Laserfiche WebLink
stated that no funds are current allocated for undergrounding <br />and the only funds available are contingency funds in the six <br />year plan projects. Mr. McNabb noted that VDOT is also <br />considering changing the funding formula for highways which <br />currently requires only a 2% match by the City. Mr. McNabb <br />stated that a decision needs to be made about the <br />undergrounding by December 1 to avoid delays in the project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that while she has concerns about <br />using the contingency funds, she felt the City should move <br />ahead and approve the undergrounding since it is a small <br />project and is a major gateway into the City. Ms. Slaughter <br />added that she felt undergrounding the utilities would <br />enhance the neighborhood and would make a significant <br />difference in the design of the bridge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he would not favor using the <br />contingency funds unless it was for fundamental infra- <br />structure projects. Mr. Toscano made a motion not to <br />underground the utilities. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters seconded the motion for the purposes of <br />discussion, and stated that she felt a strong case could be <br />made for undergrounding the utilities. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever about <br />possible negative impacts to the Mt. Zion Baptist Church and <br />other buildings, Mr. McNabb stated that the proposal was to <br />place the utilities closer to the buildings, but they could <br />remain in their current location. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano's motion was defeated by the following vote. <br />Ayes: Mr. Toscano. Noes: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Vandever, Ms. <br />Waters. Abstaining: Rev. Edwards. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter made a motion to underground the utilities <br />using contingency funds in the six year highway plan. Ms. <br />Waters seconded the motion and it was approved by the <br />following vote. Ayes: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Vandever, Ms. <br />Waters. Noes: Mr. Toscano. Abstaining: Rev. Edwards. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, reviewed the previous <br />year's legislative package which contained both broadbased <br />goals and specific proposals, several of which were adopted <br />by the General Assembly. Mr. Gouldman stated that <br />suggestions for inclusion in this year~s package include: <br />opposition to Secretary of Transportation Milliken's funding <br />formula proposal; increased funding for social services; and <br />funding for education. Mr. Gouldman stated that he felt a <br />limited and selective package would be advisable. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she favored including funding <br />for education, recommending that such support to be done in <br />conjunction with the School Board, and would support some <br />form of beverage container bill, with proceeds returning to <br />localities. Ms. Slaughter agreed that it would be better to <br />focus on a limited number of issues. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters recommended including support of the <br />recordation tax and, as the highest priority, supported <br />conveying to the state that Charlottesville is seriously <br />feeling the effects of the state cutbacks, particularly in <br />the areas of social services and schools, and added that she <br />felt Council needed to commit to lobbying the General <br />Assembly in these areas. Ms. Waters stated that she hoped <br />the City will continue to have a legislative liaison through <br />the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. <br /> <br /> <br />