ANNOUNCER: Now live from City Hall in Charlottesville,
the Jefferson Cable Corporation presents
this evening's regular meeting of the Charlottesville City
Council.
This program is brought to you bi-weekly on Community Cable 10
on Council's regular meeting night,
as another community service feature of Community Cable 10.
And now, this evening's meeting of the Charlottesville City
Council.
FRANCIS FIFE: Council is now in session.
I will ask everyone to please rise
while we get the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.
SPEAKER: Barbour?
CHARLES BARBOUR: Yeah.
SPEAKER: Fife?
FRANCIS FIFE: Here.
SPEAKER: Mr. Gilliam?
FRANCIS FIFE: Here.
SPEAKER: Miss Rinehart?
JILL RINEHART: Here.
SPEAKER: Van Yahres?
MITCH VAN YAHRES: Here.
FRANCIS FIFE: Each member of council
received a copy of the minutes of the meeting of February
the 19th.
Are there any corrections?
[? SPEAKER: ?] Move that they be approved and circulated.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor, on the--
FRANCIS FIFE: Mr. Giilliam and--
CHARLES BARBOUR: Second with a correction.
FRANCIS FIFE: Seconded by Mr. Barbour.
And what's the correction?
CHARLES BARBOUR: Oh the first paragraph--
the second paragraph of the minutes
of the meeting of February 4th and 7th and 14
were approved and presented.
It was corrected and approved.
FRANCIS FIFE: Approved.
OK.
Approved as amended.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Right.
FRANCIS FIFE: Any other corrections?
[? Ready to ?] [? vote? ?] Please vote.
Those minutes are approved.
The minutes of the meeting of February the 25th.
Are there any corrections?
Who approved?
Moved by Mr. Barbour.
JILL RINEHART: Second.
FRANCIS FIFE: Seconded by Ms. Rinehart.
Any corrections?
Please vote.
[? Motion ?] approved.
At this point in the agenda, there
is an item that says, matters to be
presented by the public which are not on the formal agenda.
I want to take just a minute or two
to say what is on the agenda.
Because, as I understand it, there
were not enough copies to go around.
I would also like to request that if anyone who has a copy
of the agenda does leave, that he or she will please pass it
to somebody who doesn't.
On this agenda, after this particular item--
and I will come back to it--
but on the agenda first is an ordinance
to create a Social Development Commission Public--
this is a public hearing.
The matter of establishing a Social Development Commission
came up at a previous meeting of the council.
And this will be a second reading on this ordinance.
But there is a hearing tonight for anyone
who wishes to speak to that.
And that is the first item after the public item.
The next item is a public hearing on the CA TV contract,
a cable television contract.
That contract will be presented to the city tonight.
And those persons who may wish to speak
will be permitted to speak on that.
Following that will be a presentation
from the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing
Authority with regard to sites which
are being proposed tonight by the Housing Authority
to the council.
The housing authority will make the presentation.
The council will have an opportunity to discuss it.
But this is not the night for the public
to discuss these sites.
Now I'm going to look around and see
if I see Mr. David [? Wood, ?] [INAUDIBLE] Goldman, Gene
Arrington or any of the people from the Redevelopment
and Housing Authority.
Are they here yet?
I assume they will be here.
At least they told me.
Maybe I should ask Mr. Wiley, if he can state positively--
this has to do with the question of when the public hearing
would be set.
Mr. Wiley, I understand that it would
be set in either 30 or 37 days.
Now, I'm up in the air.
Maybe you are too.
I'm not sure this question has come to you yet, but--
GEORGE WILEY: I have discussed this
with Mr. [? Milvan ?] and Mr. Wood.
FRANCIS FIFE: Right.
GEORGE WILEY: My feeling is that probably 30 days are adequate.
But they have some disagreement with me on this point.
So I-- to be on the safe side with the thing,
I think we have agreed that probably 37 days from the date
of the first advertisement is the proper date [? to hold ?]
[? the other ?] hearing.
FRANCIS FIFE: In other words, this
will be advertised in the paper probably two days from now.
GEORGE WILEY: That's right.
FRANCIS FIFE: That would be the first advertisement.
And the second advertisement would
be two weeks from that day?
What is the requirement?
GEORGE WILEY: No.
It would be advertised.
I think the code says for two weeks, not once a week.
FRANCIS FIFE: Oh, for two weeks, OK.
So it will be advertised, and a date of hearing will be set.
Anyone who wishes to be heard on these--
with regard to these sites--
will be [? heard ?] at that time.
I understand that there was some misunderstanding with regard
to whether the public would be heard
from relative to the sites tonight.
But there is a hearing.
The council not only wants to but is
required to have a hearing.
And there will be a hearing at which the public will
be able to speak.
The next item on the agenda here is
a resolution in connection with the Charlottesville Fire
Company.
Following that, an ordinance redefining
the organizational structure of the fire department.
