being paid on the property

which still come directly to the city.

We're talking about a sizable development that will provide jobs downtown, approximately 215 jobs, good paying jobs of approximately $45,000 each.

And they will provide a substantial amount of their parking for this facility on site.

They will, in addition, be utilizing some of the parking in the city's Water Street parking garage.

This concept of this program is used in other parts of the state, but this is the first time we've used it here.

I think it's important to point out to you that the real estate taxes that we're talking about are simply a portion of the income that the city would have generated from this project.

We estimate that the annual return on investment to the city is approximately $380,000 a year.

That includes the real estate taxes.

The city is not investing any money in this project up front.

We're not providing any bond financing or other funding of the project.

The grant would only be made at such time as a project is completed and all of the requirements that are in the agreement are met.

So we're not investing any money up front nor are we taking any risk.

It's entirely on the developer to meet these commitments.

That is unlike tips that are done in many other states and in some other parts of Virginia.

I think it's also important to share with you that many of the requirements that have been talked about in the past that I've shared with you are all included in this agreement.

Part of the agreement also requires that there be some workforce development effort during the construction period.

The best example or kind of the summary of the process is the developer completes the project and meets the conditions

The property would then be reassessed based on the improvements that have been made and 50% of the incremental increase in taxes would be refunded back to the developers taking all the risk and securing the tenants for this property.

That would be done for a period of five years.

The example that's shown in the package that council has would indicate that if the conditions we've talked about are met

the city would continue to receive the $26,000 a year that we're getting in real estate taxes now plus 50% of the new taxes which would be about $81,000 a year so each year the city would receive $108,000 in real estate taxes the developer would receive a rebate or a grant of $81,000 a year so at the end of five years

we will have basically equaled what the developer would have gotten with his 50% and in 10 years we would collect about a million and a half dollars over the period of time.

I think some of the important factors in this are it is a project of substantial value, 20 million dollars.

A lot of the parking is provided on site.

The significant number of employees would be downtown.

The taxes, as I indicated, are estimated at $163,000.

It will bring more people downtown to visit our shops and all of our restaurants and other activities that we have downtown.

The return on investment to the city is a net each year of $380,000.

The workforce development component is outlined in the agreement.

The TIF is necessary to make this development occur downtown.

I'm absolutely convinced of that.

We're coming out of a really bad economy situation.

It is extremely difficult for the city to compete with other sites which have much cheaper land and don't have urban development costs.

And it's a lot of difference in paying for surface parking and paying for structured parking.

In fact, it's probably about $20,000 a space difference.

We gain in the short term and the long term, but only if the project takes place.

If we do nothing, we continue to get to $26,000 a year.

There is no city or taxpayer money in this thing up front.

We're simply providing back to the developer a grant once the project is complete.

We expect to have a very successful and community-minded tenant here.

And this evening, if you have other questions other than for me, we have representatives of Great Eastern Management, who's a developer, and the World Strides Organization, which are here this evening, if you have questions for them.

I actually have more of a comment than a question.

Ms. Edwards and I last week were down in your old stomping grounds in Greenville, South Carolina, and I noticed that they had entire sections of the downtown area that were designated as TIF neighborhoods.

and where any business that locates there gets this same exact kind of incentive.

Now the thing that I like about our proposed TIF on the table tonight is that in Greenville it's subsidizing development.

A lot of those companies we're going to set up shop there anyway.

So it's putting dollars, taxpayer dollars that would otherwise come to the city into a development that was going to happen anyway.

So here, the difference here is that we've received assurances from you and from our partners in this project that this is going to help seal the deal.

Is that accurate?

That's absolutely correct.

And I think the difference in which you saw in South Carolina, they have overlapping tax districts and every one of the components of that tax district make contributions and they finance things up front.

In this case, we're taking no risk at all up front.

If the project gets completed, it's contemplated, there's a grant.

I think this is a really nice way to acknowledge that a business that's going to locate here is going to get real benefits of having its employees be able to walk to lunch and just have the downtown mall within access and within reach and hopefully to live in the city and have their kids go to city school.

But I think that we do also have to acknowledge that construction in the city is difficult and this sort of acknowledges that in a more financial way.

I think it's appropriate to use the four powers and I think it will benefit the city as it is in short term and long term.

I'll second.

Any further discussion?

Thanks.

Okay.

We will now open up to one more round of matters by the public.

And when you come forward, please state your name and give your address and keep your comments to three minutes.

Okay.

First, I want to thank you guys.

Back in my younger days, which was quite a few years back, I had a goat

and I lived in the country.

You don't tie a goat with a rope.

It'll eat anything.

