A log of Charlottesville City Council Meetings 2008-2015. Transported from the City of Charlottesville website as a project of Smart Cville, http://www.smartcville.com.


HELD ON Tuesday, February 22, 2011, AT 6:30 p.m. IN THE Second Floor Conference
Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code
Council met in special session on this date with the following members present:
Dr. Brown, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Huja, Mr. Norris, Ms. Szakos.
On motion by Ms. Szakos, seconded by Dr. Brown, Council voted (Ayes: Dr.
Brown, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Huja, Mr. Norris, Ms. Szakos. Noes: None) to meet in closed
session pursuant to section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code, for discussion of the
acquisition of real property located on Davis Avenue for a public purpose, where
discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating strategy of the City,
as authorized by Virginia Code sec. 2.2-3711 (A) (3).
On motion by Ms. Szakos, seconded by Mr. Huja, Council certified by the
following vote, (Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Huja, Mr. Norris, Ms. Szakos.
Noes: None), that to the best of each Council Member's knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom
of Information Act and identified in the motion convening the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
COUNCIL CHAMBER – February 22, 2011
Council met in regular session on this date with the following members present:
Ms. Edwards, Mr. Norris, Dr. Brown, Mr. Huja, Ms. Szakos.
Mr. Norris announced that Greenbrier Elementary School won the Governor’s
Award for Excellence. Mr. Jim Kyner, Principal of Greenbrier Elementary was there to
accept the award.
There will be another community design workshop on March 2nd at 6:00 p.m. at
City Space for design of the Belmont Bridge. The City is accepting applications for the
new Tree Commission, and the deadline for applying is February 28. Sheriff James
Brown will present a workshop on Disaster Preparedness training on Saturday, March
12th from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Holiday Inn on Emmett Street.
Ms. Edwards announced “Healthy Birth, Healthy Baby” on Saturday March 5th
from 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. at the Herman Key Center. This is a series of free
workshops. For more information, visit www.healthybirthhealthybaby.com.
Dr. Brown announced the rescheduled Carbon Energy community workshop at
the County Office building this Thursday, February 24th.
Ms. Karen Waters, 1014 St. Charles Ave., said she is the chair of the Housing
Advisory Committee. In December 2010, the HAC passed a resolution clarifying their
2025 goals for affordable housing recommendations. She said these should be adjusted
to be consistent with the annual goals, which were written by City staff as a result of an
efficiency study. She asked Council to fully fund the Housing Plan. She asked members
of the audience in support of fully funding affordable housing to stand.
Mr. Paul Long, 1410 Grady Ave., said the number of homeless people in the
Charlottesville area continues to grow, and there is a dire need for emergency housing
and additional support services. He asked Council to appropriate $2 million to provide
additional services to the homeless. Mr. Long said he is sad Ms. Edwards decided not to
seek reelection and thanked her for her service.
Mr. Kurt Burkhart, Executive Director of the CACVB, announced the launch of
the “CW150 Legacy Project: Document Digitization and Access” and invited local
residents to bring their historic documents for professional scanning on March 5, 2011, at
City Space from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Bob Fenwick, 901 E. Jefferson St., said the water supply plan should be the
best plan possible. Dam engineers do not consider dredging in their engineering designs
or cost analyses. He pointed out locations around the area that have silted in. He said
Council should not accept excuses for delay in publishing an RFP for dredging the South
Fork Reservoir. Council should insist on a water demand study based on current
standards. He said the Citizens for a Sustainable Water Supply group has already saved
the city millions of dollars.
Ms. Phyllis Koch-Sheras, 340 Cedar Bluff Rd., said she lives near the Rivanna
Reservoir and is here to echo what Mr. Fenwick said. She asked Council to include
dredging in the cost sharing agreement. We need to dredge, or the silt will suffocate the
Ms. Rebecca Quinn, 104 4th Street, said the RWSA issued an RFP for a water
demand analysis. She said Rivanna has known about the new requirements for a year,
and there should not be further delay. Council should organize a committee to oversee
RWSA’s work. Rivanna should extend the scope to 50 years so that it can be compared
to the Gannet Fleming analysis. Dredge first, repair the spillway, and do not burden
today’s ratepayers for a dam that will not be needed in the future.
