CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, May 6, 2019 5:30 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room (Legal advice; Personnel) 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS PROCLAMATIONS Bike Month, Mental Health Awareness Month, May 18 Kids to Parks Day, May 19 Queen Charlotte Day 1. CONSENT AGENDA* (Items removed from consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) a. MINUTES: March 18, 2019 regular meeting; April 15, 2019 regular meeting b. APPROPRIATION: FM Global Fire Prevention Grant - $3,268.00 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: 2019-2020 Community Development Block Grant funding – $395,052.82 (1st of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: 2019-2020 HOME Investment Partnership funding – $120,382.75 (1st of 2 readings) e. APPROPRIATION: Amendment to Community Development Block Grant Account – Reprogramming of Funds for FY 2019-2020 - $1,900.82 (1st of 2 readings) f. APPROPRIATION: Local Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG) - $7,500 (1st of 2 readings) g. APPROPRIATION: Funding Requirements for SAP Integration for the FASTER Fleet Management Software - $48,000 (1st of 2 readings) h. ORDINANCE: Amend Charlottesville City Code Section 15-131(Motor Vehicles and Traffic) (2nd of 2 readings) i. RESOLUTION: Alleys and Paper Streets Closing Policy (2nd of 2 readings) CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) COMMUNITY MATTERS Public comment is provided for up to 16 speakers at the beginning of the meeting (limit 3 minutes per speaker.) Pre-registration is available for up to 8 spaces, and pre-registered speakers are announced by noon the day of the meeting. The number of speakers is unlimited at the end of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING/ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Funding—1st Year Action Plan, FY 19- RESOLUTION*: 20 (1st of 1 reading) 3. PUBLIC HEARING/ Amend Conditions for Closing a Portion of the Coleman Street Right of Way (Unaccepted ROW) ORDINANCE: (1st of 2 readings) 4. REPORT: Update from City Manager’s Advisory on Organizational Equity 5. REPORT: Charlottesville Retirement Fund and Divestment Considerations 6. ORDINANCE*: Homeowner Tax Relief Grant Program – 2019 (1st of 1 reading) 7. RESOLUTION*: Support of Federal Legislation for a Carbon Fee & Dividend Policy to Address Climate Change (1st of 1 reading) 8. RESOLUTION*: Support of Key Focus Areas to Address in the City of Charlottesville Climate Action Plan (1st of 1 reading) 9. RESOLUTION*: Request for Approval for the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) to establish the Charlottesville Community Development Corporation (CCDC) (1st of 1 reading) 10. REPORT: Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) 11. REPORT: Residents On-the-job-training program (ROJTP) 12. REPORT: West Main Streetscape Project Update OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC *ACTION NEEDED This page intentionally left blank 1 COUNCIL CHAMBER - March 18, 2019 ROLL CALL The Charlottesville City Council met on this date in City Hall Council Chamber with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Heather Hill, Dr. Wes Bellamy, Ms. Kathy Galvin, and Mr. Mike Signer. Mayor Walker called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PROCLAMATIONS Ms. Hill read an announcement from Mr. Alex Zan regarding the 5th annual “My Help List Contest”, a thinking, writing and reading activity with a cash prize and winners reception. The contest is open to students from Charlottesville and surrounding areas, and runs from March 11 – April 19, 2019. Dr. Bellamy asked for a moment of silence for the recent tragedy at a New Zealand mosque and Ms. Walker read a Proclamation / Statement of Solidarity from the City of Charlottesville. Dr. Mohamed Halaibeh was present to receive the Proclamation and he made remarks. Dr. Bellamy presented a Proclamation for the Virginia Festival of the Book to program director Jane Kulow, who made remarks. CONSENT AGENDA Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas read the following Consent Agenda items into the record: a. MINUTES: March 4, 2019 Special Meeting; March 6, 2019 Special Meeting; March 7, 2019 Special Meeting March 4, 2019 Special Meeting March 6, 2019 Special Meeting March 7, 2019 Special Meeting b. APPROPRIATION: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Grant for 2019 - $14,086 (Carried) [This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration later in the meeting.] c. APPROPRIATION: Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant - $49,336 (Carried) Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant - $49,336 2 d. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Behavioral Health Docket Grant - $50,000 (Carried) Virginia Behavioral Health Docket Grant - $50,000 e. RESOLUTION: Capital Funding Transfer for Smith Recreation Center Air Quality Project - $300,000 Smith Recreation Center Air Quality Project - $300,000 RESOLUTION Transfer for Smith Recreation Center Indoor Air Quality Project $300,000 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the funding for the Smith Recreation Center Indoor Air Quality project is hereby transferred in the following manner: Transfer From; $300,000 Fund: 426 WBS: CP-080 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer To $300,000 Fund: 426 WBS: P-01011 G/L Account: 599999 f. RESOLUTION: 10th & Page Park - land acquisition - $60,800 (Carried) 10th & Page Park - land acquisition - $60,800 g. RESOLUTION: VDOT - Programmatic Project Administration Agreement VDOT - Programmatic Project Administration Agreement RESOLUTION AFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO FUND THE LOCALITY SHARE OF PROJECTS UNDER AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION AND PROVIDE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is a recipient of Virginia Department of Transportation funds under various grant programs for transportation-related projects; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires each locality, by resolution, to provide assurance of its commitment to funding its local share; and THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City of Charlottesville hereby commits to fund its local share of preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and 3 construction (as applicable) of the project(s) under agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation in accordance with the project financial document(s); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and/or his designees is authorized to execute all agreements and/or addendums for any approved projects with the Virginia Department of Transportation. In witness whereof, the forgoing was adopted by City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia on 2019. RESOLUTION APPROVING VIRGINIA’S STATE-WIDE PROGRAMMATIC PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FOR REVENUE SHARING PROJECTS (PPAA) THROUGH FISCAL YEARS FY2020, FY2021, AND FY2022 FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the City of Charlottesville (City) need to entered into an agreement allowing the City to locally administer certain state-funded projects, said agreement being referred to as the state-wide Programmatic Project Administration Agreement for Revenue Sharing projects within the City of Charlottesville funded solely with revenue sharing funds (hereinafter, said agreement being referred to as the “PPAA”). The parties agreed that the PPAA would be and remain in effect for a term of three fiscal years (FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022), but the PPAA expressly provides an option allowing the parties to extend the term for an additional three fiscal years (through June 30, 2025); and, WHEREAS, VDOT requests the City to enter into a written agreement (PPAA), and further requests the City of Charlottesville to provide assurance of its commitment to funding its local share for each PPAA Project for fiscal years FY2020, FY2021, FY2022 and to otherwise verify its commitment to meeting its financial obligations under the PPAA; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that said Council hereby approves the execution of the PPAA through the end of FY2022, and Council hereby commits to fund its local share of preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction, as applicable, for the project(s) administered under agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation, in accordance with the PPAA and applicable project financial document(s); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by Council that the Charlottesville City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the PPAA consistent with this Resolution on behalf of, and as the agent of, the Charlottesville City Council. This resolution shall be effective upon passage. 