Take my word for it.

And if you would have a whole bunch of people in Charlottesville, very upset if goats got out in their yard and ate all their flowers and everything.

I think you need to think about that before you decide we're doing that, because I've had a goat.

All right.

OK, thank you.

Thank you, Miss Shotwell.

Appreciate that.

Yes, sir.

My name is Jeffrey Fogel.

I reside at 215 Spruce Street here in Charlottesville.

I'm also an attorney with offices at 913 East Jefferson Street.

I rise to express my disappointment in the passage by this council unanimously of this revised solicitation ordinance.

I had hoped to speak beforehand.

Unfortunately, I did not

sign up and my request to speak when it was open to other people was ignored at the time.

I think this ordinance constitutes, was prompted by and constitutes an attack on the presence of impoverished people in the downtown mall.

And that's simply wrong for this council to do.

If the people soliciting in the downtown mall were well dressed, middle class people, this proposal would never be before this council.

And I can assure you, based on experience elsewhere in the country, that this kind of ordinance will only be enforced against impoverished people.

that when the March of Dimes and the United Way come down to the downtown mall, it will not be enforced against them.

Complaints will not be made by businesses about those kinds of middle class entities.

They will be made because of the opposition of the business community to the presence of impoverished people.

This community, I moved here about three and a half years ago because I believe this to be a progressive

community that believed in equality and justice and I'm very very disappointed that the council went along with this proposal and did so unanimously.

It sets up what I believe to be a caste system within our society.

I can assure you this is not going to be enforced against middle class people.

It is going to be enforced only against the very poor people that the business community does not want to see on the downtown mule.

They have every right to be there just as you and I do.

They have every right to solicit requests for contributions just as you and I do and they have much greater need to do so as well.

The reason that they are impoverished has to do with many things and usually not at their fault.

but for the council to endorse this kind of proposal is an attack on those very people and you can probably hear it in my voice, I'm more than disappointed, I'm angry about this happening, I'm disappointed that I felt that this community was more progressive than that and I hope that at some point you'll reconsider it and I hope that you will at least

Assure that there will be a careful monitoring of the enforcement of this ordinance.

50 feet on either side of the two crossings of the downtown mall is quite considerably greater than any conceivable need for protection of the interference of vehicular traffic crossing that downtown mall.

and as least as from what I have read in the newspaper the problem of aggressive solicitation is a non-existent problem at least as I read it reported when the police have responded to complaints they have found that all of the so-called panhandlers and I think that's an inappropriate word to use particularly for people on this commission who you know who go to church and who recognize that the least among us is perhaps the most important among us

and I don't think the council is respecting that principle.

It's a principle both in our religious traditions, our secular traditions and in the Constitution as well.

I recognize that the ordinance has been cleaned up in the sense that it reflects what we would call in constitutional first amendment terms a content neutrality because it applies to anybody soliciting and not just people quote panhandling

Thank you for your input.

I just want to address the goats again.

It's goats now.

What next?

Now, I was referring to cows because I grew up in the country and we didn't have goats, but I know that people are going to take advantage of this ordinance.

and I have people, I have a family that lives next door to me I don't consider them neighbors because they're not and they would probably be the first to get a goat so I'm going to have to deal with goats and dogs of course goats don't bark during the night that wake me up at two o'clock in the morning but you're going to have people like these people next door to me that are going to get goats because they think they're cute for their children

and then they're gonna be neglected because I see dogs neglected in pens in this hot weather and I see that in my neighborhood and I'm strictly against this.

Like I said, you're gonna have goats now.

The next will be sheep.

The next will be cows.

Everybody says, well, that person can have that animal for my benefit.

Why can't I have this animal for my benefit?

And I don't agree with it.

I really don't.

And I appreciate your addressing the bicycle issue.

I still think that they should have to pay property taxes and that they should have to get taxed.

And they need training, too.

because it's really dangerous out there because I just had three instances, Friday and Saturday.

And thanks very much for looking into the funeral escorts because that is a very, very serious thing.

I mean, we have so many street lights and you cannot keep the family and you can't keep the family together because people don't pull over for you.

and other areas, people will pull over for you.

And I've been to funerals in Waynesboro and people will pull over when they see a funeral procession coming, they'll pull over.

They don't do that in Charlottesville because they don't respect, they don't respect grieving families and acquaintances.

My name is Allison Ruffner and I live at 735 Graves Street and I will shock you all by not gathering on about noise at the moment.

The water issue has obviously taken a great deal of time and I know this is a discussion that's going on for a couple of years and you know I had to think and I had to think in times such as when I was singing in Rome in December and we got hit with the first big blizzard and

The inability to clean roads hit international news.