And I am asking the council at this time to postpone that.
There needs to be a good deal more work done
before that ordinance is brought before us.
In a petition from the people at St. Thomas
Hall, a group of appointments, I believe that there
are a lot of other items.
But as far as I can see, those are the items
which the public, I think, will have a specific interest in,
and which I had surmised that people would be here tonight
to be heard on.
So now I go back to the question of whether there's
anyone that has a matter to be presented
to the public that is not on the agenda as I indicated.
Is there anything that is not included among those items that
are listed?
Yes, sir?
I will request that each person, when you wish to speak,
tell us who you are, go to one of the microphones
so that everyone can hear and the TV audience also can hear.
[? GEORGE GILMAN: ?] Mr. Mayor, I'm George [? Gilman, ?] Jr.
I wish to bring before the City Council the matter about
the water and the sewer increase.
Under the first study, as had been discussed with you all,
it looks as if the tenant--
the landlords and the tenants--
are going to be overburdened with quite a sizable increase.
From all first indications, it looks
like duplexes that are paid for by the landlord, in turn,
paid for by the tenant.
And also, apartments in the city of Charlottesville,
the increase is somewhere around $4.
So that would make it about a 2 and 1/2 times increase
for both of them.
On commercial buildings, you'll find that the increase
is at least that and more.
The amount of material, I understand the water and soil
used in laundries also increased by a great amount,
and it will probably mean a laundry increase.
I think this thing should be studied in the next [? all ?]
rental agreements from here on out [? made, ?] I think it will
have to be a sizable increase, and it looks as if it should
have been done on a more gradual basis in going up to 2 and 1/2
times.
The other thing that has disturbed me,
and has been brought to my attention,
that single family owners are probably facing a 30% to 70%
real estate tax increase.
Now I would wish that you would get somebody
to begin work on this to try to pledge
to the people of Charlottesville that in the next two years
that there will be no more than a 5% increase in real estate
tax.
I know we've been told that all of our ambitious programs
are not going to increase our taxes,
and I'm not talking about tax rate.
I'm talking about the tax dollar.
In other words, if a man is paying $200 today,
when I'm talking about a 30% increase,
I'm talking going from the $200 to $260.
And I think it bears watching.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, Mr. [? Gilman. ?] Maybe
I'll try to answer your comments very quickly.
You spoke of the increases in the water and sewer rates.
We had quite a discussion.
And there was a great deal in the newspaper
about those increases.
The council said, at the time, that increases
had to be made because of the increase in cost.
That really I think flowed as much
from federal and state regulations as anything else.
We did say at the time, though, that there
were two or three factors that were, you might say, unknown.
And as soon as we receive information on those,
as soon as we can get--
we will review what has happened with regard to these rates.
And if they can be decreased, I'm
sure we would be delighted to do so.
But we can't say that now because we
don't have that information.
With regard to increases on apartments,
I think that anyone who examined the past records would
see that the individual single family owner actually
bore a greater proportion of the burden of the sewer and water
rates than did the apartments.
And it seemed to us that if they were going to be increases
that a greater proportion of the increase
should go to the apartments and that type of building,
the commercial buildings, and so forth.
Because the homeowner seemed to be
the one who was getting it prior to that.
With regard to tax increases, we have
said that we have not increased the real estate tax rate.
Mr. [? Gilman's ?] point is that the assessments have gone up
the appraisals on properties.
There will be reappraisals.
As a matter of fact, we feel that we
are required to do this by the recent situation in [INAUDIBLE]
County and some other actions.
If the assessments do rise considerably
it would be my guess--
and I'm certainly not committing council to this at all--
it would be my guess that if there
is a jump that council would certainly
consider reducing the tax rate so that there would not
be a large increase in the amount of tax
that people would pay.
Certainly the council will take this into consideration.
We have been very mindful of the fact
that the real estate tax is a burden on a lot of people.
As you know, we have given some relief to elderly people
and people with low incomes.
But obviously, it takes tax money to run the city.
Is there anyone else who has a matter that is not
on this agenda as read out?
Yes, ma'am?
RUTH BRISTOL: I'm Ruth Bristol.
I have a question.
For about two years now, we have been formally discussing
the matter of telling trucks what streets to use
in the city of Charlottesville.
I understand that a final draft of a truck ordinance
is now going through channels.
Has this reached council?
FRANCIS FIFE: It has not reached council.
RUTH BRISTOL: Where is it right now?
FRANCIS FIFE: I'll have to ask the city manager
if he knows the location.
[LAUGHTER]
[? SPEAKER: ?] It has been--
a recommendation has been made for the traffic engineer, which
I discussed with the president of your association
this morning and told him I would send him
a copy of that report, yet, this week.
I told him [INAUDIBLE] have an ordinance on the agenda
by the first of April.
RUTH BRISTOL: By the first of April.
