My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-10-29
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2003
>
2003-10-29
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2004 10:10:19 AM
Creation date
10/12/2004 5:54:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
10/29/2003
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
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 images
View plain text
2 <br />? ? <br />Have a good structure <br />? ? <br />Know what we are trying to accomplish in advance/know where meeting is <br />going <br />? ? <br />How we are going to go about it <br />? ? <br />Here are discussion points <br />? ? <br />Work session move toward a comfort level in making a decision <br />? ? <br />Know where Coun cilors are or <br />? ? <br />We have to hear from public <br />? ? <br />While people should not feel compelled to make a decision, we should come <br />out with some sense of a consensus (get off fence) <br />? ? <br />Clarify time frame <br />? ? <br />Everybody agrees on next step <br /> <br /> Councilors prioritized their top five items for work sessions over the next several <br />months as follows: utility rate structure; transit forum follow - up, Jefferson School, <br />budget, and housing policies. <br /> <br />Councilors identified their priority items to be discussed in closed session. <br /> <br />The fo llowing questions were identified as needing to be answered for upcoming <br />work sessions on policy issues: What is the purpose of the discussion? What questions <br />need to be answered? Is there additional information that needs to be provided? Is there <br />a tim etable for discussion or resolution? <br /> <br />The goal of the work session on utility rates was identified as "come to a <br />consensus on rate structure." Questions raised by Councilors for a utility rate work <br />session were as follows: <br /> <br />? ? <br />Can we agree on a rate structur e that encourages conservation? Is fair? Is easy <br />to implement? Do we want to? <br />? ? <br />Can we develop a sufficient "non - rainy day fund" - a way to use a rate <br />stabilization fund to keep rates from bounding up and down? How to stabilize <br />rates? <br />? ? <br />Are there examples out there? <br />? ? <br />What is the best demand reduction model we can put in place? <br />? ? <br />How do these decisions affect partners (RWSA, ACSA, U.Va.)? <br />? ? <br />How do/do we want to change our utility rate report? <br />? ? <br />Options and how much they cost in a matrix so we can see relative financi al <br />impact/cost benefit? <br /> <br />It was noted that the current rate structure expires the end of January, 2004 so a <br />decision should be made by Council by the end of November in order to hold a public <br />hearing in December. <br /> <br />Questions identified for a transit forum w ork session were as follows: <br /> <br />? ? <br />How do you use the feasibility study that we got grant for to map out the <br />future? <br />? ? <br />Do we engage the University or County or go alone? <br />? ? <br />What is the extent of the priority transit alignment? <br />? ? <br />How do we pay for it? <br />? ? <br />What are our expe ctations of the system and how will it impact our <br />community? <br />? ? <br />When is it reasonable to project we reach our end goal? Schedule of <br />implementation? <br />? ? <br />Who has been most successful? What is analysis of that success? Can we <br />capitalize on their success? <br />? ? <br />Are ther e additional transit/vehicle options/types <br />? ? <br />Funding strategy for other successful rapid transit systems - federal, state, <br />taxes? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.