Laserfiche WebLink
27'4 <br /> <br />Mr. Jay King recommended Council hold a work session to study <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: <br />DRAINAGE STUDY <br /> <br />the proposed changes. <br /> Mr. Buck suggested referring the noise ordinance study to the <br />Planning Commission as he felt it would tie in with the question of <br />density which the Planning Commission is presently studying. <br /> Mr. Conover moved recommending sending the proposed changes to <br /> <br />the noise ordinance to the Planning Commission for study, that a <br />report be received within 60 days, that input from the Chief of <br />Police, Commonwealth's Attorney and City Attorney be solicited, and <br />that the Interfraternity Council be notified of the~study. MrS. <br />Gleason seconded the'motion, and it Was unanimously approved by Council. <br /> Mr.. Hendrix stated that the Planning Commissio.n had studied and <br /> <br /> given their recommendations at a previous meeting. Mr.. Hendrix said <br /> that staff had generated the following questions after looking into <br /> the problem further. 1) What is the city's legal liability for solving <br /> the drainage problems? 2) Can ~all of the drainage problems be solved? <br /> 3) Should large amounts of money be spent on a few properties? 4) Who <br /> should be responsible for paying for the repairs? Mr. Hendrix recommended <br /> using $58,000 for a comprehensive study which would take approximately <br /> 4 - 6 months and would develoo a master drainage program. He further <br /> <br />recommended that work begin on the. Meade Avenue and Stonehenge projects <br /> <br />with the remaining $52,000. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question by Mrs. Gl'eason, Mr. Hendrix stated that <br />the County and University were willing to cooperate with the project, <br />but would not provide funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Conover questioned whether the City would have a legal respon- <br /> <br />sibility after first assuming responsibility. Mr. Wiley replied that, <br />in a sense, once a City-wide policy was established, it would be difficult <br /> <br />to exclude any particular project. <br /> Mr' Conover moved recommendation.of the draina.ge study and that work <br /> <br />be begun on Meade Avenue and Stonehenge. Mrs. Gleason seconded the <br /> <br />motion and it was unanimously'~approved by Council. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: <br />CAPITAL <br />IMPROVEMENTS <br /> <br /> Mr. Gary O'Connell, Assistant City Manager, recommended that Council <br />commit a percentage of the City's budget for capital improvement which <br />would allow a more long-term approach. The staff recommended that 3% <br /> <br />would be a conservative, but reali'stic amount. <br /> Mrs. Gleason moved the Resolution Expressing the Intent of Council <br />Regar'ding Planning and Budgeting for Capital Improvements. Dr. Gunter <br />seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by Council: <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, .the City Manager has presented to City Council a <br />memorandum and exhibits describing the operation of a process <br />to plan and budget for capital improvements on a multi-year basis; <br />and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, that proposed process includes a recommendation that <br />City Council agree in principle to commit three percent of future <br />annual General Fund revenues to be designated as revenues to the <br />Capital Improvements Fund; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, it appears that such a commitment wilt better enable <br />the City staff and City Planning Commission to plan for and <br />execute capital improvements; now, therefore, <br /> <br /> BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, <br />Virginia, that Council endorses the capital improvements planning <br />and budgeting process described in the City Manager's memorandum <br />of September 28, 1983, and attached exhibits and agrees in principle, <br />for fiscal planning purposes only, and not as a legal appropriation <br /> <br /> <br />