2006-08-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 Mr. Norris said he thinks workforce development should be the top priority, as that is the most promising strategy for eliminating poverty. He said he would like to target more money toward that goal. Mr. Norris said he thinks expansion of the summer youth program would be a good candidate for funding. Mr. Lynch said he thinks we should keep the funding for priority neighborhoods with the Housing Authority as they have made a lot of progress in the neighborhoods. Regarding funding for Weed and Seed, Mr. O’Connell said that if CDBG funds are no longer used for the Director’s salary, that money would likely have to come out of other departmental budgets. Mr. Lynch said that if the City provided funding, Weed and Seed would be brought into the budget review process. Mr. Norris said that Weed and Seed is a little different and is considered an arm of City government. Mr. O’Connell noted that it has its own board and funding stream, and the City acts as the fiscal agent. It was agreed that a decision on Weed and Seed would be deferred until more information is provided to Council. On motion by Mr. Norris, seconded by Mr. Taliaferro, Council voted (Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Norris, Mr. Taliaferro. Noes: None. Absent: Ms. Hamilton) to maintain the same priority listing, with workforce development being given top priority; to designate the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority to receive the target neighborhood funding; and to provide 15% of funds for social programs. REPORT : PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEASIBILITY STUDY Mr. Mike Svetz, Director of Parks and Recreation, gave an update on decision points made by Council at their February 2006 work session, including city-wide upgrades, trail development, Forest Hills Park, and Meade Park/Onesty Pool. Mr. Leon Younger of Pros Consulting reviewed the new program development and facility priority rankings and gave a review of the indoor and outdoor aquatic facility issues. He showed the attendance and operating costs for the various centers. He said that only two of the current recreation facilities recover more than 50% of their operating costs (Carver and Washington Park Pool). Mr. Younger gave the advantages of a city- wide recreation center model: ability to service entire City; one stop shopping for total indoor recreation experience; cost per experience is lower than neighborhood model due to economies of scale; more efficient and cost effective to house programs and staff in one facility; capable of serving multiple programs and groups at the same time that meet desired needs; and citizens take pride in the “community” or “city” facility. Mr. Younger said that capital funding options for a center include: revenue bonds; general obligation bonds; Charlottesville Industrial Development or similar entity for recreation facilities; increase in meals tax with dedicated portion for parks and recreation facility development; and capital fundraising campaign. Mr. Taliaferro said that while the city wide recreation center model sounds like a good idea, he questioned, based on the model, if people in some neighborhoods will really participate. He asked what cities have used this model. Mr. Younger said Virginia Beach has a city wide modeled and that is being moved to by Roanoke and Roanoke County. Mr. Svetz said localities in Northern Virginia are using this model. Mr. Lynch said his concern is that we have not paid enough attention to programming at existing facilities.