1982-03-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPROPRIATION RE: $3,000,000.00 SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATION RE: $8,188 DOWNTOWN TREE PLANTING APPROPRIATION RE: $5,026.83 JOINT SECURITY COMPLEX RESOLUTION RE: REQUESTING CIRCUIT COURT TO AUTHORIZE ADVISORY REFERENDUM FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION-l; URBAN MASS TRANSIT ASSOCIATION(UMTA)-I. MR. HENDRIX STATED THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR STAFF WORK. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE TIMETABLE FOR FORMING THIS GROUP IS NOT PRESSING, BUT THERE ARE PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE PUT TOGETHER AND APPROVED BY SUMMER IN ORDER TO RECEIVE TRANSIT FUNDS. WAYNE HARBAUGH, DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION, SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTING A LOCAL POLICY. SHE ALSO OFFERED HER ASSISTANCE TO THE ORGANIZATION. ON MOTION BY DR. HALL, SECONDED BY MR. CONOVER, COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY AGREED T~ AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH ORGANIZING AN MP0 AS PRESENTED, THE APPROPRIATION OF $3,000,000.00 FOR SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH WAS OFFERED AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 1ST WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: MR.' ALBRO, MR. CONOVER, MS. GLEASON, DR. HALL. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MR. BUCK. THE APPROPRIATION OF $8,188 FOR DOWNTOWN TREE PLANTING WHICH WAS OFFERED AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 1ST WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: MR. ALBRO, MR. CONOVER, MRS. GLEASON, DR. HALL. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MR. BUCK. DR. HALL INDICATED THAT HB WOULD LIKE THE CITIZENS OF CHARLOTTES- VILLE TO KNOW THAT THE MONEY FOR TREE PLANTING WAS NOT APPROPRIATED OUT OF THE CITY BUDGET, BUT DONATED. ON MOTION BY MR. ALBRO, SECONDED BY MR. CONOVER, THE FOLLOWING APPROPRIATION WAS OFFERED AND CARRIED OVER TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, THAT-THE SUM OF $5,026.83 IS HEREBY APPROPRIATED FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT 01-0097'0 FOR THE CITY'S SHARE OF ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED IN THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ROOF OF THE JOINT SECURITY COMPLEX. MR. HENDRIX STATED THAT HIS RESOLUTION WOULD BE NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE REFERENDUM ON THE MIXED WARD/AT LARGE SYSTEM TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT ALONG WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTION IN MAY. MR. CONOVER MOTIONED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, MRS.-.GLEASON SECONDED. DR. HALL COMMENTED THAT HIS FIRST POSITION ON THE MIXED WARD/ AT LARGE SYSTEM WAS TO ADHERE TO THE PREVIOUS REFERENDUM. DR. HALL QUESTIONED THE EXACT MEANING OF THE ADVISORY REFERENDUM, ASKING IF THE MEANING IMPLIED THAT IF THE REFERENDUM IS PASSED, IS IT STILL LEFT TO COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE DECISION? DR. HALL ALSO QUESTIONED IF IT IS MANDATORY TO HAVE SUCH A REFERENDUM AND IF NOT WHAT IS IT'S PURPOSE? MRS. GLEASON ANSWERED, INDICATING THE PURPOSE IS FOR ADVICE~ MR. CONOVER STATED THAT THE PREVIOUS REFERENDUM WAS NOT CLEAR. HE INDICATED THERE WAS A GREAT INTEREST EXPRESSED AND THAT BECAUSE ALL OF COUNCIL HAS A NEED TO CONTACT THE PEOPLE TO FIND OUT THEIR I~TERESTS, THE ADVISORY REFERENDUM HAS GOOD ~ALUE. MR. CONOVER ALSO SAID THAT COUNCIL SHOULD STATE INDIVIDUALLY WHAT THE GROUND RULES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AHEAD OF THE ELECTION.