4 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO VIRGINIA’S STATE-WIDE PROGRAMMATIC PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FOR REVENUE SHARING PROJECTS (PPAA) TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE PPAA THROUGH FISCAL YEARS FY2023, FY2024, AND FY2025 FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the City of Charlottesville (City) have entered into an agreement allowing the City to locally administer certain state-funded projects, said agreement being referred to as the state-wide Programmatic Project Administration Agreement for Revenue Sharing projects within the City of Charlottesville funded solely with revenue sharing funds (hereinafter, said agreement being referred to as the “PPAA”). The parties agreed that the PPAA would be and remain in effect for a term of three fiscal years (FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022), but the PPAA expressly provided an option allowing the parties to extend the term for an additional three fiscal years (through June 30, 2025); and, WHEREAS, in order to extend their agreement for three additional fiscal years, in accordance with the PPAA, VDOT requests the City to enter into a written Addendum to the PPAA, and further requests the City of Charlottesville to provide assurance of its commitment to funding its local share for each PPAA Project for fiscal years FY2023, FY2024, FY2025 and to otherwise verify its commitment to meeting its financial obligations under the PPAA for an extended period of time; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that said Council hereby approves the extension of its obligations under the PPAA through the end of FY2025, and in connection with the extension Council hereby commits to fund its local share of preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction, as applicable, for the project(s) administered under agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation, in accordance with the PPAA and applicable project financial document(s); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by Council that the Charlottesville City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an Addendum to the PPAA consistent with this Resolution on behalf of, and as the agent of, the Charlottesville City Council. This resolution shall be effective upon passage. h. ORDINANCE: Imposition of Fee for Fire Department Inspections Imposition of Fee for Fire Department Inspections ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville (hereinafter “City”) adopted the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code (hereinafter “VSFPC”) by enacting Charlottesville City Code §12-31; and 5 WHEREAS, Virginia Code §27-98 and Charlottesville City Code §12-31 authorize the City to levy fees to enforce the VSFPC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, that the Charlottesville City Council adopts the Charlottesville Fire Department Office of the Fire Marshall Fee Schedule attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A. i. ORDINANCE: Telecommunications Franchise to MCI Communications Telecommunications Franchise to MCI Communications AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE TO MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS TO USE THE STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, FOR ITS POLE, WIRES, CONDUITS, CABLES AND FIXTURES, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) Interim City Manager Mike Murphy discussed the following matters: 1. Traffic at the Willoughby intersection. He advised that striping was being done as recommended by the Traffic Engineer. Research was pulled for reportable and non- reportable crashes for the last year. Of the eight reportable crashes, four were at the intersection, three of which were rear-end collisions for trailing closely. The Public Works Department and Traffic Engineering are providing an additional study as they work toward a solution. 2. Benches on the Downtown Mall. After talking with Mr. Daly, there are approximately twelve benches that can be put back into use and have locations already pre-determined. 3. Pilot altering the trolley route. He gave details of several options and advised of the loss of parking spaces. 4. Posting of police data on the interactive website. Additional demographic information has been included since the initial launch. 5. Vietnam Veterans Memorial. General parking area and wayfinding signs have been added. Further accessibility options are being explored. Ms. Walker asked about the efficiency of providing transportation at the Memorial. Mr. Murphy advised it would be up to Council as they would need to look at return on investment and other factors to weigh options. 6 Ms. Galvin asked about feedback regarding the proposed trolley route pilot. Mr. Murphy mentioned that most feedback has been positive. Council agreed to let staff move forward with the trolley pilot and placing benches on the Downtown Mall. COMMUNITY MATTERS Ms. Liz Reynolds, resident, spoke about her involvement in a white racial affinity group based on mindfulness and meditation as one of the avenues to learn how to decrease disparities between whites and blacks in America. She mentioned that she leads a meditation-based class series based on the work of author Ruth King, who will be part of this year’s Festival of the Book. She gave copies of Ruth King’s book to Councilors. Mr. Walt Heinecke, resident, spoke on behalf of the People's Coalition regarding the Police Civilian Review Board (CRB) and the desired makeup, responsibility and authority. Ms. Susan Kruse, resident, spoke about climate action planning and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. She related rising temperatures to rising energy costs, which would disproportionately affect low income households. She gave specifics of the results from the public comment period, which ended March 17. Ms. Mary Carey, resident, thanked Mr. Murphy for getting the trolley pilot started. She asked Ms. Galvin for apology for comments made in November 2018 regarding Vinegar Hill. Mr. Harold Foley yielded his time to Lynn (?) of the People's Coalition, who continued Mr. Heinecke’s list of core elements of what would make a meaningful CRB. Ms. Idil Aktan, representing the Human Rights Commission of Charlottesville, spoke about affordable and safe housing, in particular endorsement of the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program resolution. Dr. Bellamy and Mr. Murphy advised that funding is currently in the budget for the rental assistance program. Ms. Tanisha Hudson, resident, advised of a request from Mr. Brown at Brown’s convenience store for two designated parking spaces. She encouraged funding for Open Source Recycling to help with obtaining a facility, as they help refurbish and repurpose computers, and distribute them to those in need. She encouraged increasing the income limit for property assessment credits needed due to gentrification. Ms. Rosia Parker addressed Mr. Murphy directly about the intersection at 8th and Main Streets. Regarding the CRB, she demanded that the police chief apologize to the CRB for comments made about the CRB in reference to two members in particular. She advised that she is not satisfied with the way the data was presented by the Charlottesville Police Department 7 prior to the March 12, 2019 CRB meeting. She asked for clarification of when the complaint process started. Mr. Peter Krebs, resident, spoke on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council. He endorsed the project to reroute the trolley and brought forth two pedestrian-related opportunities: 1) the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission discussion of the 5th Street Trails Project on March 20th from 4:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at TJPDC Water Street Center, and 2) a co-hosted social with PEC and Safe Routes to School on March 22nd. Volunteers will be fixing up the City’s bike fleet. Mr. Ken Edwards spoke about the need to cease rising tax assessments because citizens are being displaced. He used his own property as an example of the rate of increase. He also asked Council to help people who want to be homeowners by partnering with Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Trey Biasioli, resident, spoke about the City’s climate policy and the recently closed public comment period. He spoke about the ownership of a fossil fuel utility, and advised that natural gas is no longer the cleaner option for energy. He offered three recommendations: 1) stop incentivizing fossil fuel usage; 2) switch the incentives to encourage the use of cleaner electric- based appliances; 3) commit to a zero carbon future for Charlottesville Gas. Mr. Jeff Fogel, resident, spoke in reference to a comment from Mr. Murphy regarding transparency. Ms. Jane Fletcher, resident, spoke about rising real estate taxes. She advised that the City budget needs to be constrained. Ms. Nancy Carpenter, resident, spoke about parking at the Rose Hill Market. She thanked staff for looking into putting the benches with backs on the downtown mall. She asked whether the Vinegar Hill plaque was returned to Parks & Rec and whether the plan for the park will continue. She spoke of the need of funding for improvements at Washington Park. Mr. Murphy gave feedback about development at end of the mall. Ms. Katrina Turner, resident, spoke about information presented by the Police Department to the CRB, and advised that she is awaiting a response from the Police Chief in regard to her personal situation. Mr. Don Gathers spoke about real estate tax assessment increase to his over 100-year-old home, with an increase in his property of $52,000 within the last two years. He advised that the only difference is a local development - Dairy Central Project. He cautioned that projects such as this contribute to the issues of gentrification, which drive out existing residents. Dr. Bellamy commented about the need for a dedicated revenue source to address affordable housing. Ms. Galvin asked a question of Mr. Blair about a moratorium on luxury student housing. He advised there is no general moratorium on development in localities. Special Use Permits are 8 at Council's discretion as those projects are presented. At Council's direction, Mr. Blair will research. At request of Mr. Signer, Mr. Murphy gave information about the Assessor’s Office and an explanation of how the appeals process for real estate assessments works. He advised that there are a certain amount of funds set aside to account for appeals. Mr. Blair gave an explanation of the personnel records policy as regulated by City Code. