Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br /> Mr. Cox expressed concern about rewriting the rules the day before the hearing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling noted that the motion would still have passed even if Mr. Lynch was <br />at the meeting. Mr. Schilling noted that earlier in the meeting he made a motion to defer <br />the BAR appeal until Mr. Lynch could be present, but Mr. Cox did not support that <br />motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards noted that Council supported both things Mr. Lynch want ed to do at <br />the last meeting. Ms. Richards made a motion that transferring land to the State as an <br />easement for the Meadowcreek Parkway be put on an agenda in November, and asked the <br />City Attorney's office for a full reading on the legalities of doing thi s. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he agreed and seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if this would be done in open or closed session. <br /> <br /> Ms. Kelley said that the City Attorney's office can make a recommendation about <br />this, but she thinks most can be done in open sess ion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said Council needs to know the appropriate instrument to do this. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she would like an opinion on the doability of this and <br />information on the full extent of the law to transfer land via an easement and a full <br />descripti on of the legal grounding for doing so. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked why Ms. Richards wants specific language to that effect. He said <br />he would prefer to entertain all options including direct sale of the land. He asked for <br />information on every alternative. <br /> <br /> Ms. Kell ey said that the Attorney General has indicated that land may be <br />conveyed via an easement and therefore it is a lawful way to convey the land. She said <br />some side issues are unclear such as the impact on funding for the project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards motion to co nsider conveying the land for the Meadowcreek <br />Parkway via easement at a November meeting was approved by the following vote. <br />Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox. Absent: Mr. Lynch. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati made a motion to approve th e statement to VDOT as amended. Ms. <br />Richards seconded the motion and it was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. <br />Caravati, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox. Absent: Mr. Lynch. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that City has very clearly been request ed to target its top five <br />highway priorities for its presentation to the CTB, and she asked that Council try to be <br />more focused in its request in the future. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION <br />: SPCA CONTRACT <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he disagrees with the amount the City is being ask ed to support <br />for capital expenses for the SPCA and he will not vote to support the contract. He said <br />the City and County are asked to support the new building equally but the City is only <br />being asked to support one third of the operating expenses based o n usage. He said he <br />will only support the City funding 1/3 of the capital costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he concurs given the services provided and said he sees no <br />justification for the City spending that amount. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he can support the contract an d asked if this has to be voted on <br />tonight because there may be another split vote. <br /> <br /> Ms. Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager, said this matter does not have to be <br />voted on tonight. <br /> <br />