1986-12-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Chamber - December 15, 1986 Council met in regular session on this date with the following members present: Mr. Barnes, Mr. Buck, Mrs. Gleason, Dr. Hall, Mr. Towe. MINUTES On motion by Mrs. Gleason, seconded by Mr. Barnes, the minutes of November 6th were unanimously approved as presented. On motion by Mr. Towe, seconded by Mrs. Gleason, the minutes of November 12th were approved as presented, with Mr. Barnes and Dr. Hall abstaining. On motion by Mr. Towe, seconded by Dr. Hall, the minutes of November i5th were unanimously approved as presented. On motion by Mrs. Gleason, seconded by Mr. Barnes, the minutes of November 17th were unanimously approved as presented. On motion by Dr. Hall, seconded by Mr. Barnes, the minutes of November 24th were unanimously approved as presented. PUBLIC Mr. David Toscano, Vice-Chairman of the Social Development Commission, stated that the Social Development Commission had passed a resolution requesting that the City divest from companies doing business in South Africa. Mr. Toscano stated that there had been some confUsion'concerning the benefits to retirees and noted that divestment would not affect retirees' benefits. Mr. Barnes stated that the retirement plan was a defined plan and divestment would not affect benefits, though increases in the future could depend on the performance of investments which could be affected by divestment. Mr. Buck stated that while impacts would not affect the amount a retiree would receive, it could affect the amount of the City's contribution to the plan if the return on investments is lower. A public hearing on South African divestment was scheduled for January 20th. Mro Towe requested information about other cities who have total divestment policies. Mr. Toscano noted that the Social Development Commission resolution only recommended divesting from firms doing buSiness in South Africa at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REPEALING CITY'S HOUSING CODE AND ADOPTING NEW STATE CODE Mr. Wiley, City Attorney, stated that effective October, 1986 the State adopted a new Housing Code which pre-empted Charlottesville,s Housing Code and which the City is legally obligated to adopt. Mr. Wiley stated that there is very little substantive difference, though the provisions concerning maintenance of yards and debris were not covered but was felt to be sufficiently covered in other sections of Charlottesville's City Code. The new Housing Code will no longer recognize the local Housing Board of Adjustment of Appeals, but instead will allow appeals to a State board. Mr. Wiley noted that one advantage to the new Housing Code