Ms. Dede Smith, 2652 Jefferson Park Cir., said there are three reasons why
Council should not make a decision tonight. Rivanna just put out an RFP for a new very
comprehensive demand analysis, Rivanna is anticipating a 0% increase in water demand
next year, and dredging the South Fork Reservoir is on their agenda for Thursday. The
cost share agreement is happening now. She asked Council not to make a decision that is
set in stone.
Mr. Galen Staengl, 129 Goodman St., said the water demand analysis is about to
be renewed, and Council should wait to make further decisions about new water
infrastructure. He said Council should continue to pressure RWSA for the dredging RFP
process to move forward.
Mr. Stratton Salidis, 704 B Graves St., said he wished Ms. Edwards would run
again because she is a warm and wise presence on Council. He thanked Ms. Szakos for
her response to a request at the last meeting by the Dunlora Association to open the
Meadow Creek Parkway. He said Council should approve opening the section to bikers
and pedestrians to take pressure off the intersection. He said the water demand analysis
is 26% wrong after six years, and this issue has been a politically-based decision, not a
fact-based decision.
Ms. Jennifer McKeever, 1140 Locust Ave., a member of the CDBG task force,
said CHF monies need to be fully funded from the general fund. Keeping the monies
separate is very important. The policies associated with CDBG Homes and CHF funds
are different. Please completely fund CHF funding through the general fund and not
comingle funds.
Mr. Charlie Armstrong, HAC and past chair from 2007-2010, was chair when
they worked on 2025 goals for staff. Staff backed into goal numbers by setting three
optional goals to choose from. Amounts arrived at were done with a very scientific
manner with dozens of experts. Please fully fund CHF with the goals recommended in
the report. It is important to consider the leverage of $1.4 million of City money. He
thanked Council for their support of affordable housing in prior years.
Ms. Jennifer Jacobs, 1201 Harold Cir., asked Council to fully fund the
Charlottesville Housing Fund at the $1.5 million level. This adds units and protects
existing units and has helped out more than 80 families so far stay safe and in their
homes. She thanked Council for their commitment to affordable housing.
Mr. Huja asked staff to follow up on a demand analysis, per Ms. Quinn’s remarks.
He asked staff to explore if the parkway could be opened to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Ms. Szakos agreed with both of Mr. Huja’s requests. She asked staff to post
information about the Civil War Legacy Project on the City website.
Dr. Brown agreed with all the nice comments about Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards thanked Mr. Salidis and Mr. Beyer for their kind words. She
thanked Mr. Long for his consistency regarding homelessness and the issues it has
Mr. Norris said he agreed with Mr. Huja about the need to do a 50-year demand
analysis. He endorsed Ms. Quinn’s suggestion about citizen participation in the water
demand studies and asked staff to look into it. He said he endorsed Mr. Salidis’
recommendation to open the Parkway to bikes and pedestrians. He said he agrees that
dredging should be in the cost share agreement.
On motion by Dr. Brown, seconded by Ms. Szakos, the following consent agenda
items were approved: (Ayes: Ms. Edwards, Mr. Norris, Dr. Brown, Mr. Huja, Ms.
Szakos. Noes: None.)
a. Minutes of February 7
b. APPROPRIATION: $7,500 – Family Finding Training (2nd
c. APPROPRIATION: $3,177 – 2010 State Homeland Security Program Grant
d. APPROPRIATION: $18,362 – 2011 Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
(JABG) (carried)
e. APPROPRIATION: $2,500 – Charlottesville Newsplex Scholarship Program
f. APPROPRIATION: $382,090 – Highway Safety Improvement Program
g. APPROPRIATION: $102,576 – Aid & Localities Fire Disbursement Fund
h. APPROPRIATION: $122,398 – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Sustainable Communities Grant Funds
i. RESOLUTION: Belmont Bridge Revenue Sharing Application
j. RESOLUTION: Allocation of Capital Improvements Program
k. ORDINANCE: FiberLight Agreement (carried)
As a point of clarification, Council will hear a staff report on this item but will not
take action on the ordinance itself until after the public hearing on item three regarding
the William Taylor Plaza Land Purchase and Sale Amendment for City property located
at 521 and 529 Ridge Street.
Mr. Haluska presented to Council. The Planning Commission recommends that
the application be denied. There was opposition to the design of the changed plan in the
belief that it was inferior to the originally approved plan.
Mr. Norris said the applicant was not legally able to revise the plan for tonight’s
discussion without going back to a public hearing. Council is not being asked to approve
development of the site, and there were more changes to the plan that was previously
approved. Mr. Huja asked how the current plan differed from the original plan. Mr.
