1997-06-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

35 the form of local government structure, and related alternatives. An executive session on this subject is also authorized by Section 15.1-945.7(D) of the Virginia Code. Council reconvened in open session and, on motion by Ms. Richards, seconded by Mr. Cox, certified that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Council. The~eeting~was adjourned. President '" ~j COUNCIL CHAMBER - June 16, 1997 Council met in regular session on this date with the following members present: Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Mr. Toscano. Absent: Ms. Slaughter. PUBLIC Ms. Catherine Peaslee, 307-A Second Street, N.W. expressed concern about the cost to the town reversion petitioners which is approaching $15,000, the County's opposition to the petition and the Council's inaction on the issue, and the number of executive sessions held by Council on the issue. Ms. Peastee asked for answers to the following: 1) Why did Council keep secret until Mr. Vandever revealed it, the contents of the first Muller report on the prospects for city finances? 2)Why has Council not released the contents of Rs consultant% report about elections and representation if reversion ever happens? 3) What, exactly, are Council's alternative plans if it and the County kill reversion: and 4) Why does Council not seek public heatings and disinterested assistance from an impartial body like the Commission on Local Government. Ms. Nancy Hurrelbrimk, 1070 St. Clair Avenue, expressed concern about the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway and its impact on Ridge Street and taking of park land, and a number of persons in the audience stood in support of her comments. Ms. Hurrelbrink said she would rather the road not be built at all, bm if it is she would prefer that the design be altered so that it would have minimal impact. Ms. Hurrelbrink asked that the plan be put on hold so that the issue of taking of park land can be reviewed. M~. Richard Collins, asked that the City Attorney look to see if necessary environmental impact studies have been done and federal regulations have been followed with regard to using park land for the Meadowcreek Parkway. Mr. Collins expressed concern that the law had been avoided and exceptions made in the process. Ms. Mary MacNeal, 710 Ridge Street, expressed concerns about the Meadowcreek Parkway and asked that it be postponed and reconsidered to see if it still makes sense. Mr. Kenneth Jackson 208 5th Street, S.W., expressed concern about reversion and the fact that less than 10% of the population could bring the matter forward. Mr. Jackson said he feels citizens are willing to make changes to keep the City strong, and he applauded Council for going slowly on the matter. Mr. Jackson said he did not hear a response back about his concerns about the Neighborhood Protection Task Force, and while he did hear back from the Police, he feels the ratios for neighborhood coverage is wrong. Mr. Richard Merriwether, 106 Locust Lane Court, said that the reversion issue is complex and divisive, and asked Council to share any facts they may have and to hold a public forum.