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Signer, Council by the following vote appointed the following members to the Region 10 Board: Ms. Linda Hanson and Mr. Andre Lewis. APPROVED 5-0. (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Mr. Signer, Ms. Galvin; Noes: None) The meeting went into recess at 8:24 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:44 p.m. On motion by Ms. Galvin, seconded by Ms. Hill, Council by the following vote, suspended the rules of the meeting to allow an adjustment to the order of the agenda. APPROVED 5-0. (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Mr. Signer, Ms. Galvin; Noes: None) Ms. Galvin asked that Item #8 regarding Bennett’s Village be moved to Agenda Item #2 Ms. Walker advised that ten minutes would be allocated for the presentation. REPORT: Bennett's Village Playground Bennett's Village Playground Mr. Brian Daly acknowledged the addition of accessible play structures on existing playgrounds, and advised that this proposal is for the construction of a dedicated all-abilities park. He introduced Kara McClurken and Brian Gibney, who shared the story of Bennett and gave a presentation for the proposed playground. They advised that the closest all-abilities playground is in Richmond, Virginia. The proposal is for Charlottesville to create an all-abilities park with land donated from the City at Penn Park, in partnership with Parks & Recreation. The playground could enable children as well as limited-ability adults. Ms. Walker asked about next steps. Mr. Daly advised that there is a draft resolution in the agenda packet, which could be put on the next Council agenda for consideration. Mr. Signer advised that this type of playground would become a destination. Ms. Galvin commended Bennett's parents for their fortitude and courage in bringing the item forward. 9 PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Real Estate Tax Rate for FY2020 Proposed Real Estate Tax Rate for FY2020; City Manager's Proposed Budget for FY2020 Mr. Murphy gave a brief presentation and review of the Proposed FY2020 Budget, and public hearings were considered separately. Ms. Walker opened the public hearing for the real estate tax rate for FY2020. Ms. Caroline Belt, resident, thanked Mayor Walker for trying to use checks and balances to make sure funds are being properly used. She asked about checks and balances from the school system, and advised that the data is needed in order for her to feel more comfortable spending tax dollars on the schools. Mr. Mark Kavit spoke about real estate assessments increasing and advised that people are leaving the City. He encouraged increasing the income limit for tax credits. Ms. Kimber Hawkey, Belmont resident, spoke about real estate reassessment and suggested that there is a problem in the Assessor's Office. She offered suggestions of how to address revenue and expenses. Ms. Colette Hall commended Council and City staff on the work put into the budget process. She advised that Council should look into decreasing expenses. Mr. Jeff Fogel, Belmont resident, advised of the need for the City to have 1) a sustained source of revenue, and 2) a more robust system for rebates. He advised that the largest population of people who are leaving the City are black and low-income. He advised that the sustained source of revenue would help decrease the disparity of income. Mr. Aaron Winston, organizer with the Housing Coalition advised that a tax abatement program is important to address the issue for affordable housing. He encouraged raising real estate tax only if combined with a robust tax abatement program. Mr. Walt Heinecke, resident, spoke about the history of affordable housing issues in Charlottesville, and commended Council for efforts moving forward. He spoke in support of a real estate tax increase as a long-term solution for addressing affordable housing. Mr. Brad Slocum, resident, advised Council not to reinvent the wheel, and offered that the City of Ithaca, NY, is dealing with similar issues in a university town. He asked Council to look for a sustainable solution. Ms. Nancy Carpenter, spoke in support of a real estate tax increase, the need for a sustainable revenue source to support affordable housing, and the expansion of tax relief programs. She encouraged Council to adopt a 1% real estate increase and address rent control. 10 Ms. Elaine Poon of the Legal Aid Justice Center, commended Council and Mr. Murphy for budget efforts. She asked them to look for long-term and permanent solutions. She encouraged an increase of CAHF contribution as well as the rent subsidy voucher program. Mr. Brandon Collins, resident, spoke about the affordable housing crisis in Charlottesville and agreed that there needs to be a funding stream to support affordable housing. He advised of a variety of interventions need to address affordable housing. He spoke in support of a real estate tax increase, and raising caps for tax relief. Mr. Michael Payne, renter in Belmont, encouraged Council to prioritize expanding the CHAP program to the maximum possible. He spoke of land speculation from investors. He asked Council to consider the value of community land trusts to stop displacement and to be mindful of where density is being placed. The public hearing was closed. PUBLIC HEARING: City Manager's Proposed Budget for FY2020 Ms. Walker opened the public hearing for the City Manager's Budget. Mr. Aaron Winston, City resident, commended the City Manager and Council for good faith efforts for housing affordability. He advised Council to check their emails for a letter of intent sent from eight organizations in support of finding all avenues to address affordable housing. Ms. Caroline Belt spoke about real estate tax relief. She asked Council to consider relief for population over 65 years old. Mr. Peter Krebs, City resident, spoke about design equity, including ADA upgrades. He advised that the budget does not include some of the larger projects. He asked Council to set aside funds for a long-term bike-ped connectivity plan. Mr. Walt Heinecke, resident, asked for prioritization and efficiency, specifically with the ABRT process. He asked that money be allocated to fund the CRB. Mr. Don Gathers, resident, commended Council for including funding for affordable housing. He suggested that Council discuss with School Board the funds going toward CIP study and design. Councilors added information about the costs associated with the CIP study and design. The public hearing was closed. 11 PUBLIC HEARING/ ORDINANCE: Proposed Meals Tax Rate for FY2020 (1st of 2 readings) Proposed Meals Tax Rate for FY2020 Ms. Walker opened the public hearing for the Meals Tax rate. Mr. Mark Kavit, suggested being careful with increasing the tax. Mr. Walt Heinecke suggested reframing the meals tax as a way to contribute to affordable housing and equity issues. He proposed reframing it as socially conscious investing. Ms. Nancy Carpenter spoke in support of the meals tax increase as a way to address issues or equity. The public hearing was closed. PUBLIC HEARING/ ORDINANCE: Proposed Lodging Tax Rate for FY2020 (1st of 2 readings) Proposed Lodging Tax Rate for FY2020 Ms. Walker opened the proposed Lodging Tax public hearing. Ms. Caroline Belt, resident, encouraged separating AirBnB from hotels when considering lodging tax. Mr. Walt Heinecke advised that people will want to come to Charlottesville when they see that lodging tax goes toward supporting equity. Ms. Nancy Carpenter spoke in support of the lodging tax increase. Mr. Mark Kavit advised that if people know where their money is going, they would support the lodging tax. He encouraged enforcement of the rules on the books for AirBnB units. Mr. Brandon Collins, resident, spoke of problems with AirBnB. He advised that they should be taxed the same as hotels. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Walker reminded the audience of the Budget Meeting tomorrow. Mr. Blair confirmed that there would be no need for a public hearing on April 1 for the real estate tax assessment if Council is considering a one cent increase since the rate was advertised at $0.97, a two cent increase. 