Is that the first Monday in April?
[? SPEAKER: ?] That's the first Monday in April.
RUTH BRISTOL: It will not be before then.
[? SPEAKER: ?] No.
RUTH BRISTOL: Is a copy-- or you said you were sending--
you will be sending a copy of the ordnance.
Thank you.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, Ms Bristol.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
on a matter not on the agenda?
The next item is an ordinance to create a social development
commission.
And I don't know how familiar this audience is
with the ordinance as proposed.
This is a time for a public hearing.
I might ask Mr. [? Hendricks ?] or Mr. Miller, who I-- oh, yes,
there he is--
if they, one or the other, would very quickly review.
Now this came up at a previous council meeting.
We had what could be called a first reading.
This is the time for a hearing.
And later on, this meeting the adoption of the ordinance
if the council so [INAUDIBLE].
Mr. Miller is the director of our community development
department.
MR. MILLER: Last week, council heard a rather lengthy
presentation, I'm sorry to say mostly from me,
concerning the Social Development Commission.
We briefly discussed the ordinance which
would create the commission.
And I'd just like to say, as briefly as I can,
the purpose of the Social Development Commission
is to advise city council on a variety of human service
and social development matters as they affect
the city of Charlottesville.
The reasons for the commission are several in nature,
and I'd like to go back a bit in history.
The city manager had commissioned a study by a woman
by the name of [? Opal ?] David, who
was unable to be here tonight because she is in England,
which basically made a number of proposals
as to the city's role in the area of human resource
planning and social delivery and social service delivery.
One of the things Mrs. David recommended
was a human resource commission.
We've changed the title and some of the functions a little bit
and have called it a Social Development Commission.
The functions of the commission, I've noted already,
are basically advisory to city council.
The commission would have 13 members on it,
representative of a broad cross-section of the community.
It would be our hope that we could combine--
bring together on this commission people who
are affiliated with service providers
as well as people who are affiliated,
or who are themselves consumers of the service.
The need for this was explained in some detail last week.
And I will just very briefly say one--
make one comment about that.
City councils all across the country
are getting more and more involved
in the whole question of the delivery of human services.
Many, if not most, of the federal and state funded
programs have or are in the process of expiring.
That means that if these programs are to continue,
they have to get money from someplace.
And one of the places to which many of them
are coming in respective cities are city councils.
The commission would be a device by which city
council can receive citizen advice as
to which of these programs have proven themselves to be most
beneficial to this community.
It is also a device whereby you can hopefully make decisions
based on more than just the recommendations of staff
people.
Essentially, the idea here is, as I've said,
to advise council on human services and social development
issues in the city of Charlottesville
and to advise council on the more effective delivery
of those services.
To say too much more would simply
be repetitive of last week.
We have, during the past week, received two letters--
one from David W. Parish Jr, who is president of the [? Miki ?]
Company, and another one, another letter, from Alfred A.
[? Dolflemyer, ?] both of whom were in support,
or are in support, of the commission.
And I'd just like to take a moment, if I can,
to read Mr. Parish's letter.
Because I think it is indicative of both--
and you have copies of this--
I think it is indicative of Mr. [? Dolflemyer's ?] letter also.
Dear Mayor Fife, I am pleased that city council will consider
at the March 11th meeting the establishment of a Social
Development Commission.
I certainly endorse the formation of this commission.
When I was serving as the President of the United Givers
Fund, it was apparent that our community
needed an all encompassing commission or council
studying and planning for all human resources in both
the private and public sectors.
Community Services Council was created independent
of United Givers Fund to fill this need.
My two terms of office as President of the Community
Service Console convinced me even more
of the broad need for such a body.
Since lack of funding caused the dissolution of the council,
we have been without a planning group
dedicated to social development human resources.
While studying and planning lacks
the glamor of other activities, it
is absolutely essential to the utilization
of our combined efforts toward order and progress.
This is particularly true in the area of social development.
Very sincerely, very truly yours, David W. Parish.
Mr. [? Dolflemyer's ?] letter is a bit longer,
and your agenda is long.
I will forego the reading of that if I might.
Essentially, we're hoping the council will act favorably
on the ordinance creating the commission
and will also act on the resolution which addresses
the issue of membership.
Thank you.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you very much.
Does council will have any questions or comments
before I ask someone in the audience if they'd like to--
Mr. Gilliam?
GEORGE GILLIAM: Mr. Mayor, at some time
during the proceedings, I wish to propose an amendment
to Section 2-226 Sub 4.
And because I'm aware that there are certain people who
wish to speak to the matter contained,
or to be contained in this amendment
here tonight, if the mayor deems it appropriate,
I would be glad to read the proposed amendment this time
so that any speakers who wanted to address themselves to
[INAUDIBLE] do so.
FRANCIS FIFE: I would be very glad to hear that, Mr. Gilliam.
I would like to establish one or two things here first.