Haluska said in the original plan was for a maximum 100,000 square foot development
on the site with 20% commercial. There were no affordable units proffered and 50
maximum residential units. The modified project is max 110,000 square feet with 10%
commercial, a maximum of 80 units, and a proffer for payment to the City or the option
to provide affordable units.
Mr. Norris asked how would be affected. Mr. Haluska said there would be an
overall reduction in the number of trips generated on a daily basis with the new plan. A
reduction in commercial space offsets the increase from residential traffic.
Ms. Szakos asked if the developer could responds to the Planning Commission’s
concerns about design and the allocation of affordable units versus nonsubsidized units in
their revisions to the project. Mr. Haluska said they could not do so without modifying
the proffers.
Mr. Chris Engle presented to Council. Parcels have been under City ownership
for over 30 years and are currently vacant. They have requested the option to provide 30
units on site in lieu of a contribution towards affordable housing. They have also added
Earthcraft and LEED standards and extended the timeframe.
Mr. Norris asked Mr. Engle to outline the major changes. Mr. Engle said the
changes are to allow affordable housing units to take place on site, add Earthcraft as an
acceptable standard, and extend the timeframe to allow the development to occur.
Mr. Norris asked why the developers wanted to change to Earthcraft. Mr.
Armstrong of Southern Development said Earthcraft is more suitable for residential
construction and will provide flexibility. Dr. Brown said citizens have emailed saying
Earthcraft is a lesser standard. Mr. Armstrong said they have different focuses.
Ms. Szakos said she has received emails from citizens about what would happen
if they got a raise that took them above 50% median income while living in affordable
housing. Mr. Armstrong said residents will be permitted to remain in their apartment at
the fixed rate.
Mr. Engle said the entire property is under BAR review now, which is another
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Antoinette Roades, 406 Oak St., said the two city parcels featured in this item
are owned by all citizens of Charlottesville, and all should be involved and fully
informed, which has not happened. This has gone through the system so quickly that no
citizen could keep up. This constitutes a massive social experiment that could result in
disaster. Lack of affordable housing cannot be an excuse to force this sale, as there are
plenty of units available in the surrounding areas.
Mr. Peter Loach, 1620 Rose Hill Dr., an advocate for Affordable Housing in
Charlottesville and the Ridge/Cherry project, said there is a critical need for more
affordable housing in Charlottesville. Mixed income/mixed use developments are crucial
to economic efforts to reduce poverty. There is a lack of integration of land use and
transportation. Concentrating hundreds of units in one place does not help lift people out
of poverty; mixed use neighborhoods do.
Mr. Pascal Bussiere, 414 7 ½ St., said he fully supports the William Taylor
project. He said there are a lot of hard working families that deserve decent housing in
the neighborhood. Too many owners are not responsible with low income families.
There will be a manager in this housing development, and people will have the chance to
live somewhere for a reasonable price. There is a return to the centers of the cities, and
low income families deserve to live where they have jobs.
Mr. Scott Beyer, 2556 Summit Ridge Trail, said developing existing urban land
densely shows better foresight than not developing it at all. Doing so renews blighted
areas and places more people on the streets, which will make them feel more forceful and
relevant. Density could improve Cherry Ave. The area has been stigmatized unfairly, but
a lot of the stigma is justified by statistics and news reports. Something like William
Taylor Plaza could renew the neighborhood and could be used for an example of how
development should unfold along the entire corridor.
Ms. Jennifer Jacobs, with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, 1201
Harold Cir., said she supports the William Taylor Plaza project. It is in line with the
affordable housing goals set out in the City’s 2025 goals. She urged Council to support
this opportunity.
Mr. Paul Beyer, former chair of the Albemarle Housing Committee and a
participant in the HAC and CRHA redevelopment process, said he supports the project.
Affordable housing stock comes down to the basics of supply and demand. A recent
report listed a 4,000 unit deficit. There is a dire need for more housing in general and a
lack of capital investment. The problem cannot be solved with government funding only;
the private sector must lead the way. This is a unique public/private venture and should
be encouraged in our City.
Mr. Herb Porter, 509 7 ½ St., said he takes offense at his neighborhood being
termed as “blighted”. There are a variety of professionals in the neighborhood. He asked
Council not to allow exchange of the two parcels of land. The development has been
noted as inferior, and Council should not want to support something that can cause
irreparable damage to a pristine area. The Fifeville neighborhood has bent over
backwards to allow affordable housing. The rest of the city should pick up their slack
and do the same.