This was news in Rome, seeing people that were trapped there.

And as people embark upon 200 million dollar projects and they're not able to take care of the current infrastructure in face of, I admit it was a lot of snow, but we've seen a lot of snow here before.

So when I

see the council taking their time.

I actually appreciate it and I don't feel that you all should be in any way bullied or pushed into doing anything with these assets because the county wants to grow or doesn't want to grow or whatever it wants to do.

I'm sorry but they apparently, I mean I used to have to drive out 20 south all the time to Keene and you know the idea of seeing all of these cars and everything just strewn off the road with their all wheel drive vehicles and I went well

You know, that's called living in the county.

We had nine wells.

We didn't rely on reservoir water.

And in a summer that was extremely dry in 1975, five of those wells collapsed and we had to re-re-wall all of them.

They were about 250 years old, each of them.

And we re-walled them and we had water.

So, you know, take your time.

Do what you think you need to do to actually make a good decision.

If these people can't handle cleaning the infrastructure they have now,

They want to take on more.

I think that process needs to be thought out.

To change to briefing on the goats, I do think it's worth considering that there may be owners who are not responsible.

And I think there are, as we know, irresponsible pet owners.

Again, it sounds like a great idea.

I just ate goat today.

So, you know, I can see that they serve lots of purposes.

But I think maybe having, you know, fines or repercussions for people who are irresponsible when their animals get out kind of has a way of reminding people about that.

And then I suppose on a final note that takes into a little bit more into account sort of Belmont and our environment and our community and including this noise issue.

Saturday night with these two ladies here when I was visiting them I had the pleasure of being able to call the police as I watched a very well-coiffed trio come down Douglas Avenue from on Monticello.

I don't know where they were but they were not local residents and proceed to stop and relieve the city of some of its bricks and put it into the back of their two or three year old shiny SUV.

And I think when I looked at that, I recognized that part of our problem has been civil discourse and that it is unfortunate that we've had to pass a 55 decibel reading to enforce civil discourse in my neighborhood.

If people were behaving like they should at these businesses, we wouldn't be there.

If business owners were responsible, we wouldn't be there.

And so I'm hoping this is going to send a message of, you have to behave when you're guests in a neighborhood.

Thank you very well said.

I'd like to make a comment.

Oh sure.

I'd like to make a comment in the back about the solicitation ordinance.

I share some of the concerns, but I think it will be enforced fairly to all people, not just to poor people.

I know that many of us are actually all the same people who are worried about in many ways

and then our mayor was in order and I was at, even yesterday, dealing with substance.

I wanted to also comment on his observations in

And I appreciate your reminding us of what happens to the least of these and actually the whole idea of panhandling and people begging

goes back even to the New Testament and I was reminded of Acts 3 with the beggar that sat at the gate called Beautiful and how if we had had that ordinance that we passed today he wouldn't have been able to be there and he'd have missed out on his healing but also I'm also hoping that as we think about how we're

providing money that in that same vein that we provide something that's going to be more sustainable for people that are in need on the mall and that this will give us an opportunity to think about what, because we provide a lot of services in our city, but how we can do that in a more holistic way.

and if we find that there are needs that need to be addressed to not make the police necessarily the front line for addressing things but provide other things that are going to be long term and more sustainable in the same way those two gentlemen did when they met the guy at the gate called Beautiful that needed healing.

I just worry about how we can also create giving opportunities because there's some people that really feel led to give people money when they see them there and I don't want to take away that freedom that people have but I also want people to think about the more that we give people money the more people are going to be there but what giving opportunities do we have so that people can still feel as if

They are giving money to a program that will provide service to the person that they see right there.

And also, even with the, and I agree that we should think about, it's not panhandlers, we're talking about people.

And so we do have to be sensitive to our language.

And as we talk about workforce development and job opportunities, it is a hard economic times.

And I believe in meeting people where they are.

But I want to make sure that we have a city where we really do have choices for people to make and that they can make healthy choices for their lives.

So I'm hoping that this is just the beginning of looking at all those issues in a way that's going to be more holistic and we will have to be mindful that we aren't passing judgment on people that are poor as opposed to some of the other non-profits that we see looking for

solicitations as well, and that's why I brought that up.

So this is just the beginning.

We may not get it right, we may not have gotten it right this time, but at least we are being accountable for what we know is going to be the next step in just taking care of everyone, not only the business owners, the people that frequent them all, but also our constituents that may not have the opportunities that other people have had as well.

So it was difficult to hear, but thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Any other comments?

Meeting's adjourned.