Laserfiche WebLink
37 <br /> <br />to control traffic for the football games. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she would support the <br />appropriation in the spirit of furthering cooperation with <br />the University, and noted that negotiations with the <br />University are underway regarding reimbursement for fire <br />service. <br /> <br /> The $15,000 appropriation for police and traffic <br />overtime which was offered at the September 4th meeting was <br />approved by the following vote. Ayes: Rev. Edwards,.Ms. <br />Slaughter, Mr. Toscano, Ms. Waters. Noes: Mr. Vandever <br /> <br /> BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of <br />Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $15,000 is hereby <br />appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General <br />Fund to the following expenditure accounts: <br /> <br /> 05-270-041030-51110 $10,000 Police Patrol <br /> 05-186-045010-51110 $ 5,000 Traffic Engineering <br /> <br /> This appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of ~7,500 <br /> in revenue from the University of Virginia. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: $3,866 - LITTER CONTROL GRANT <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix explained that the State provided the grant <br />which would be used by the Charlottesville Albemarle Clean <br />Community Commission for recycling and litter control <br />projects. <br /> <br /> On motion by Ms. Waters, seconded by Ms. Slaughter, the <br />$3,866 appropriation of the Litter Control Grant was offered <br />and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: APPROVING ART FOR CITY HALL ANNEX <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix explained that 1% of the cost of <br />construction of the. City Hall Annex has been set aside for <br />public art and the Urban Design Committee has recommended art <br />for the northwest corner of the building. Mr. Hendrix <br />continued that it had been determined that the art was <br />subject to review by the Downtown Board of Architectural <br />Review since it was proposed to be on the outside of the <br />building and the DBAR has recommended against approval of the <br />art because they felt it was not compatible with the <br />building. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters made a motion to approve the art as <br />recommended by the Urban Design Committee, Ms. Slaughter <br />seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter noted that a process by which public art <br />selections are made is in place and art proposals have been <br />solicited twice for this location. Ms. Slaughter stated that <br />she felt the proposed art will be an enhancement to the Annex <br />building. Ms. Slaughter suggested that Council consider <br />appointing a separate art committee which would focus only on <br />public art. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters agreed that the process for selection of <br />public art has been a learning experience, but noted concern <br />with developing too many advisory committees.~and pointed out <br />that Council had recently disbanded the art committee and <br />designated the Urban Design Committee as responsible for <br />recommending public art. Ms. Waters recommended that an <br />explanation of the mural be available in the Annex for the <br />public. <br /> <br /> Mr.~ Toscano stated that ~he supported the proposed art <br />and felt that the artist went to great lengths to accommodate <br />all parties involved. Mr. Toscano~recommended that Council <br /> <br /> <br />