12 Ms. Walker called for a ten minute recess. PUBLIC HEARING/ ORDINANCE: Rezone 918 Nassau Street (Hogwaller Farm) to Mixed Use Highway Corridor (2nd of 2 readings) Rezone 918 Nassau Street (Hogwaller Farm) to Mixed Use Highway Corridor Mr. Matt Alfele, City Planner, introduced the rezoning and SUP public hearings, advising that the proffers were amended. He referred to the February 19, 2019 first reading and public hearing of this item, at which time the applicant advised that he would bring the item back with revisions. There were no questions from Councilors. Ms. Walker opened the public hearing. Mr. Justin Shimp, applicant, spoke to items that were changed in the proffers such as the period for affordability, reduction of square footage for churches, and business development of how the farm will work. Mr. Mark Kavit, resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request because of the risk associated with being in a floodplain. Ms. Kimber Hawkey, Belmont resident, advised of a conflict of interest since Shimp Engineering drew the FEMA flood maps. She advised of concerns with the amount of affordable housing being involved, issues of standing water and mold, and the fact that more density would cause more issues on the sloped area. She suggested that the City allow community gardening in the park or edible landscaping as an options. She asked that floodplains be respected. Mr. David Katz, Belmont resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning and SUP because of the risk associated with being in a floodplain. He expressed concern that there were no environmental staff or City experts to address the issues raised. He mentioned that the Planning Commission voted 3-2 against the project, and that the floodplain maps should have been drawn by a third party rather than by the developer of the property. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Galvin asked Mr. Blair a question about having an independent third party draw the FEMA floodplain maps. Mr. Blair advised that this is a process that FEMA does provide and is available to other landowners. Mr. Shimp advised that he was tasked with submitting technical data to FEMA so that FEMA could redraw the maps. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County signed off on the study. The construction has already been approved, so that is why staff has not commented 13 at meetings. He advised that there was approximately a two year process to amend the flood map. Dr. Bellamy asked what would happen to the site if the rezoning is not approved. Ms. Walker asked about the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Alfele advised that the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the rezoning and SUP; however, they have not reviewed the proffers. Ms. Galvin made a motion for denial of the rezoning petition, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hill. Council discussion ensued. Ms. Galvin advised that this process attempted to short-circuit the development process and does not follow the standards of review, the Comp Plan or the City Vision. She advised that she was still not convinced of the rationale for the rezoning. Ms. Hill expressed similar concerns. She advised that she does not see the partnership for the farming space, and the use does no match the proposed zoning. Mr. Signer advised that he is more inclined to support the innovation of the project and that the Pros outweigh the Cons. Dr. Bellamy advised that he is in agreement with Councilor Signer about the innovation of the project, but the process for approval of development is flawed, and concerns of neighbors cannot be ignored. Ms. Walker advised that she spoke with neighbors who were concerned about runoff from rainwater once the project is developed, but were in support. She expressed that she was inclined to follow the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Alfele advised that staff has not done a full site plan review, but that would be the next step. The vote was conducted; however, resulted in a MISVOTE. Ms. Galvin re-stated the motion. Mr. Signer advised that the process for development in the City is glacial, and consideration needs to be given for innovation. On motion by Ms. Galvin, seconded by Ms. Hill, Council voted on the Denial of the rezoning petition: DENIED 3-2 (Ayes: Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Ms. Galvin; Noes: Dr. Bellamy, Mr. Signer) 14 PUBLIC HEARING/ RESOLUTION*: Special use permit for 918 Nassau Street (Hogwaller Farm) for increased density Special use permit for 918 Nassau Street (Hogwaller Farm) for increased density As a result of the denial for rezoning, the SUP needed no action. OTHER BUSINESS Item B from the CONSENT AGENDA was considered: b. APPROPRIATION: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Grant for 2019 - $14,086 (Carried) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Grant for 2019 - $14,086 Ms. Walker asked if receiving the funding triggers mandatory ICE notifications, and Mr. Murphy advised that it does not. The notification to ICE happens at the point of intake. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Dr. Bellamy, Council voted to APPROVE the appropriation of funds to the Regional Jail for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). 5-0 (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Ms. Galvin, Mr. Signer; Noes: None) In other matters, Ms. Galvin brought up the request from the Chair of the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) in February to modify the originating resolution of the HAC to add the Charlottesville Works Initiative as a Category 2 member. Realizing that there would be a more robust discussion in the future of the terms of membership for HAC and other advisory groups, Ms. Galvin asked that this one component of the resolution be considered more immediately. Ms. Walker stated that she wanted to have discussion at the same time as the appointment. Ms. Hill advised that the longer it takes to get this membership in place, the harder it will be for the HAC to complete the work that they are doing. Mr. Signer seconded putting this item on the next agenda. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Mr. Michael Payne, resident, in reference to the 918 Nassau Street project outcome, advised that zoning reform needs to be a priority on par with anything done related to affordable housing, and applicants forced to go through such a process could set the City back on affordable housing. The meeting adjourned at 11:47 p.m. 1 COUNCIL CHAMBER - April 15, 2019 ROLL CALL The Charlottesville City Council met on this date in City Hall Council Chamber with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Heather Hill, Dr. Wes Bellamy, and Ms. Kathy Galvin. Mr. Mike Signer was absent due to a family obligation. Mayor Walker called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PROCLAMATIONS Dr. Bellamy made an announcement on behalf of Ms. Maxine Holland, regarding Juneteenth events starting June 14, 2019, at the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center. Dr. Bellamy asked for everyone to register for the “Run the Streets” 4-miler on Saturday, June 29th with WeCodeToo. Registration is online at www.wecodetoocville.com/runthesestreets. Ms. Galvin acknowledged that Paris is grieving the loss of a world heritage site – the burning of Notre Dame Cathedral, which is a loss to the world. Ms. Walker announced that new City Manager Tarron Richardson was introduced during a press conference earlier today. Dr. Richardson will start on May 13 and was in the audience for recognition. Dr. Bellamy acknowledged that a Proclamation was presented at an event on Saturday, April 13th to the University of Virginia basketball team in recognition of their NCAA championship. Councilors Hill and Galvin were present at the event and shared sentiments. CONSENT AGENDA Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas read the following items into the record: a. MINUTES: April 1, 2019 Special and Regular meetings; April 8, 2019 Special meeting. Due to technical issues, the March 18, 2019 Minutes will be available for the May 6, 2019 meeting. Minutes-April 1, 2019 Special Minutes - April 1, 2019 Regular Minutes-April 8, 2019 Special 2 b. APPROPRIATION: Funds from VML Insurance Programs - $11,374.00 Funds from VML Insurance Programs - $11,374.00 APPROPRIATION VML Insurance Programs Claim Payment - $11,374.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $11,374.00 from VML Insurance Programs is to be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $11,374.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 451110 Expenditures - $11,374.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 510060 Amount: $680 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 520200 Amount: $10,694 c. APPROPRIATION: Funds from Ryder - $7,850.00 Funds from Ryder - $7,850.00 APPROPRIATION VML Insurance Programs Claim Payment - $7,850.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $7,850.00 from Ryder is to be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $7,850.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2443001000 G/L Account: 451110 Expenditures - $7,850.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2443001000 G/L Account: 530550 d. APPROPRIATION: Funds from Trinity Steel Erection, Inc. - $2,856.00 Funds from Trinity Steel Erection, Inc. - $2,856.00 3 APPROPRIATION VML Insurance Programs Claim Payment - $2,856.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $2,856.00 from Trinity Steel Erection, Inc. is to be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $2,856.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 451110 Expenditures - $2,856.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 510060 Amount: $140 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 520200 Amount: $2,716 e. APPROPRIATION: Funds from Penn National Insurance - $12,500.00 Funds from Penn National Insurance - $12,500.00 APPROPRIATION VML Insurance Programs Claim Payment - $12,500.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $12,500.00 from Penn National Insurance is to be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $12,500.