My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2004-01-05
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
2004-01-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2004 10:10:19 AM
Creation date
10/12/2004 7:37:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
1/5/2004
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
6 <br />required to follow the advertisement and bid procedures of Article 7, Section 9 prior to <br />conveying an easement for the road. Mr. Brown said that in his opinion the a nswer to <br />this question is no. Mr. Brown said that if Council authorizes the letter, the request will <br />be assigned to one section of the Attorney General's office, probably the local <br />government section, and this opinion will then be reviewed by the Attorney General. Mr. <br />Brown said he cannot give a time frame for receipt of the opinion and said it is dependent <br />on the number of requests for opinions made by the General Assembly which would take <br />priority. Mr. Brown said that after receiving the opinion, a det ermination of the value of <br />the property (following an assessment likely to take approximately 90 days) and <br />replacement parkland would need to be made. He said the Department of Transportation <br />will need to prepare a plat, and a public hearing will need to be held on any conveyance <br />prior to Council adopting an ordinance to convey the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he is intrigued that Mr. Brown did not cite a precedent for using an <br />easement for a road in a park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said he is not aware of any prior preced ent where this has been done, <br />and noted that the constitutional provision for a supermajority only applies to cities and <br />towns. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards noted that this section of the constitution is broad and also includes <br />streets and avenues. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati made a motion to authorize the City Attorney to forward the request <br />for an opinion of conveying land for the Meadowcreek Parkway via an easement to the <br />Attorney General and Mr. Schilling seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he has no doubt that Council shoul d and must solicit the opinion <br />of the Attorney General, adding that this is the primary method provided to local <br />governments. He said this spirit has been in existence for over 20 years and we are duty <br />bound to follow this tradition in law to have a open and transparent government. Mr. <br />Caravati said it is not a partisan issue, but one of good government. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he will give his time to Ms. Richards. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that she has been doing research since the last meeting on the <br />statutory duties of the Attorney General. She said the Attorney General's office has a <br />large full - time staff. She said there has been no Democratic Attorney General since <br />1993. She said that both Democratic and Republican legislators, judges, constitutional <br />offic ers, and local government officials have asked for opinions. She said that while <br />Democrats may object to the current Attorney General, there are career members of the <br />staff who will undoubtedly perform the study. Ms. Richards said she wants to <br />depolitici ze the position and is seeking the statutory right to obtain a legal analysis. She <br />said that when the issue of an easement came up in closed session, she did not hear <br />objections from any Councilors and she assumed they would welcome such a request. <br />Regar ding comments made about the City Attorney's opinion, Ms. Richards said that the <br />City Attorney has never tailor made legal opinions to the majority of Council and she is <br />confident that he has not done so in this case. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he is glad that Ms. R ichards has conducted so much research. He <br />said that part of the duties of the Attorney General's office is to be counsel to VDOT and <br />we are asking them to make an opinion when they represent them. Mr. Lynch said Mr. <br />Brown did an admirable job with the l etter to the Attorney General, but feels a better first <br />question would be is an easement an appropriate mechanism for transference of property <br />for a road, and he would like to see that asked. He said he would like to be clear about <br />what it would take for him to support the Meadowcreek Parkway and listed the <br />following: equivalent parkland; funding for the interchange; and a funding commitment <br />to a regional network, including the eastern connector and design of a southern parkway. <br />Mr. Lynch said he thinks an easement is a subterfuge to get around a reasonable <br />requirement. Mr. Lynch said the Meadowcreek Parkway in isolation will not solve the <br />problem. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.