Laserfiche WebLink
180 <br /> <br /> Ms. Judith Mueller, Director of Public Works, <br />stated that the drainage list included projects <br />prioritized in 1978, the current priority list as <br />recommended by the Planning Commission which was <br />divided into high, medium and low priorities, and other <br />projects which had been identified by the Public Works <br />Department. Ms. Mueller noted tha drainage priorities <br />are set by Council and would not be changed by staff <br />without Council approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Charles Barbour, Planning Commission member, <br />stated that he receives many calls about drainage and <br />felt there was a need to put additional funds into <br />drainage projects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Michael Bednar, Chairman~ of the Planning <br />Commission, stated that the Planning Commission has <br />attempted to approach drainage in a comprehensive way such <br />as having the Meadowcreek study done and added that the <br />Moore's Creek and Rivanna studies are yet to be done. <br />Mr. Bednar stated that he felt good policies had been <br />used to review the priorities. Mr. Bednar urged Council <br />to allocate more funds for drainage as the $200,000 per <br />year that has been designated will only correct the high <br />priority projects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck proposed a work session with the Planning <br />Commission to discuss the drainage projects. Mr. Buck <br />noted that there has been a steady increase in the commit- <br />ment of local funds to deal with the drainage problems which <br />was a significant amount in terms of other City projects. <br />Mr. Buck stated that he had the following concerns with <br />the proposed priorities: !) giving a higher priority to <br />commercial properties when they may be in a position to <br />share the cost of correcting the problem, 2) putting <br />larger sums of money into correcting a problem that may only <br />benefit one house, and 3) the possibility that projects <br />in areas other than the Meadowcreek area may be neglected. <br />Mr. Buck requested that staff provide Council with a <br />report on the equity and legality of property owners sharing <br />the cost of correcting drainage problems with the City and <br />a survey of what other localities are doing. Mr. Buck <br />also stated that he would like a more detailed description <br />of the proposed priorities. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Gleason noted that drainage had only been a <br />municipal responsibility in the 1st 30 or so years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lloyd Snook, Planning Commission member, stated <br />that some of the projects on commercial properties are <br />actually in the City's right-of-way and that some of the <br />projects which appear to only benefit one area or house <br />will actually impact other areas. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING: CITY/COUNTY/UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that the public hearing was being <br />held jointly with the Planning Commission on the <br />guidelines being proposed by a subcommittee made up of <br />City/County/University officials. Mr. Buck added <br />that following the public hearing the Planning Commission <br />would be asked to review the proposal and make recommenda- <br />tions to Council within 30 days and would also be asked <br />to work with staff regarding developing procedures for <br />implementing the agreement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix summarized the proposed agreement dealing <br />with the University complying with the City and County <br />land use plans. <br /> <br /> As there was no one to speak, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br /> <br /> <br />