Mr. Sam Towler, 1601 Green St., said Council should sell the lots for cash rather
than proffers. The City could take the cash from the lots and do affordable housing at the
Martha Jefferson Hospital site and the Walker School site.
Mr. Stan Braverman, 226 Douglas Ave., said he has lived here for seven years
and supports affordable housing. He does not appreciate losing residents from the
neighborhood who are getting kicked out as the City develops and becomes more
Ms. Pat Napolean, 700 Lyons Ave., said people choose to live in neighborhoods
and communities for personal reasons. Charlottesville will not succeed at forcing
diversity upon the populace. Mixed use gracefully evolves, particularly in places like the
corridor along Ridge and Cherry.
Having no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Norris said the question is not whether or not development should occur at
the William Taylor Plaza site, but rather if the changes proposed are acceptable.
Ms. Edwards said she did not approve of this project from the beginning. She
said there is a need for affordable housing, but it is not appropriate in this setting. She
said she has concerns about the process, and giving should come from the heart. We do
not have blighted communities in Charlottesville. It is not an empty lot; it is a natural
forested area. She said she cannot support this project.
Dr. Brown said Council should have good reason for going against the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and he does not see good reason to do so.
He said mixed schools are important to the success of our school system. Mr. Porter was
correct that we need to find ways to have affordable housing in our entire city, not just
concentrated in one area.
Mr. Huja said in keeping with Dr. Brown, he is not opposed to development, but
the quality of development has been reduced, and situating affordable housing in this
location is too much of a burden.
Ms. Szakos said she sees reasons to support it. Everyone wants affordable
housing until it is about to be built. When we made a long-term plan for our city, we
planned for more density near areas within walking distance of downtown and major
employers, and this is what density looks like. It is bringing in both kinds of housing, so
it keeps the ratio relatively similar. She said she is concerned that it would bring a lot of
students to Clark Elementary. This is the very kind of project we should be looking for,
and she said she is disappointed to see it getting less than full support.
Mr. Norris said he agrees that we should step up our efforts to support affordable
housing. He was outraged at some of the comments Council received by email and the
characterizations about affordable housing. He said he supports this project based on the
need for affordable housing and thinks the Planning Commission made a good point
about the inferiority of the design. Council should hold off on final approval of the
design in order to work with the neighborhood, but it sounds like this is a moot point at
this time.
Ms. Szakos asked Mr. Armstrong to comment. Mr. Armstrong said they would
have to go to the BAR with any approval if they moved forward. There is a significant
amount of design work left to do, and they are open to comments as they go through the
BAR process.
On motion by Dr. Brown, seconded by Ms. Edwards, Council voted to uphold the
Planning Commission’s denial of the project. (Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Edwards, Mr.
Huja; Noes: Ms. Szakos, Mr. Norris.)
Mr. Brown said changes to the land sales contract would now be inconsistent with
the rezoning and should not be voted on tonight.
Ms. Szakos encouraged developers in the city to think creatively about other ways
to do projects like this around the downtown area.
Mr. Tolbert presented to Council on the proposed changes to the code. Ms.
Szakos thanked staff for working with the folks who are affected by this. Mr. Tolbert
said receiving input from community members was very helpful.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ludwig Kuttner, Central Place owner, thanked Mr. Tolbert for his work. He
said he was here in 1984 when the issue of outdoor seating arose. It was very important
for us to have outdoor seating at that time, and he is sad to see that it may now be getting
Having no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Tolbert said one Council cannot grant public property forever. Mr. Huja
asked if Zocalo would have to go back to 800 square feet if it leased to another owner.
Mr. Tolbert said yes. Mr. Norris said there is nothing that prohibits property owners from
sitting down to negotiate with other property owners. Mr. Tolbert confirmed that and
added that there is an option for negotiating shared space as well.
On motion by Ms. Szakos, seconded by Dr. Brown, the motion was carried
forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Mueller reported to Council. Staff took questions to the City Manager and
tried to form a matrix of responses. There were some discrepancies. For example, the
“permanently disturbed areas” figure of eight and a half acres was for the dam only. That
is why the number is now larger. It is difficult to reduce a situation this complex to a
matrix of numbers.
