Laserfiche WebLink
187 <br /> <br />of the proposed creation of a new state agency for long-term <br />care services, nor any alternatives evaluated such as <br />absorption of all long-term care services within an existing <br />agency, nor any analysis of whether the cost of a new state <br />agency would redirect scarce dollars away from services at the <br />local level; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, there is already good collaboration and <br />coordination among aging and long-term care services in the <br />Charlottesville area, and the plan presents no substantial <br />evidence that the existing system of long-term and aging care <br />has failed to provide adequate service or could not be <br />conservatively modified to enhance the services currently <br />provided~ and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the plan is not specific about changes to and <br />effects on the local service delivery system, but has the <br />potential to shift costs and administrative responsibility to <br />local government, representing a new unfunded mandate, <br />possibly with adverse effects on services to citizens; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, current experience with implementation of <br />consolidated youth and family services under the Comprehensive <br />Services Act shows that significant costs and administrative <br />responsibility have been shifted to the local level in spite <br />of assurances that this was not intended; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the impending changes to the health care system <br />at the national level may make the proposed plan premature; <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlottesville <br />City Council hereby opposes the proposed changes to the <br />long-term care system until there is further and considered <br />study of the issue, particularly whether such changes would <br />adversely affect local governments and their citizens, whether <br />any significant efficiency or cost savings would be achieved, <br />and whether there are less costly alternatives which would <br />produce the same or better results. <br /> <br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be <br />forwarded to each member of the Joint Commission on Health <br />Care, to Charlottesville,s representatives in the General <br />Assembly, and to the Governor. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: REZONING 501 GROVE AVENUE FROM R-2 TO B-1 <br />(2nd reading) <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards expressed concern about the different <br />neighborhood associations involved in the issue, the Martha <br />Jefferson Hospital study which called for the property in <br />question to become office use and the possible exposure of the <br />City if the rezoning is denied. Rev. Edwards stated that he <br />would support the Grove Avenue Neighborhood Association in <br />their position and the rezoning of the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he would vote against the <br />rezoning primarily because of the principle that the Land Use <br />Plan and zoning are tools for the City and should not be used <br />for land speculation and the Council should retain flexibility <br />in such decisions. <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND <br />REENACTING THE DISTRICT MAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 34-15 OF <br />THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF <br />CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED, BY THE REZONING OF CERTAIN <br />PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501 GROVE AVENUE," which was offered at <br />the January 3rd meeting, was approved by the following vote. <br />Ayes: Ms. Daugherty, Rev. Edwards, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. <br />Toscano. Noes: Mr. Vandever. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER <br />AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN FOR FIVE PROPERTIES ON GROVE AVENUE <br /> <br /> <br />