Laserfiche WebLink
364 <br /> <br />COMMUNICATION RE: <br />LOW-INCOME HOUSING <br />SUBSIDY <br /> <br />CAPITAL BUDGET <br /> <br />COUNCIL CHAMBER - JANUARY 9, 1974 <br /> <br /> THE COUNCIL MET IN SESSION ON THIS DATE WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. <br /> BARBOUR, MR. FIFE, MR. GILLIAM, MRS. RINEHART AND MR. VAN YAHRES. ABSENT: NONE. <br /> THIS SESSION WAS A CONTINUANCE FROM MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1974, TO TAKE UP THE CAPITAL <br /> IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET AND OTHER ITEMS. <br /> <br /> MR. EWERT RF~D A COMMUNICATION IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION FROM THE PLANNING COM- <br /> MISSION REGARDING PROVISIONS FOR SOCIAL & RECREATIONAL SERVICES FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING <br /> DEVELOPMENT TO THE COUNCIL. HE SAID THAT THE CITY STAFF WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE SPIRIT <br /> OF IT, HE ADDED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE STAFF WORK WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND <br /> ASK THE FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND POSSIBLY CONSIDER IT AS A <br /> DEMONSSTRATION PROJECT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCIL MEMBERS AS TO FURTHER <br /> CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN PARTS OF THE RESOLUTION. MRS. RINEHART ASKED THAT THE LAST <br /> SENTENCE, '' FURTHERMORE, THAT SIMILAR COMMUNITY AMENITIES BE PROVIDED FOR ALL PAST AND <br /> <br /> FUTURE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OF THIS TYPE'' BE STRICKEN. MR. FIFE AND MR. GILLIAM ASKED <br /> THAT THE PHRASE, '' FROM ITS OWN OR OUTSIDE RESOURCES,'' IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, SECOND <br /> LINE, BE ALSO STRICKEN. THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS ON <br /> MOTION BY MR. BARBOUR, SECONDED BY MR. VAN YAHRES~ <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, THE CHARLOTTESVILLE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY HAS DESIGNED, <br />WITH THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS THAT WERE <br />IMPOSING ON THEM, A GOOD BASIC PROJECT FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING TO BE LOCATED AT FIRST <br />STREET AND ELLIOTT AVENUE~ AND <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, THIS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A SUFFICIENTLY HIGH DENSITY, AND <br />LARGE SIZE, TO CREATE POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN ITS OPERATION AND TO MAKE IT <br />HIGHLY DESIRABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SOCIAL AND .RECREATIONAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES~ <br /> <br /> THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS THE STAFF AND REQUESTS THE CHARLOTTESVILLE <br />REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY TO LOOK FOR THE MEANS TO PROVIDE A SERIES OF COMMUNITY <br />AMENITIES ABOVE THE BASIC LEVEL OF ACTIVITIES ALREADY DESIGNED INTO THE PROJECT WITH THE <br />GOAL OF OBTAINING A HIGHLY LIVABLE RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE SOCIAL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED <br />RATHER THAN AGGRAVATED. <br /> <br /> THE FOLLOWING VOTE WAS RECORDED ON THE RESOLUTION: AYES: MR. BARBOUR, MR. FIFE, MR. <br /> GILLIAM, MRS. RINEHART AND MR. VAN YAHRES. NOES: NONE. <br /> <br /> MR. EWERT TOLD THE COUNCIL THAT THERE WAS A PROPOSED PROJECT INCOME FOR THE PERIOD <br /> JULY 1, 1972 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1978 OF $22,976,082 IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET. THE <br /> COST FOR THE SAME PERIOD AMOUNTED TO $22,911,810. <br /> <br /> MR. FIFE POINTED OUT THAT A LOT OF TPESE FIGURES WERE MERELY ESTIMATES AND WERE AS <br /> REFINED AS MUCH AS THEY COULD BE, AND EVEN IF COUNCIL DID TAKE ACTION THEY WOULD BE <br /> SUEJECT TO CHANGE. MR. FIFE ASKED HOW MUCH OF THE $22,976,082 HAD.ALREADY BEEN SPENT TO <br /> DATE. MR. EWERT REPLIED THAT AS OF DECEMBER 1, 1973, AN AMOUNT OF $4,449,543.53 HAD <br /> <br /> BEEN SPENT. HE SAID THAT A $6 MILLION BOND ISSUE WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT ABOUT $3 MILLION <br /> WORTH OF PROJECTS. HE READ A LIST OF PROJECTS WHICH THE CITY MANAGER WOULD RECOMMEND <br /> DELETED IF THE $6 MILLION BOND ISSUE WERE NOT PASSED: MAJOR PORTION OF PEN PARKI BOTH <br /> RECREATION CENTERS~ AIRPORT SOUTH TAXIWAY~ HEALTH DEPARTMENT ADDITION~ ONE HALF OF THE <br /> PUBLIC WORKS HEADQUARTERS~ MAKING A TOTAL OF $3,673,766. <br /> <br /> MRS. RINEHART STATED THAT SHE FELT THE COUNCIL SHOULD DISCUSS THE CITY'S PRIORITIES <br /> FIRST INSTEAD OF THE BOND ISSUE. THE COUNCIL GENERALLY DISCUSSED THE BOND ISSUE. <br /> <br /> MR. VAN YAPRES REPORTED THAT HE HAD ALREADY COMPUTED THE FIGURES FOR THE PROJECTS <br />THAT WERE UNDER CONTRACT OR WERE CONSTRUCTION AT THE PRESENT AND FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO <br />BACKING OUT. THE LIST WAS AS FOLLOWS~ JOINT SECURITY COMPLEX~ ARMORY~ MELBOURNE ROAD <br />AND PEN PARK (A FIGURE OF $516,000). MR. EWERT ADDED THAT AN AMOUNT OF $578,058.09 HAD <br />BEEN SPENT SO FAR ON THE PEN PARK PROJECT AND $115,000 HAD BEEN SPENT ON THE RECREATION <br />CENTERS, BUT ADDED THAT BOTH COULD BE STOPPED. MR. VAN YAHRES CONTINUED HIS LIST WITH: <br /> <br /> <br />