I have a copy in front of me which I believe
is the proposed ordinance.
It's dated, at top revision, 2/26/74.
I just would like, for the benefit of council,
to be sure we're talking about the same thing here.
Have I got the correct instrument in front of me?
This one is dated 2/26/74.
Now--
JILL RINEHART: That's the same one
we had last week, Mr. Mayor.
FRANCIS FIFE: I believe so.
I have two sets, and I just want to be sure that I'm
looking at the right one.
And that the rest of council is-- now
in the first paragraph, Section 2-221,
I have inserted the matters with respect to the [INAUDIBLE]..
Everybody [INAUDIBLE]?
All right.
Then I have no other correction on the first page.
If you go over to the second page,
I have no other-- no corrections.
And as a matter of fact, I believe that's all.
Does anybody have any other changes?
Stands as is.
Mr. Gilliam, would you go ahead.
GEORGE GILLIAM: Before I read this, Mr. Mayor,
I'd like to say that this amendment should be known
as the Rinehart amendment.
Because it was Mrs. Rinehart's discussion
which led to the creation of this.
Briefly, section 4-- or subsection 4, Section 226,
states that the commission shall forward its recommendations
to city council.
And at the last council meeting, there was a lengthy discussion
as to whether or not those recommendations ought
to go through the city council.
In order to clarify what I believe
to be the intent of council, based on that discussion,
I would suggest striking the words "through the city
manager" and adding, at the end of that sentence,
the following language.
"Provided that at such time as such reports or recommendations
are transmitted to city council, the city manager may"--
that's not to be permissive-- [? "append ?] such reports
or recommendations, such comments and/or recommendations
as he may deem necessary and proper.
The city manager shall transmit the report of the commission,
and any such comments and/or our recommendations, to council
within five business days of receipt of such report."
Mr. Mayor, as I recall, the discussion at the last meeting,
there was concern that it might be possible for the city
manager to sit on a report or not take action on it.
On the other side of the coin, there
was concern that the city manager, who
is the council's principal employee,
needs to make whatever comments are appropriate in order
to properly advise the council.
So it seems to me that this proposed amendment
would sort of kill two birds with one stone.
We'd make certain that whatever report is received
is promptly transmitted to the council.
But we would also make it plain that we
hope that the city manager, if he chooses,
will comment and make whatever his recommendations are
with respect to any such report.
FRANCIS FIFE: Is the council aware sufficiently
of what this change does?
It's striking the language through the city manager
and adding some words.
Too many for me to take down, but [? if the ?] council
[? feels-- ?] this is--
you are moving this?
GEORGE GILLIAM: Well, I'm aware that several people wish
to discuss it.
And after hearing the discussion,
I may decide that this has got too many words and needs to be
changed [? in some ?] [? other way. ?]
JILL RINEHART: I have just one question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Hendrix, would five business days be a hindrance to you?
I mean, that seems like a rather stringent requirement.
COLE HENDRIX: No, I don't think so.
It would not necessarily mean council
would meet at that time, but least
it would be sent to council.
[? SPEAKER: ?] I don't think that's [INAUDIBLE]..
FRANCIS FIFE: I would assume then
that, if there's no further discussion at this time, then
we will turn this over to the public.
Is there someone here who would like
to speak to the question of the establishment of a Social
Development Commission?
Excuse me.
There's a lady already moving to a microphone here.
MARCIA MASHAW: I'm Marcia Mashaw from the League
of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle.
The majority of my statement relates exactly
to what Mr. Gillam has just recommended.
If you still want to hear me, I'll be glad to read it to you.
Otherwise, I'll wait and see if there--
if council has any problems with this amendment later.
Do you want me to go ahead?
FRANCIS FIFE: What is council's pleasure?
Would you like to get this read?
Or--
[? SPEAKER: ?] Is it in line with what
Mr. Gilliam has proposed?
MARCIA MASHAW: Yes.
[? SPEAKER: ?] And so if we object to what
Mr. Gilliam has proposed--
MARCIA MASHAW: Then I'd want you to hear it from me.
[LAUGHTER]
[? SPEAKER: ?] I don't have to hear you then.
MARCIA MASHAW: Well, I can--
I'll skip the first part then.
If we end up having problems, I'll come back to it.
FRANCIS FIFE: [INAUDIBLE] reserve
that right [? for you. ?]
MARCIA MASHAW: OK.
I must say I'm extremely pleased,
and that was the league's main concern about the ordinance.
One other point concerns us about the link
between the commission and city council.
Referring to this chart that was attached
to the resolution, and the ordinance,
we find that two coordinating committees in here
are going to be established, one called the Social Development
Coordinating Committee and the other
the Physical and Economic Developing Coordinating
Committee.
The roles these committees would play
are not discussed in the proposed ordinance,
and we understand that these roles, as well
as the makeup of the committees, are still being discussed.
