Laserfiche WebLink
25 <br /> <br />which she said affects access to downtown Belmont and Belmont Park. Ms. Kaster said <br />that she understands that a rider survey was conducted, but the neighborhood does not <br />know the results. Ms. Kaster asked that staff confer with the neighborhood in the future. <br /> <br />OTHER BUSINESS <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell said that he has given Council a memorandum asking about their <br />priorities for the budget and asked that they return it to him when they have completed it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that MPO will be apprOving the TIP budget, and noted that it Still <br />reads as supporting a four-lane divided highway for the Meadowcreek Parkway. Mr. Cox <br />said he feels this and other areas should be talked about in the upcoming transportation <br />work session. Mr. Cox said Council may alSo want to revisit four-laning of Ivy Road. <br />Mr. Cox said he thinks Council should use the opportunity of the temporary closing Rio <br />Road, to occur next summer, to explore alternatives for Park Street and to study the <br />impact of the Rio Road closing on other neighborhoods. Mr. Cox said he feels more <br />money is needed for traffic calming and suggested using TIP funds. Mr. Cox said he <br />would like to see documentation showing when the Meadowcreek Parkway was <br />designated a state rather than a federal project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty noted that the City and County Planning Commissions will be <br />meeting to discuss the proposed development on 5th Street Extended. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is continuing to <br />monitor the area's water level and there may have to be some restriction on water use if it <br />does not rain. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by Mr. Caravati, Council unanimously <br />voted (Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Mr. Toscano. Noes: <br />None) to meet in executive session for the purpose of appointing members to various City <br />boards or agencies, as authorized by Section 2.1-344(A)(1) of the Virginia Code; for the <br />purpose of considering the acquisition or use of real property for public purpose, or the <br />disposition of publicly held property, as authorized by Section 2.1-344(A)(3) of the <br />Virginia Code, and more specifically described as (1) the Union Station project and (2) <br />property on Water Street; and for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel and <br />briefings by staff members, consultants or attorneys on two matters pertaining to actual or <br />probably litigation, or other specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice <br />by counsel, as authorized by Section 2.1-344(A)(7) of the Virginia Code. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox made the following statement: "I, Maurice Cox, make the following <br />disclosure of interest in accordance with the requirements of Virginia Code ~ 2.1- <br />639.14(E): The architectural firm in which I am a partner, RBGC, has provided to Mr. <br />Chuck Lewis a design concept that Mr. Lewis has included as part of his response to the <br />City's recent request for proposals for the City ownedparking lot at the corner of 5th and <br />I~/ater Street. RBGC is collaborating with Stuart Kessler, the designated architect for the <br />project. As required by Virginia Code ~ 2.1-639. Il(A)(1), I am disclosing my personal <br />interest in this matter which arises as a result of my being a member of RBGC, and <br />confirming that I will not vote or in any manner act on behalf of the City of <br />Charlottesville in the consideration of this matter. I ask that this statement be kept on file <br />as a public record of the City of Charlottesville." <br /> <br /> Council reconvened in open session and, on motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by <br />Ms. Richards, unanimously certified (Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr~ Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. <br />Richards, Mr. Toscano. Noes: None.) that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) <br />only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by <br />Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification <br />resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the <br />motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the <br />Council. <br /> <br /> <br />