8/16/2002 4:22:47 PM
8/16/2002 2:36:53 PM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
260 <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he feels the wording of both resolutions is far superior to the <br />original resolution, conciliatory in tone with the promise of serious negotiation. Ivlr. Cox <br />said he feels it is time to start fresh and return to the negotiating table. Mr. Cox said he <br />feels comfortable supporting Resolution "B." <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she hopes the end of the reversion effort ,,viii introduce a new <br />era. Ms. Richards said she agrees that the Council should be more aggressive working <br />with the County, not by court order, but because it makes sense, and through finding of <br />common ground. Ms. Richards said that reversion has been studied for a long time and <br />the question is: is it ir, the best interest of the City, schools, finances, and will it result in <br />more efficient services. Ms. Richards noted that the City has commissioned studies of <br />voting districts, schools and finances (Muller report) relating to reversion. Ms. Richards <br />said one of the misconceptions of reversion is that it would result in broad-based <br />consolidation, when in fact the only mandated consolidation would be in constitutional <br />officers, courts, and social services. Any others would be done by voluntary agreement. <br />Ms. Richards said that court-ordered reversion is a very limited vehicle for consolidation. <br />Ms. Richards said that practical issues and concerns about reversion for her include: the <br />County would determine voting districts; taxes; the risk of losing self-determination with <br />transportation funds; possible staffing reductions in the Commonwealth's Attorney office; <br />possible reduction in public assistance; and loss of autonomy. Ms. Richards said the case <br />has never been made that reversion is in the best interest of the City. Commenting on the <br />process, Ms. Richards said that Council has a long history of public discussions, <br />presentations, meetings between the Council and the Board of Supervisors, work <br />sessions, a reversion telephone "hot-line," call-in and public hearings, survey in "City <br />Notes," presentations to civic organizations, and roundtables. Ms. Richards said she <br />believes Council has had a long history of dialogue and oPen diScussion of reversion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he thinks it is great that Council can be all together at the end of <br />this process. Mr. Toscano said he believes Council has been committed to exploring <br />reversion and rrMdng it a public process. Mr. Toscano said that Council has been in <br />agreement about the need to seek more agreements with Albemarle County. Mr. Toscano <br />noted that Council took action to address the City's financial situation, including getting <br />the budget in order and expenditures under control, increasing tax revenues, and <br />diversifying housing stock. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he feels it is important to focus on the future and to remember that <br />over 3,000 residents signed the reversion petition, who were interested in finding some <br />common ground with Albemarle County, M_r. Cox said that schools may be a difficult <br />place to start and suggested that some easy steps be identified first. Mr. Cox said he has <br />been reassured, looking at other communities who have struggled to fred common <br />ground, that he would like to work toward that. Mr. Cox said he would like to get a <br />series of meetings going with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cox said that if the excuse <br />not to meet was that there was a pending lawsuit, there is no longer a lawsuit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said the ne~ step after adopting the resolution will be to contact <br />the Board of Supervisors. <br /> <br /> Resolution "B," endorsing voluntary dismissal of the reversion litigation, was <br />approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. <br />Richards, Mr. Toscano. Noes: None. <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, more than 3 years ago, in l'4ovember of t996, citizens ofthe City <br />filed a petition in the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville stating that it was <br />desirable that the City make a transition to town status; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, both the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle were <br />made party defendants to that law suit; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the petition began a process established by the Virginia General <br />Assembly which, if carried to its end, can conclude with a transition or "reversion" to <br />town status by the City; and <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.