One function being considered disturbs us a bit, however,
and I would like to refer to it tonight.
To quote from the recommendations,
it is anticipated that these coordinating committees will
afford the city an opportunity to develop a long range
strategy for physical human service improvements,
as well as greater capability in assessing
the financial and human implications
of all future development.
We believe that basically--
and that's end quote--
we believe that basically this is what your present planning
commission is for and is what the Social Development
Commission should be for.
These commissions, composed of citizens appointed
by city council, working in concert with the Department
of Community development, are responsible for long range
planning in Charlottesville, and the proposed coordinating
committees should not have any duties which tend
to usurp that responsibility.
In summary, we ask you two things.
One is to ensure that the social Development Commission will
report directly to the city council
by making the changes that Mr. Gilliam has recommended,
and also ensure that the coordinating committees are not
assigned any duties and responsibilities that
are rightly those of the two citizens commissions.
There's one other comment I'd like to make,
and you'd probably be disappointed
if I didn't say it.
That concerns the timing of this public hearing.
It really seems to us to be a little bit after the fact.
Generally, the policy of this council
has been to hear from the public in the developing
stages of a particular issue and to receive comments
from interested citizens before considering final proposals.
Earlier in the winter, when city council re-instituted
the policy of having work sessions
on the second and fourth Mondays of each month,
reference was made to the need for a work session
on the proposed Social Development Commission,
and yet one was never held.
Thank you.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, Mrs. Marshaw.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this?
F. CLYDE HELMS: I guess this is working all right, is it?
FRANCIS FIFE: As far as I know, it is.
Yes, sir.
F. CLYDE HELMS: I'm F. Clyde Helms.
I'm a Baptist preacher, but I married a social worker.
FRANCIS FIFE: Yes.
F. CLYDE HELMS: A long time ago, there
was little difference between religion and social work.
And we decided to get them together.
So these suggestions come from my wife.
She has something else tonight, and she could not be here.
But we are very much interested in what
you are discussing here.
When I was in Columbia, I was on a similar committee.
And I think it meant a great deal.
Because, you know, we can have a little segment of interest.
And yet, we may not look at the total problem.
I have come to believe that--
[INAUDIBLE] some time ago--
this is a profit age.
We do things for profit.
But also, we must do things for people.
And I'm concerned, with us doing all we can for all the people,
in this city.
And it seems to me that where enough influence can be brought
to influence for some particular thing,
we may, unless we have somebody that
looks over our total community, and in the light of studies,
and in light of looking at the whole situation,
that we present such things, and such movements,
and such services as we would take
care of the human needs of this community.
I came here from Colombia.
We like Charlottesville, and we think
we have good government here.
And we enjoy living here.
Mrs. Helms should have gone to Philadelphia, perhaps.
But we didn't want to leave Charlottesville.
And we were to be cities and do all we can to help you.
And we believe that we have a committee that's
going to deal with the other aspects of our community life.
That if we have a committee that will wisely look at it,
and then we will work with organizations
like the Community Chest, or the--
now, what's the name of it?
FRANCIS FIFE: United Way.
F. CLYDE HELMS: Yeah, the United Way.
Those things must be coordinated,
because we are not looking for you directly
to finance everything.
And so we hope that we can have such a commission.
I have a letter here that I might hand you
that might cover [INAUDIBLE].
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
Someone else wish to speak to this?
[? RAY HALES: ?] Members of the council, my name is Ray Hales.
I'm the pastor of the Zion Union Baptist Church.
I rise in favor of the resolution
and the ordinance that's before council at this time.
But there is one question that is before me in my mind.
I have read it over and over.
and that's concerning the section where,
how the members of this committee
will be appointed by council.
I ask this question we it says that, the Chairman
of the Boards of Directors of United Way,
the Council of Churches, the Chamber of Commerce
and the Chairman of the City Council City School Board
will be asked to nominate three members
of their respective boards who are residents of the city.
And the council will appoint one person
from each group of nominees to serve on the commission.
In number two, it says the President
of the University of Virginia will
be asked to nominate three representatives
of the university administration that lives within the city.
And the council will appoint one member
from three of those persons that are appointed by the--
that are nominated by the president of the university.
[INAUDIBLE] said the chairman of the client welfare advisory
board would be requested to nominate
six persons or former recipients of welfare services
who are city residents, and council
will select two members.
I think there should be somebody at large.
As Jerry said, a consumer, that would benefit from this program
to sort of balance it out.
You know, a lot of time we get these committees top heavy.
And they there and don't do nothing but talk.
I think you want a committee that's going to act.
And I think you want a committee that's
going to propose something or give
the council wise advice as to what the need is
in regards to human needs.
But I am in favor of such a Social Development Commission.
I think it's much needed.
I think we're a little late in doing this.
But I do think that there should be a better way of appointing
the members to that commission.
Thank you.