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 451110 Expenditures - $12,500.00 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 510060 Amount: $5,464 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 520200 Amount: $7,036 f. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Fire Equity & Diversity Conference - $50,000 Appropriation Virginia Fire Equity & Diversity Conference - $50,000 APPROPRIATION Virginia Fire Equity & Diversity Conference $50,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Charlottesville Fire Department will be hosting the 2019 Virginia Fire Equity and Diversity Conference in October 2019; 4 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received a Conference and Education Assistance Grant from Virginia Department of Fire Programs (VDFP) to host conference expenses and will also be receiving registration fees from conference attendees which will be used to cover the cost of hosting such a conference; Revenue $15,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900325 G/L Account: 430110 $35,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900325 G/L Account: 434410 Expenditures $50,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900325 G/L Account: 599999 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $50,000, received from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs (VDFP) and conference attendees is hereby appropriated in the following manner: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of grant funds from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs and conference registration fees and shall be hereby considered a continuing appropriation unless further altered by Council. g. APPROPRIATION: FM Global Fire Prevention Grant - $3,268.00 (carried) FM Global Grant Program $3,268.00 h. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award - $27,728.46 (2nd reading) Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award - $27,728.46 APPROPRIATION Virginia Housing Solutions Program Grant Award $27,728.46 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the V. H. S. P. Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the additional amount of $27,728.46; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the additional sum of $27,728.46 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: 5 Revenues $ 9,656.51 Fund: 209 IO: 1900313 G/L: 430110 State Grant $18,071.95 Fund: 209 IO: 1900313 G/L: 430120 Federal Pass-Thru State Expenditures $27,728.46 Fund: 209 IO: 1900313 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of an additional $27,728.49 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. i. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) Employment for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) Participants Grant (2nd Renewal) - $58,824 (2nd reading) OED VDSS TANF Grant 2nd Renewal - $58,824 APPROPRIATION Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) Employment for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) Participants Grant (2nd Renewal) $58,824 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received funds from the Virginia Department of Social Services in the amount of $50,000 requiring a $8,824 in local in-kind match provided by the Office of Economic Development through the Workforce Investment Fund; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to support workforce development training programs provided by the Office of Economic Development; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from June 30, 2018 and July 1. 2019; Revenue $50,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900326 G/L: 430120 State/Fed pass thru $ 8,824 Fund: 209 IO: 1900326 G/L: 498010 Transfers from Other Funds Expenditures $58,824 Fund: 209 IO: 1900326 G/L: 599999 Lump Sum Transfer From $ 8,824 Fund: 425 WBS: P-00385 G/L: 561209 Transfer to State Grants 6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $66,667 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $50,000 from the Virginia Department of Social Services and the matching in-kind funds from the Office of Economic Development through the Workforce Investment Fund. j. ORDINANCE: Telecommunications Franchise to MMI Atlantic, LLC Telecommunications Franchise to MMI Atlantic, LLC AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE TO MMI ATLANTIC, LLC , ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS TO USE THE STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA FOR ITS POLE, WIRE, CONDUITS, CABLES AND FIXTURES, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS k. RESOLUTION: CPA-TV/York Property Lease Agreement and The Ryal Thomas Show, LLC License Agreement CPATV Lease Agmts RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the following documents, in form approved by the City Attorney or his designee. (1) Lease Agreement between the City of Charlottesville (Lessee) and York Property, LLC (Lessor) for the lease of property at 112 West Main Street, Suites 9 & 10 (York Place) for the Charlottesville Community Media Center, effective April 1, 2019; and (2) License Agreement between the City of Charlottesville (Licensor) and Ryal Thomas (Licensee) for use of the Charlottesville Community Media Center at 12 West Main Street, effective April 1, 2019. CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) Mr. Murphy provided responses on the following matters: 7 1) Questions from Ms. Rebecca Quinn regarding the report received from the Water and Sewer Authority infiltration. Ms. Hildebrand has provided a response. In order to minimize inflow in infiltration and service disruption, an ongoing Capital Improvement Plan is in place that includes rehabilitation and improvement of the sanitary sewer system. The information will be emailed to Ms. Quinn. 2) A concern brought up by Ms. Katrina Turner regarding foreclosure of property due to delinquent taxes. He advised that in 2019 there have been no foreclosures. In 2018 there were foreclosures, all of which had at least six years of tax delinquency, and no case in which anyone has been removed from an occupied parcel. 3) Vietnam Veterans Memorial City actions. Additional general way-finding signs are on order. Other signs will be adjusted to meet ADA requirements. Areas were paved last week and there are two parking accessible parking spots available. Staff is prepared to offer a reservation system for transportation to the memorial. He asked for Council to endorse his recommendation that he determine a working group to make recommendations for access to the memorial and bring those ideas back to Council. Councilors acknowledged support. 4) In response to a concern from Ms. Rosia Parker, Mr. Duncan, Traffic Engineer, gave an overview of efforts made to address issues at 8th & Main Streets. Dr. Bellamy asked about the cost of installing rapid flash beacons at the intersection. Mr. Duncan advised each would cost $10,000 and two would be needed. Ms. Walker asked about accidents at the intersection and Mr. Duncan advised that there are none in the last five years of data. Dr. Bellamy advised that he would support putting flashers at this intersection. Ms. Hill advised that Council needs to be strategic about where to place the rapid flash beacons. Dr. Bellamy advised of concerns from the walking community/neighborhood. Ms. Galvin asked about the "Do Not Block the Box" and Mr. Duncan advised that the program is geared toward vehicular traffic. Ms. Walker advised that she has not heard from people regarding this issue. Mr. Duncan advised in two years Ms. Parker is the only person who has brought this issue to his attention. Ms. Galvin asked that this item be placed on a future agenda along with information about criteria and other areas around the city that may need the beacons. Ms. Hill agreed. Mr. Murphy advised that additional data needs to be gathered before placing this item on a future agenda. Ms. Galvin advised that Senators Kaine and Warren have located additional funds that will be directed to Charlottesville affordable housing. She asked for further information of how the funding would be allocated in reference to the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program and the On-the-Job training program. Mr. Murphy will ask Mr. Duffield to provide an update. COMMUNITY MATTERS Ms. Myra Anderson spoke about a human rights violations in regard to Region Ten. She handed out a list of recommendations to Council to ensure that rights of all citizens are upheld. 