Laserfiche WebLink
232 <br /> <br />in giving the public an opportunity to comment on the matter. <br />Mr. Vandever seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he would be interested in <br />helping the Little League if possible and would like to <br />encourage continued community support for the League. .Mr. <br />Vandever questioned the validity of the first amendment <br />argument because of the commercial advertising allowed on <br />City buses and at the Pen Park golf course. Mr. Vandever <br />also referred to the City's policy of allowing banners across <br />streets. Mr. Vandever stated that he felt the fourteenth <br />amendment argument could be addressed by designating specific <br />locations where signs could be located. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt the issues involved were <br />the desire to support the Little League versus the legal <br />arguments and visual clutter that could result. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman stated that the City cannot control the <br />content of the banners, though they are restricted to <br />non-profit organizations and events, and should not be able <br />to control the content of the signs on the buses. <br /> <br /> Ms. waters questioned where the line could be fairly <br />drawn and whether other youth sports were not as worthy as <br />Little Leagues. Ms. Waters also noted concern with the <br />placement of signs in the public parks. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe recommended that all Little Leagues in the City <br />be allowed to receive income from commercial signs and that <br />the signs be restricted to fences of the ball parks. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever, Mr. Humphrey <br />stated that the signs are normally approximately 3 feet by <br />4 feet in size. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he felt youth involvement in <br />Little Leagues helped prevent drug use. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he was troubled by the fact that <br />the City has invested so much in the parks and that their <br />natural beauty would be damaged by commercialization. Mr. <br />Buck stated that he felt the issue of support for children <br />was being confused with what would be done to the <br />environment. Mr. Buck stated that he would prefer to <br />consider making a direct appropriation to the Little League. <br /> <br /> The matter was referred to the Planning Commission by <br />the following vote. Ayes: Rev. Edwards, Mr. Towe, Mr. <br />Vandever. Noes: Mr. Buck and Ms. Waters. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: $5,600 - INDEPENDENT LIVING GRANT (2nd reading) <br /> <br /> The ~5,600 appropriation of the Independent Living Grant <br />which was offered at the November 7th meeting was approved by <br />the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Buck, Rev. Edwards, Mr. Towe, <br />Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: None. <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Social Services has <br />allocated $5,600 to the Charlottesville Department of Social <br />Services, representing a grant from the United States <br />Department of Health and Human Services Independent Living <br />Initiatives Program; now, therefore <br /> <br /> BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of <br />Charlottesville, Virginia that $5,600 is hereby appropriated <br />to the Social Services Fund, account number 12-161-062279, to <br />be used by the Charlottesville Department of Social Services <br />on behalf of itself and the Social Services Departments of <br />Albemarle and Greene Counties, in the Tri-Area Foster <br />Families Program, to continue the "Bridge Families" model <br />program directed at services for older foster children. This <br />appropriation shall be conditioned upon receipt of ~5,600 <br /> <br /> <br />