FRANCIS FIFE: Reverend Hales, thank you.
I think you skipped several others in the suggestion
[INAUDIBLE] that these were not read
is because they are part of a resolution which
would propose how the membership would be made up.
This is not part of the ordinance
that we are discussing.
But in addition to those that you mentioned,
there would be someone from the Charlottesville High School,
someone from the American Association of Retired Persons,
three persons from the City Planning Commission,
and one person from the--
a student from the University of Virginia.
We feel that among these people there
would be quite a number of consumers as well
as leaders in providing services in the community.
JILL RINEHART: Mr. Mayor, [INAUDIBLE]
a welfare [? recipient. ?]
FRANCIS FIFE: Well, Reverend Hales
mentioned that there would be two welfare--
two persons either presently or in the past
having used welfare services.
Yes, sir?
ROGER BRISTOL: I'm Roger Bristol of 1808 Barracks Rd.
Like Mrs. Mashaw, I feel that I'm coming in practically
after the fact.
I have some grave doubts about the particular proposal
before you.
I'm all for further citizen involvement,
and I'm all for the purposes of this commission.
But I really think that council ought
to consider more seriously alternatives
before adopting the present proposal.
We already have a planning commission.
Now it is true that it now deals chiefly
with matters of site planning and property adjustment.
But citizens are used to its name and to its existence.
I feel it would be a mistake to set up a parallel
and partly overlapping separate commission.
It would be better to expand the present planning commission,
give it wider powers if that's what's needed,
and channel all city planning, citizen participation,
through it, in much the same fashion as has just
been described.
Then citizens who wish the city to deal
with any aspect of planning would
go to one agency, not two.
And the chairman could channel citizens' requests
to the appropriate section.
If two commissions are established,
council will be faced with recommendations
from two bodies instead of one, possibly
with sometimes conflicting recommendations.
I note also that the planning commission
has three members on the new suggested commission.
So there is some overlapping in responsibilities
and perhaps additional work for those people on the planning
commission.
The present planning commission is known
to be diligent and well-run.
I've seen nothing in print about their views
on the proposed commission.
Have they been consulted?
Does city council know their views?
Does council have a statement from it?
If it does, are not we entitled to know what it contains?
Would council choose the members of the present commission?
Apparently, it would.
Would the chairman be appointed or chosen by the group itself?
Could the new commission initiate discussion
of problems, or would it be only a review commission
of problems submitted to it?
If the latter, would it become a rubber stamp?
And if so, whose rubber stamp?
It seems to me the new commission
would accomplish nothing that an expanded planning
commission could not do.
It would result in overlapping functions within the city
government and would add another bureaucratic path
citizens would have to tread to each council.
Thank you.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, sir.
Before comments are made, I guess,
by anybody who wants to make them,
I guess we really should continue
to hear from the public.
Is there someone else who wishes to speak?
Yes, ma'am.
KAY PEASLEE: Mr. Mayor and members of council,
I'm Kay Peaslee of the Venable Neighborhood Association.
And I would like to ask one or two
questions about the proposed commission, first of all.
And the first one is, why was it that the duties chosen
for the new commission were not assigned to the existing
planning commission?
And should I ask that or wait?
Perhaps you will answer it later.
And then the proposal for [INAUDIBLE] zone
between the new commission and the planning commission
raises some questions in our minds.
The proposal is that three members of the planning
commission also serve on this new commission
to provide liaison.
And we bear in mind the fact that the present members
of the planning commission work very hard and very long hours.
And we wonder, as citizen volunteers,
whether or not this is a sound plan
to ask these people to serve not only on the planning commission
but also as members of this new commission.
It seems to us that if a new social planning commission
is established, that it reduces further the visibility
of the government here.
And visibility is inseparable from responsibility
in government.
And we feel that before adding another such body, and this one
with 13 members, that very serious consideration should
be given to whether or not this new commission is needed
and whether the job could be done by the existing planning
commission perhaps if it is enlarged.
I would recommend that further study
be made of this proposal rather than action being taken
immediately, because I think there should
be more discussion of it publicly
and more input from the public.
Thank you.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, Ms. Peaslee.
Anyone else wish to--
[? ERNEST HARPER: ?] Mayor and members of council.
I'm [? Ernest ?] [? Harper. ?] I'm an ex-dean of the school
of social work.
I prepared an elaborate thesis here,
but I haven't seen the number of people
that are prepared to speak.
And having heard some very interesting arguments,
I'm discarding all of this.
And I think it's much more interesting to pick up
the points that have just been made.
My answer for the two speakers that have just appeared
would be a physical planning--
[INAUDIBLE] of the planning commission
that has been in existence for a number of years
has had every opportunity to get into the health and welfare
planning field.
I don't know anything that stopped them.
And I think the best answer to that
is that they have not seen fit to do that.
And that would be an argument, I should think,
in favor of a separate body.