8 Dr. Bellamy asked if there is a timeline for hearing back from the City on her request. Ms. Anderson advised that time is of the essence. Ms. Walker advised that this issue has been part of her focus - holding agencies accountable. Ms. Galvin asked if this would be a legal matter since Ms. Anderson advised that human rights had been violated. Mr. Blair advised that the Human Rights Commission could open an investigation. Mr. Murphy agreed. Mr. Chris Meyer welcomed new City Manager Dr. Richardon. As the new Director of the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP), he spoke in support of the City's efforts related to climate change and encouraged efforts toward affordable and comfortable housing through energy efficiency and renewable energy. Mr. Tom Vandever asked that the following three speakers on the list be allowed to yield their time to Mr. Jim Schisler to speak. Mr. James D. “Jim” Schisler, resident, spoke about inadequate parking and limited access at the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial. Dr. Ellen Osborne, Executive Director of Literacy Volunteers, gave a summary of program successes for the past year. Ms. Katrina Turner, resident, passed a letter of response to Councilors. She directly addressed Mr. Murphy, advising that she was not satisfied with the revised letter from the Police Chief. - Mr. Murphy advised that Chief Brackney has provided a corrected letter and he will not require her to take any further action. Ms. Emily Dreyfus, organizer with the Legal Aid Justice Center and Advisory Council Member for the Public Housing Association of Residents, commended the City for efforts dedicated to allocating funds for affordable housing, and followed up on concerns regarding Belmont Apartments vulnerable neighbors who received an eviction notice recently. She asked that the City consider how it can be helpful in the future. She urged citizens to contact Legal Aid when they hear about these issues. She mentioned support of concerns for the intersection and 8th and Main Streets. - Ms. Walker asked whether the voucher program could help people in situations like the Belmont Apartments issue. - Mr. Murphy advised that Ms. Dimock is following up on this issue. 9 - Dr. Bellamy advised that he received a message today that the developer has agreed to stop the displacement of individuals who have not been able to find housing elsewhere. Options are being explored. - Ms. Dimock advised that the developer is considering phasing in the rehabilitation of the building to impact the least amount of people. Mr. Harold Folley of Legal Aid ceded his time to Ms. Joyce Hilstrom of the People’s Coalition. She thanked Council for their hard work and commended the CRB for their efforts. She brought attention to the news article referencing disparities in police contacts toward people of color. She advised that the People’s Coalition is in support of the CRB bylaws that will be presented on April 17th. Mr. Brad Slocum, resident, expressed concern that the City’s climate policy was not on today’s agenda. He asked for more updates on policy and environmental issues. The meeting went into recess at 8:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Dr. Bellamy, Council by the following vote changed the order of the agenda to place Item #7 before Item #2 because of travel constraints for Dr. Richardson: 4-0 (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Ms. Galvin; Noes: None; Absent: Mr. Signer) RESOLUTION*: Resolution Approving City Manager Employment Agreement Resolution Approving City Manager Employment Agreement Mr. Blair introduced the item and mentioned that a press conference was held at Noon to introduce new City Manager, Dr. Tarron Richardson. Ms. Walker opened up the floor for questions. No one came forward. Ms. Galvin offered additional comment to welcome Dr. Richardson. Ms. Hill advised that although Mr. Signer could not be here, he advised that he would vote in favor of the resolution. On motion by Ms. Galvin, seconded by Dr. Bellamy, Council by the following vote APPROVED the Resolution approving the City Manager Employment Agreement: 4-0 (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Ms. Galvin; Noes: None; Absent: Mr. Signer) 10 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DR. TARRON RICHARDSON AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council is enabled to hire a City Manager pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1540 and Section 5 of the Charlottesville City Charter; and WHEREAS, Dr. Tarron J. Richardson desires to serve as the Charlottesville City Manager. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Employment Agreement between Dr. Tarron J. Richardson and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia dated April 8, 2019 is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that Dr. Richardson will begin his duties as the Charlottesville City Manager on May 13, 2019. PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION*: Series 2019 Bond Issue - $17,750,000 PH-RES_Series 2019 Bond $17,750,000 Mr. Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance, came forward to introduce the item. Ms. Walker asked if there were any concerns from the rating agencies and Mr. Cullinan advised that there were no concerns raised by either agency. Ms. Walker opened the Public Hearing. With no one coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Murphy offered further comments. Mr. Cullinan wanted to publicly thank Ms. Krisy Hammill for her work. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Galvin, Council by the following vote APPROVED the Resolution: 4-0 (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Ms. Galvin; Noes: None; Absent: Mr. Signer) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $17,750,000, TO FINANCE THE COSTS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF 11 ORDINANCE*: Amend Charlottesville City Code Section 15-131(Motor Vehicles and Traffic) (carried) ORD_City Code Section 15-131(Motor Vehicles and Traffic) Chief Andrew Baxter came forward to review the item. The City Code section amends the membership requirements for special parking permits to full active members of the Charlottesville Rescue Squad. Ms. Walker asked for clarification about the use of the permits and how the appropriate use is communicated. This action would reduce the list from several hundred to less than one hundred tags. ORDINANCE*: Rezone Lyman Street Residences-Tax Map 58 Parcels 289.2 and 358E (Subject Properties) (2nd reading) ORD_Lyman Street Rezoning Action Memo 3-20-2019 Ms. Walker advised that on April 1st this item was on the consent agenda, so it has been moved to the regular meeting for the public to have more information. Mr. Brian Haluska gave a summary of the rezoning request and noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at their March 12th meeting, with three Councilors present. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Galvin, Council by the following vote APPROVED the Ordinance to rezone Lyman Street Residences-Tax Map 58 Parcels 289.2 and 358E: 4-0 (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Ms. Galvin; Noes: None; Absent: Mr. Signer) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REQUEST TO REZONE TWO PARCELS FRONTING ON LYMAN STREET FROM R-1 (AND PUD (BELMONT LOFTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) TO R-2 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)) RESOLUTION*: Special use permit - Lyman Street Residences-Tax Map 58 Parcels 289.2 and 358E (Subject Properties) RES_Lyman Street SUP Action Memo Ms. Walker introduced the item and Mr. Brian Haluska came forward to discuss the request for Special Use Permit. 12 Mr. Haluska advised that these allow internal accessory dwelling units. On motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Galvin, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution to grant a special use permit to authorize an infill development project, as more particularly described within the application materials submitted by the Landowner in connection with City Application No. SP19-00011: 4-0 (Ayes: Dr. Bellamy, Ms. Hill, Ms. Walker, Ms. Galvin; Noes: None; Absent: Mr. Signer) RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON TWO PARCELS FRONTING ON LYMAN STREET WHEREAS, BKKW, LLC is the owner (“Landowner”) of certain property fronting on Lyman Street, designated on 2018 City Tax Map 58 as Parcels 289.2 and 358E (“Subject Property”), and pursuant to City Code §34-165, the Landowner requests a special use permit to authorize an infill development project, as more particularly described within the application materials submitted by the Landowner in connection with City Application No. SP19-00011; and WHEREAS, the zoning classification of the Subject Property is R-2 (Two Family Residential); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the application is to allow construction of a specific infill development project within the Subject Property, consisting of the following: A common plan of development for the land area within Parcels 289.2 and 358E, including: (i) three (3) buildings, to be constructed as single-family dwellings (the “SFDs”), each on its own separate lot and with each building fronting on Lyman Street; (ii) each lot containing a single-family dwelling shall have an area no less than 2500 square feet (SF) and no more than 3500 SF; each such lot shall have frontage on Lyman street of no less than 34 feet and no more than 65 feet; and each such lot shall have side yards of at least 2 feet, but no required front or rear yard areas; (iii) each single-family lot, and the land on which it is constructed, may be used and occupied in any manner authorized within §34-420 of the R-2 zoning district regulations, including, without limitation, internal accessory apartments; (iv) the land area currently identified as tax Parcel 358E will not contain any buildings or structures (other than the SFDs), and will be used predominantly for access and parking for the SFDs described above and as landscaped open space with plantings, and for any additional driveway or parking as may be necessary to serve internal accessory apartments established within the SFDs; and (v) the general design and height of all buildings, the layout of the entire development area, and the characteristics of the development shall be in all material aspects