Mr. Norris said there were three acres in the footprint of the concrete dam. He
asked if that included the existing footprint of the dam. Ms. Lauren Hildebrand said the
figure represents the additional impact and does not include the existing dam. It does
include the dam access road and the spillway. The staging area is accounted for in the
second item.
Ms. Szakos asked if this was a permanently disturbed area. Staging seems
temporary. She asked which one would be the most disruptive short term and long term.
Ms Hildebrand said they could not answer that question at this time.
Dr. Brown asked if there was a difference in storage capacity. There are 110
million gallons more of storage in the earthen dam, but that is a fairly minor difference.
Mr. Norris said an earthen dam will have a much bigger impact in terms of environmental
damage and the length of stream impacted. The impact on the reservoir is equal, but the
impact of the dams themselves is large. On a preliminary cost basis, the earthen dam will
also be more expensive. Mr. Norris said he would approve a motion for a 30’ concrete
dam tonight.
Dr. Brown said a concrete dam could throw a wrench in healthy negotiations with
the county. We should dovetail what we have already spent on a design with what the
county has spent. He said in comparing the two options, they are essentially equal.
Consultants have expressed some concern with building on the existing dam, and he
supports Council moving forward with the earthen dam.
Ms. Edwards said she has no interest in the earthen dam and hoped that we would
build on what we have currently.
Mr. Huja said he supports the earthen dam because rather than build on a 30 year
old dam with questionable integrity, he would rather build a new one for the same
amount of money.
Ms. Szakos said she wants to support the concrete dam because it is a smaller
project and is disturbing less land. There is information she was hoping to get this
evening that Council does not have. She said she did not think safety was an issue, but
she is concerned that the City would be expected to pay for engineering. She would
support this if it were part of the cost sharing. This is an RWSA project, and they should
pay for the engineering. She said she is very frustrated with this whole process, as
slanted and incomplete data has been provided. The cost between the two are essentially
Mr. Huja said it is difficult to take a risk on the old dam, especially when three
experts have voiced concerns. Mr. Norris said cost is not a wash. Mr. Zaminsky
addressed the issues of safety and risk adequately. The county wants to lock in a dam
height, and they are less interested in the type of dam. Costs incurred by all parties for
designs should be lumped into one pot and shared.
Dr. Brown asked how the cost of the dam itself would be share. Ms. Mueller said
there will be a cost share allocation with either of the two dams, but we are not far
enough in the agreement to provide exact figures.
Ms. Szakos said she wants to make sure the idea of dredging is not forgotten in
this mix. The reservoir is an asset that has been neglected by the Rivanna Authority and
has been allowed to silt in. If we draw a line at the concrete dam, then we may not get
Ms. Mueller said staff can put anything in the cost allocation that Council directs
us to. Ms. Edwards said she is not comfortable voting on a 30’ dam because she is not
convinced we have good numbers on the demand analysis.
On motion by Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Huja, Council voted to move forward
with an earthen dam. (Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Huja, Ms. Szakos; Noes: Ms. Edwards, Mr.
459 LOCUST AVE. (carried)
Mr. Watts presented to Council on the item, which approves the agreement with
CEDA. Staff believes this development has the least impact on the surrounding
Mr. Huja asked how many jobs this would involve. Mr. Watts said there are
about 400 jobs related to the lead tenant. There will be substantially more with other
tenants there.
On motion by Mr. Huja, seconded by Dr. Brown, the motion carried unanimously.
(Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Huja, Ms. Szakos, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Norris; Noes: None.)
Ms. Jeanette Janiczek presented to Council on the Hillsdale Design efforts to date.
She described the process and citizen involvement. Concerns regarding Michie Dr. are
currently being addressed by our traffic engineer, as well as interest in on-road bike lanes,
which was submitted to the Bike/Pedestrian steering committee, who recommended
adding “sharrows” to the lane and continuing bike lanes down to Greenbrier. They are
seeking approval of the resolution regarding major design features.
Mr. Huja asked if there are now bike lanes. Ms. Janiczek said staff has explored
that, and while it is possible, the steering committee reviewed the matrix and saw the
shared use path was more conducive to this location. Dr. Brown said the shared use path
is the best choice for this space and the low speed of the roadway. Mr. Huja asked if there
were street trees. Ms. Janiczek said yes, but not on both sides.
Mr. Rich Butala of McCormick Taylor was also present to answer questions. Ms.