Now I'll let the rest of my thesis
go and yield to a number of people back [INAUDIBLE]..
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, Doctor.
Anyone else wish to speak on this particular--
DAVID PHILLIPS: Mr. Mayor and members of the council,
I'm David Phillips.
I'm on the board of directors of the Pilgrim Baptist Child Care
Center.
And it's been a rather exciting year and a half
as I've had an opportunity to work with that board.
The problems confronting the provider of service
to human beings who, in this case, need child care,
are great.
Problems of coordination with other centers,
the problems of coordination with various agencies is great.
I greet very-- with great pleasure
the ordinance that you have before you.
I'm also a planner by training.
Also, what you might call a physical planner.
And I favor very much the ordinances
before you as opposed to expansion
of the physical planning body.
Thank you.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
Anyone else?
CORRINE CARR: I'm Corrine Carr, President
of the Central Virginia Child Development Association.
I would like to give gratitude to those
who have worked thoughtfully over the past several years
towards the eventuality of establishment
of this kind of commission in Charlottesville.
We who are involved with the field of child care,
both for the young child and through our contacts
with our local public welfare department,
are appraised of the need for services
to young, our young who becomes tomorrow's
citizens of this city.
We're concerned about provisioning for services
to children after school hours.
These are children of parents who work in this community
and who contribute to the economy of this community,
and we feel that the community owes something
to them as contributors, and to their children.
We would certainly endorse the need
for this kind of a commission.
We feel that the council certainly
needs direction in its policy for responding
to financial requests that are coming
from various sources for public expenditure.
At present, you have little in the way of direction
in terms of who you allocate funds to.
On what basis, with what credibility and accountability
for the fund expenditure?
So we would endorse this concept.
We recognize that there must be problems
in structure from the comments here tonight,
but we go on record in support of the concept.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, Ms. Carr.
Anyone else?
GAYLE GREER: Can you hear me?
My name is [? Gayle ?] [? Greer, ?]
and I'm a vocational evaluator at Workshop 5.
And we provide services for the handicapped in Charlottesville
and in five surrounding counties.
We are a sheltered workshop, and we
prepare these individuals for competitive employment
by training them.
And I'm speaking for everyone at the workshop.
And I said that I think there's a great need for something
like this in the community of Charlottesville.
There needs to be some kind of organization and planning
at the city level that is aware of the social services
that Charlottesville has to offer.
In my experience, there's been a great problem
of coordination of services and duplication of the services.
I realize any type of funding is limited at this point,
and I think it is in the best interests of the community
to establish this commission to oversee the allocation
of the available funds.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you, [? Ms Greer. ?] Someone
else wish to speak to this?
LAURA LOWE: I'm Laura Lowe, and I'd
like to speak in favor of the commission.
I feel it would serve basically two purposes.
It would coordinate the various government programs
and services that are available in Charlottesville, which
is tremendously needed and would make
it more effective with the limited funds that we do have.
It would also obviously increase the decision participation--
the decision making process level [? of ?] our government.
FRANCIS FIFE: Thank you.
Anyone else?
If there is no one else that wishes to be heard,
then I will declare the public hearing
closed with regard to the social development [INAUDIBLE]
ordinance.
According to the agenda in front of us,
the second reading of the discussion
by counsel of this ordinance comes
towards the end of the meeting.
What is the council's pleasure?
Would you like to take it up now?
Would you like to postpone until the end--
JILL RINEHART: It would seem same logical, Mr. Mayor,
to take it up now, since people are discussing it.
It's fresh in our memory, and I think
it would be best to move those to items up to this place.
FRANCIS FIFE: Mr. Barbour?
CHARLES BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor, we have
a lot of [? nice ?] [INAUDIBLE] tonight.
People have commented on this, and I'm
a little concerned whether we should actually
take an action tonight.
I would certainly feel--
I would feel better for the first reason rather than
the second reason.
[INAUDIBLE] decision.
I think there are many others who
might interested in speaking too, for or against it.
And I think us having a last reading tonight will
be a mistake, since the public just beginning
to learn about it.
FRANCIS FIFE: Any other?
Yes, sir?
CHARLES BARBOUR: I would like to make a motion this
be tabled for two weeks.
And this would give the public a chance to learn more about it
and take action two weeks from now,
or the next council meeting.
I don't mean the 18th, the meeting following the 18th.
FRANCIS FIFE: Council does not have a meeting scheduled
for the 25th.
However, I don't plan to let council off the hook
on having lots of meetings.
So I will propose that we have one on the 25th.
It probably should be a workshop session.
But perhaps we should call it a special meeting
so we can take action if the council sees fit.
CHARLES BARBOUR: Would it be right to have
another public hearing then, Mr. Mayor?
Just in case of people come and [INAUDIBLE]..
FRANCIS FIFE: We can certainly-- the council
can decide to have another public hearing.