the same as depicted within the site plan dated December 21, 2018, revised February 28, 2019, and the narrative materials accompanying Application No. SP19- 00011 (hereinafter, the “Infill Project”); and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Infill Project was conducted jointly by the Planning Commission and City Council on March 12, 2019, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by Virginia Code §15.2-2204 and City Code §34-44; and 13 WHEREAS, based on the representations, information, and materials included within the application materials submitted by the Landowner in connection with SP19-00011, and upon consideration of: information and analysis set forth within the Staff Report; factors set forth in City Code §34-157, §34-165, and §34-166; the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and comments received at the joint public hearing, this Council finds that the Infill Project is appropriate in the location requested and may be approved subject to suitable regulations and safeguards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, THAT a Special Use Permit is hereby granted to authorize the Infill Project defined above within this Resolution to be constructed on the Subject Property, including, without limitation, approval of modified yard regulations, density standards, and parking standards otherwise applicable within the R-2 zoning district. Minor adjustments of the dimensional regulations set forth above, within the definition of this “Infill Project” shall be permitted when necessary for compliance with engineering, stormwater, utility or other legal requirements, any such adjustments not to exceed five percent (5%) of the dimensions included within the definition of “Infill Project”. Nothing set forth within this Resolution shall be construed as limiting or requiring any particular architectural details or features, including, without limitation: exterior finishes or construction materials, window or door locations, etc. REPORT*: Update on Proposed Changes to Alleys and Paper Streets Closing Policy Alleys & Paper Streets Policy Mr. Alex Ikefuna presented the policy related to alleys and paper streets, sharing the benefits, and he reviewed the evaluation process for determining when an alley should be closed. He presented two recommendations from staff: 1. Reaffirm that all alley acceptance or denial be approved by the City Council; and 2. Approve proposed criteria for accepting or denying applications. Mr. Blair advised that a resolution could go on the consent agenda for the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Councilors Walker, Hill and Bellamy confirmed attendance at the April 27 joint meeting with the CRB in effort to have a quorum. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC No one came forward to speak. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: April 15, 2019 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Joe Phillips, Charlottesville Fire Department - Community Risk Reduction Staff Contacts: Joe Phillips, Battalion Chief Emily Pelliccia, Deputy Chief, Charlottesville Fire Department Title: FM Global Fire Prevention Grant - $3,268.00 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through the Charlottesville Fire Department Community Risk Reduction Section, has received a grant from FM Global. This grant was awarded to offset the cost of Fire Prevention supplies and education materials. Discussion: The Charlottesville Fire Department (C.F.D.) received a grant for assistance with the purchase of fire prevention education materials. These materials include items for Fire Prevention Week (F.P.W.) activities, safety messages for fire and emergency preparedness, and items to promote fire safety to children. These items will be used throughout the year to help deliver our messages to the citizens of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. F.P.W. Activities include meeting all Kindergarten students in the city and providing activity books and materials to each student. The C.F.D. Community Risk Reduction section (C.R.R.) tries to engage all residents by attending community events, teaching classes and spreading fire safety messages. The grant funds will also be used to create brochures and reading materials for adults in English and Spanish. Pamphlets will include information on Smoke Alarms, Kitchen Fire Prevention, Fire Extinguishers, After a Fire, Escaping Planning, Home Fire Drills, Home Fire Prevention, Carbon Monoxide and Office Fire Safety. Emergency Preparedness is a large part of the message we try to deliver. We have requested pamphlets on Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Wildfires, Flooding, Severe Weather, Earthquakes, Winter Storms, Heat Wave and Pandemic Flu. Having a variety of information to distribute will allow us to work with all audiences. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be America’s Healthiest City and it contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan - Healthy and Safe City. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: There is no impact to the General Fund as there is no required local match for this program. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds. Alternatives: If money is not appropriated, the money will need to be returned to FM Global. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION FM Global Fire Prevention Grant $3,268.00 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through Charlottesville Fire Department, has received a grant for $3,268 from FM Global to offset the cost of Fire Prevention supplies and education materials; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $3,268, received from FM Global is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $ 3,268 Fund: 105 Internal Order: 2000126 G/L Account: 451020 Expenditures - $3,268 Fund: 105 Internal Order: 2000126 G/L Account: 530210 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $3,268 from FM Global. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Appropriation and Approval Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Director, NDS Staff Contacts: Missy Creasy, Assistant Director, NDS Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator, NDS Title: Approval and Appropriation of CDBG & HOME Budget Allocations for FY 2019-2020 Background: This agenda item includes project recommendations, action plan approval, and appropriations for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds to be received by the City of Charlottesville from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Discussion: In Fall 2018, the City of Charlottesville advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) based on the priorities set by Council on September 17, 2018. The priorities were for affordable housing (priority for persons who are 0-50 percent AMI), support for the homelessness and those at risk of homelessness, workforce development (support for programs that aid in self-sufficiency, including but not limited to quality childcare), microenterprise assistance, and mental health and substance abuse services. The City received one application totaling $76,000 for housing projects; six applications totaling $97,477 for public service projects; and two applications totaling $32,500 for economic development projects. A summary of applications received is included in this packet. In January 2019 and February 2019, the CDBG/HOME Task Force reviewed and recommended housing and public service projects for funding and the Strategic Action Team reviewed and recommended economic development projects for funding. On March 12, 2019, these items came before the Planning Commission and Council for a joint public hearing. The Planning Commission accepted the report and unanimously recommended the proposed budget for approval by City Council. 1 CDBG and HOME Project Recommendations for FY 2019-2020: The CDBG program total has an estimated $395,052.82 for the 2019-2020 program year. The CDBG grand total reflects the $393,152 Entitlement (EN) Grant, $1,900.82 in Reprogramming, and $0 in previous years’ entitlement available after program income has been applied. The HOME total consists of an estimated $73,603 which is the City’s portion of the Consortium’s appropriation, in addition to $18,400.75 for the City’s 25% required match, $0 in Reprogramming and $28,379 in program income. Minutes from the meetings are attached which outline the recommendations made. It is important to note that all projects went through an extensive review by the CDBG/HOME Task Force as a result of an RFP process. Priority Neighborhood – The FY 2019-2020 Priority Neighborhood is Ridge Street (for the first cycle), however, staff and Planning Commission recommends to Council to designate Belmont as the Priority Neighborhood for FY 19-20 (for the second continuous year). Per the Belmont Priority Neighborhood Task Force recommendations, the first priority project is a sidewalk infill construction project on Franklin Street. Per project estimates, the project may cost an estimated $300,000 for construction and engineering. In order to prevent phasing the project over two to three years, which will increase the cost of the project, staff and Planning Commission recommends Belmont for a continuous round of funding for FY 19-20 and then designate Ridge Street as the 20-21, and 21-22 Priority Neighborhood. There are several upcoming projects surrounding Franklin Street that