Szakos asked about redirecting traffic from Michie Rd. Mr. Jones asked for a draft
landscaping plan. Mr. Norris asked if there were other ideas for making this safer other
than changing access at Michie Dr. Ms. Janiczek said studies show a signal would not be
warranted at this location, but closing it off to left hand turns could be a viable option.
Mr. Norris said staff must do something about that intersection. Mr. Jones said our traffic
engineer is trying to find options for us.
On motion by Ms. Szakos, seconded by Ms. Edwards, the motion passed
unanimously. (Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Norris, Ms. Szakos, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Huja.
Noes: None.)
Mr. Tolbert reported to Council on the east side of the Belmont Bridge sidewalk.
He detailed the steps staff has taken since the fall of 2010 and reviewed cost estimates for
repair options. Staff recommended fencing the sidewalk off more permanently than it is
now, improving the crosswalk on the south side of the bridge and more permanently
mounting the signs.
Mr. Huja said a chain link fence is not acceptable for a primary entrance to
downtown Charlottesville. He asked staff to research a more attractive metal fence. He
asked why the City’s Public Works crews could not fix the sidewalk. Mr. Tolbert said
this sidewalk is more complex than normal and requires a contractor’s expertise.
Dr. Brown recommended staff work with Mr. Huja and Ms. Szakos to see if there
are more realistic solutions. Mr. Norris asked Council if they still support fencing over
funding a repair. Council confirmed that they do. Mr. Tolbert will arrange for a
discussion. Ms. Szakos agreed that neither a chain link fence nor bollards are acceptable
solutions. Dr. Brown said a chain link fence seems like the only viable option.
Mr. Tolbert presented to Council. Mr. Norris said he is trying to get us out of the
yearly debate about what the report means. He wants Council to determine what will
become the guiding interpretation going forward.
Ms. Szakos said the intent of the recommendation clearly does not include
CDBG/HOME funds. Mr. Tolbert said that is their desire. Dr. Brown said council has a
broader focus than the HAC. He said Council should not go with their recommendation,
but support what we did before, leaving it at $1 million and using HOME funds with the
idea that we may find ways to enhance the budget for it depending on the year. We
should have as much flexibility as we can because of state and federal budgets.
Ms. Edwards said the CDBG and HOME funds need to be separate because of
federal reporting guidelines. The CDBG fund is special money. She asked Mr. Tolbert if
we have a Section Three policy, and he said yes. Ms. Edwards said that is important to
implement because federal funds come from HUD and should stay separate. Comingling
that money sets us up for not using the funds as creatively as we could. She asked if we
provide the CDBG task force with training on federal guidelines. Mr. Tolbert said we are
following the law, and staff reviews guidelines with the task force every year. Ms.
Edwards said if funds have to be allocated through a separate process, they should be
kept in separate places. Ms. Edwards said Council should fund the $1.4 million, but it
should not include CDBG and HOME funds.
Mr. Huja said he wants us to use housing funds more effectively. Ms. Szakos said
she would like to see us leverage what we have and mirror CDBG policy with local
funds. Ms. Edwards said this is an opportunity to revisit housing and CDBG guidelines.
We should be sure we are as creative as we can be with the funds we have available.
Council agreed to take the required funding to implement the 2025 housing report from
the general fund.
Ms. Rebecca Quinn, 104 4th St., said she is disappointed with the vote for an
earthen dam. The concrete dam is safe to build on. Dredging is still important, and in
combination with a new demand analysis, we will not need that much water.
Ms. Betty Mooney, Sunset Ave., said she is disappointed because Council's
decision ignores the facts. We need a new demand analysis and a public hearing on the
cost share. It should be a transparent process. She asked Council to get a cost sharing
agreement on dredging signed before signing any other agreements.
Mr. Peter Kleeman, 407 Hedge St., said he was disappointed that the idea of
abandoning the pedestrian walk on the bridge could go on for many years. He said
Council should invest the money that would have been spent rehabilitating the sidewalk
in other sidewalk activities in the community. He asked council to reconsider placing
wayfinding signage in a manner that would better accommodate pedestrians. He said he
is worried about people using baby strollers and walkers. The fence on Belmont Bridge
could only block the ends; it does not have to run the entire length of the bridge.
Mr. Richard Lloyd, 1825 Locust Shade Ct., said Council got nothing for their
decision tonight. The City needs to spend money elsewhere.
The meeting was adjourned.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech