|
261
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the filing of this petition was preceded by 12 months or more of
<br />debate, study, and thoughtful discussions by and among community leaders, civic
<br />organizations such as the League of Women Voters, this Council, and the Board of
<br />Supervisors of Albemarle County, by a number of public meetings and forums on the
<br />benefits and disadvantages that Reversion might bring to our community, and by lengthy
<br />negotiations between the Council and the Board of Supervisors in an effort to reach a
<br />Voluntary Settlement in lieu of Reversion; and
<br />
<br /> WltEREAS, such discussions, meetings, negotiations, and debate continued off
<br />and on for 18 months or more after the Reversion petition was filed; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, between July of 1997 and June of 1999 the legal process has seen
<br />the Reversion case dismissed by the three judge trial court, appealed to the Virginia
<br />Supreme Cot~ by both the City and the citizen petitioners, and then reinstated and
<br />remanded (or sent back) to the trial court; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the case as remanded is about to begin anew the validation
<br />proceeding with respect to signatures on the Petition; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, during the 5 years or more that have elapsed since Reversion first
<br />became a serious point of discussion for Charlottesville and Albemarle, City Council has
<br />not taken a formal position favoring or opposing Reversion; and
<br />
<br /> WHEPdgAS, du~ag this same 5 year period, the overall health of the City has
<br />come under close scrutiny by Council and the City Manager and together they have
<br />implemented certain changes designed to improve the long term vitality of the City,
<br />including (a) adoption of a new housing strategy, (b) renewed focus on economic
<br />development, and particularl,y redevelopment, and (c) refinement of cost controls in order
<br />to retain the City's strong f'mancial position and its highest possible (AAA) Municipal
<br />Bond Rating; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, favorable federal, state, and local economies have contributed to
<br />the City's success in improving its fmancial position, as was exhibited by the City's
<br />successive budget surpluses over the last 4 years; and
<br />
<br /> WHEI~AS, consideration of Reversion during these 5 years has had its
<br />beneficial effects, the disadvantages have been twofold: (1) the significant intangible, but
<br />very real, adverse influence the process has imposed on City-County relations, and (2)
<br />actual costs to the community (almost $300,000 for the City alone); and
<br />
<br /> WltEPdgAS, this Council concludes that at this time under the current
<br />circumstances Reversion to town status is not the right solution to the challenges facing
<br />our City and this community; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, in light of our judgment that we must do everything that we can to
<br />foster a sense of community, trust, and enhanced dialogue between the City and County,
<br />we think that both Charlottesville and Albemarle will be better served if the current
<br />litigation were ended now; and
<br />
<br /> ~VItEREAS, putting the Reversion litigation behind us will promote the type of
<br />joint effort between our two local governments that our community expects - indeed,
<br />must have - if the mutual and regional challenges we face are going to be solved; and
<br />
<br /> ~P~AS, the list of current and potential joint efforts that we will seek and
<br />that should benefit bom any improved City-County relations is lengthy and includes, but
<br />is not limited to, the following: A long term cooperative Fire services Agreement,
<br />
<br />Formation of a joint working group or commission on school excellence
<br /> through combined efforts,
<br />
<br />· An improved cooperative, joint planning process, particularly for the urban
<br />
<br />
<br />
|