My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-03-21
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2005
>
2005-03-21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2005 3:07:26 PM
Creation date
8/24/2005 2:46:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
3/21/2005
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Mr. Blake Hurt, Albemarle County resident, asked for $10,000 for Art in Place. <br />He said Art in Place makes the area more interesting when traveling by car. He said the <br />idea of public art is to improve the quality of life. He said art produces a range of <br />opinions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kenneth Martin, 222 Lankford Avenue, said he has $9 million in proposed <br />expenditures that he would like Council to think about. He said the retirement increase <br />seems strange and asked what is going on. He said taxpayers cannot afford the salary <br />increases. He agreed with the police information and said he is ashamed of the <br />compensation for public safety employees. He asked why outside agencies should feel <br />entitled to a cost of living raise. He said the Council reserve is a slush fund. He asked <br />why taxpayers provide $15,000 for Virginia First Cities to go to tell the State to raise our <br />State taxes. He said he does not think the computer reserve is necessary and he does not <br />agree with providing $3 million for Jefferson School and said the money should be <br />withheld until we decide its future and who will own it. <br /> <br />Rev. Ralph Brown, 704 12th Street, N.W., spoke in support of the Police Chief. <br /> <br />As there were no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. <br /> <br />Dr. Brown said Council will hold a budget work session on Thursday. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked for clarification about whether the City has a policy that <br />prohibits employees from presenting comments on the budget, and Mr. Brown said there <br />is no policy prohibiting this. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he agrees that the taxes are a burden, but said we do have a <br />number of cots keeping employees beyond the consumer price index. He said the <br />increases are mostly in health and retirement. He said that contrary to comments made, <br />there is no proposal to cut the police budget. He said a 12% increase in the Police <br />Department's budget is being recommended, not the 20% increase they wanted. He said <br />he values public safety officers. He said he thinks City residents are getting good value <br />for their service. <br /> <br />RESOLUTIONS/APPROPRIATION: PROGRAMMING RESOLUTION FOR <br />MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN <br />VDOT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PHASE; $1.5 MILLION IN STATE FUNDS FOR <br />DESIGN; APPROVING LETTER TO VDOT <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services, explained that <br />Council has approved the RFP, the appropriation on first reading, and the composition of <br />the steering committee. He said the charge of the committee remains to be decided, and <br />Council needs to act on the programming resolution and authorizing the City Manager to <br />sign the agreement with VDOT for the City to manage the project. Also to be decided is <br />language in the letter to VDOT and whether it includes absolute conditions or conditions <br />that Council believes are essential but may not stop the project. Mr. Tolbert said it is his <br />understanding that the groups represented on the committee will recommend their <br />representative. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hamilton said that both of the issues before us, the programming resolution <br />for design of the grade separated interchange and the update of the letter to VDOT, are <br />extremely important. She said she feels the programming resolution must proceed as the <br />study will clear up speculations. She said it is essential to get information in the highest <br />level of detail and alternatives. She said concerns have been raised about the letter, <br />especially the fact that the County has not been consulted about it. She said she does not <br />think we have to proceed with both at the same time, and recommended that Council <br />proceed with the programming resolution and the steering committee and hold off on the <br />letter until Council meets with the Board of Supervisors. She suggested a slower <br />approach be taken on the letter. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.