I mean, I'll wait until a few minutes later
to make any comment about that.
Certainly, the council could do that.
CHARLES BARBOUR: While I'm [INAUDIBLE] in favor
of the resolution, for the [INAUDIBLE],,
I believe it's time for this council going on record
being concerned about people.
And we have a planning commission concerned
about material things.
But this council have stated in the past
the concern about what's good for the people
of Charlottesville.
But I think that at this time, I would
like to have a table just for that reason.
Because the public just began to become aware of what's
going on.
They should give them chance to comment later.
FRANCIS FIFE: Mr. Barbour has moved
to table either to the 25th or to April the 1st,
I guess [INAUDIBLE] move to the next regular council meeting.
What's the council's pleasure?
Mr. Van Yahres?
MITCH VAN YAHRES: I have no real objections,
although I'm ready to make a decision tonight myself.
If the rest of the council wants to delay, it's up to them.
I'll bow to that.
But as for myself, the basic argument I hear against it,
and I think has some validity, is creating another body
which may have overlapping duties and just
another layer of bureaucracy.
But then on the other hand, you look at it another way,
which was mentioned, I think, by the last speaker,
that increases the citizen participation.
So we have a contradiction on the same subject, actually.
And I for one look at it as being
in the positive sense, creating more citizen participation.
And I think that's the important thing,
is get more people involved with government, with what we do.
And in this way, I think there is more information
disseminated throughout the public and comes back to us,
on a broader level, broader base.
And this is what we need.
We're crying for this constantly,
to have more people involved with our decision making.
Unfortunately, every once in a while we do slip up.
That's bound to happen.
But we still do need more citizen participation.
Even though sometimes we don't like it, we do need it.
And I think it's very important.
And I like the idea of having another commission.
I see the planning commission, the present planning
commission, being overworked.
And I just don't see how we could
expand it enough to do the job that we're
asking of this commission.
I see this commission as having a tremendous amount of work
to do in quite a number of years now.
With the federal government passing down
a lot of the responsibility, very little of the money,
to the local level, it's going to create a tremendous burden
on us on this local level.
And I think we're going to need help, all the help we can get.
And I think this body will be able to give us
that type of help.
So as I said before, I'm ready to vote
on this particular issue.
But if the council would like to delay it, I'll acquiesce.
CHARLES BARBOUR: My only reason for asking this to be delayed
is because this is the first public hearing we are having,
or the only public hearing.
And usually, we have a public hearing for the first meeting
and take action the second.
The second meeting, we [INAUDIBLE]..
This happens to be the public's first chance to comment.
That's my only reason.
I agreed with Mr. Van Yahres 100%.
But I think we should be open to the public
and give them a chance to speak up later, have a second chance,
like on all the other controversial items we
have on the agenda.
This happened to have the [INAUDIBLE] tone to it.
[? We ?] should give the public a chance.
FRANCIS FIFE: Ms. Rinehart?
JILL RINEHART: Mr. Mayor, I think
the point is well taken that we should
have had a public hearing--
first a work session and then a public hearing on this,
for the reasons that have already been stated.
I have been satisfied on a couple of points
that were brought up tonight.
But there hasn't been public discussion of these points,
and I think we ought to have some discussion
while all the people are here who have spoken to this issue.
And then perhaps delay our voting again.
But I think we ought to have our discussion now,
because I think several things will be
clarified in that discussion.
The first is the part that the planning commission
has played in the formation of this
and in the formation of our thinking.
I took it on myself to contact almost all members
of the planning commission.
Mr. [INAUDIBLE],, I see here, he's
the one I did not contact about it as to their feelings
about this.
And it's my opinion that the planning commission
is satisfied with this.
They are-- they do have a tremendous workload.
And this really is another commission
that I feel should be set up.
And as I understand it, the planning commission
is very satisfied with this.
We should have had a workshop, however, with input
from the planning commission.
The other thing which Mrs. Mashaw spoke to,
concerned me a good deal when I saw
this chart of the organization.
But charts, you write them up and they look good,
and perhaps you get a little bit carried away with charts.
And in discussing the chart with Mr. Miller,
it came out that the two coordinating committees really
ought not to be called committees
because they will be usually more or less resource people.
There will be people who will be resources and who
will be available to help on the task force,
but they won't be set up as committees.
Is that correct, Mr. Miller?
Yeah, these are not necessarily committees.
So that's really a misnomer.
There will be people--
in fact, there are people now who
are resource people for the planning commission
if they need any extra special expertise.
So those two committees really doesn't exist.
There will just be individuals in the community who
will help when any technical or specific thing is demanded.
So those were the two things that
really bothered me most of all.
And I'm satisfied with them, and I
think the discussion tonight has shown that other people were
concerned too.
FRANCIS FIFE: Mr. Gilliam, you had your hand up?
Oh, you didn't?
[AUDIO OUT]