will impact traffic and safety conditions within the neighborhood. Economic Development – Council set aside FY 19-20 CDBG funding for Economic Development Activities. Members of the Strategic Action Team reviewed applications for Economic Development and made a recommendation. Funds are proposed to be used to provide scholarships to assist 20 entrepreneurs launch their own micro-enterprises through technical assistance. Public Service Programs – The CDBG/HOME Task Force has recommended several public service programs. Programs were evaluated based on Council’s priorities for affordable housing (priority for persons who are 0-50 percent AMI), support for the homelessness and those at risk of homelessness, workforce development (support for programs that aid in self-sufficiency, including but not limited to quality childcare), microenterprise assistance, and mental health and substance abuse services. Programs were also evaluated based upon metrics included in the RFP evaluation scoring rubric. Funding will enable the organizations to provide increased levels of service to the community. Estimated benefits include workforce development training for seven beneficiaries; basic literacy instruction for 20 beneficiaries; and increased capacity of a coordinated entry system for homeless services which will benefit 41 homeless persons. Administration and Planning: To pay for the costs of staff working with CDBG projects, citizen participation, and other costs directly related to CDBG funds, $78,630 is budgeted. HOME Funds: The CDBG/HOME Task Force recommended funding to programs that support homeowner rehabilitation. Estimated benefits include three homeowner rehabilitations/three preserved units. Program Income/Reprogramming: For FY 2019-2020, the City has $0 in previous CDBG EN that 2 has been made available through the application of received Program Income (PI) to be circulated back into the CDBG budget. The City has $28,379 in HOME available after PI was applied to be circulated back into the HOME budget. There are also completed projects that have remaining funds to be reprogrammed amounting to $1,900.82 CDBG and $0 HOME. These are outlined in the attached materials. Adjusting for Actual Entitlement Amount: Because actual entitlement amounts are not confirmed at this time, it is recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro- rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. Should the total actual amount of entitlement received differ from the appropriated amount, all appropriated amounts may be administratively increased/reduced at the same pro-rated percentage of change between the estimated entitlement and the actual entitlement. The total appropriated amount will not to exceed 2.5% total change, nor will any agency or program increase more than their initial funding request, without further action from City Council. Community Engagement: A request for proposals was held for housing, economic development, public facilities and public service programs. Applications received were reviewed by the CDBG Task Force or SAT. Priority Neighborhood recommendations will be made by members who serve on the Priority Neighborhood Task Force. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to have Economic Sustainability, A Center for Lifelong Learning, Quality Housing Opportunities for All, and A Connected Community. It contributes to variety of Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives including: Goal 1: Inclusive, Self-sufficient Community; Goal 3: Beautiful Environment; Goal 4: Strong, Diversified Economy; and Goal 5: Responsive Organization. Budgetary Impact: Proposed CDBG projects will be carried out using only the funds to be received by the City of Charlottesville from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the City's CDBG program. The HOME program requires the City to provide a 20% match (HOME match equals ¼ of the EN amount). The sum necessary to meet the FY 2019-2020 match is $18,400.75, which will need to be appropriated out of the Charlottesville Housing Fund (CP-0084) at a future date. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the CDBG and HOME projects as well as the reprogramming of funds. Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed budget with any percent changes to the estimated amounts being applied equally to all programs. All Planning Commissioners present at the meeting voted. Staff also recommends approval of the appropriations. Funds included in this budget will not be spent until after July 1, 2019 or at a later date when HUD releases the entitlement. 3 Alternatives: No alternatives are proposed. Attachments: 2019-2020 Proposed CDBG and HOME Budget Appropriation Resolution for CDBG funds Appropriation Resolution for HOME funds Appropriation Resolution for CDBG & HOME reprogrammed funds Summary of RFPs submitted Minutes from CDBG Task Force meetings 4 2019-2020 CDBG and HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS RECOMMENDED BY CDBG/HOME TASK FORCE and SAT: 1/16/19 and 2/7/19 RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: March 12, 2019 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: A. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD A. Belmont $244,950.82 B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Community Investment Collaborative - Scholarships $12,500 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $12,500 C. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS A. Literacy Volunteers – Basic Literacy Instruction $9,237 B. OED GO Utilities $20,498 C. TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $29,237 SOCIAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $58,972 (15% EN) D. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: A. Admin and Planning $78,630 (20% EN) GRAND TOTAL: $395,052.82 ESTIMATED NEW ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $393,152 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $0.00 REPROGRAMMING: $1,900.82 * Funding includes reprogrammed funds _______________________________________________________________________ 2019-2020 HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS A. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $73,603* TOTAL: $120,382.75 ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $73,603 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $28,379 REPROGRAMMING: $0.00 LOCAL MATCH: $18,400.75 * Includes estimated EN available after program income applied APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE'S 2019-2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - $395,052.82 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been advised of the approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the 2019-2020 fiscal year in the total amount of $395,052.82 that includes new entitlement from HUD amounting to $393,152, and previous entitlement made available through reprogramming of $1,900.82. WHEREAS, City Council has received recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the CDBG Task Force, the SAT, the Belmont Priority Neighborhood Task and the City Planning Commission; and has conducted a public hearing thereon as provided by law; now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sums hereinafter set forth are hereby appropriated from funds received from the aforesaid grant to the following individual expenditure accounts in the Community Development Block Grant Fund for the respective purposes set forth; provided, however, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds between and among such individual accounts as circumstances may require, to the extent permitted by applicable federal grant regulations. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD Belmont Priority Neighborhood $244,950.82 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Community Investment Collaborative Scholarships $12,500 PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS OED GO Utilities $20,498 TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $29,237 Literacy Volunteers – Basic Literacy Instruction $9,237 ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: Admin and Planning $78,630 TOTAL $395,052.82 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $395,052.82 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Should the total actual amount of entitlement received differ from the appropriated amount, all appropriated amounts may be administratively increased/reduced at the same pro-rated percentage of change between the estimated entitlement and the actual entitlement. The total appropriated amount will not to exceed 2.5% total change, nor will any agency or program increase more than their initial funding request, without further action from City Council. The amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (sub-recipients) are for the sole purpose stated. The City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with those agencies and organizations as he may deem advisable to ensure that the grants are expended for the intended purposes, and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations; and The City Manager, the Directors of Finance or Neighborhood Development Services, and staff are authorized to establish administrative procedures and provide for mutual assistance in the execution of the programs. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE’S 2019-2020 HOME FUNDS $120,382.75 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been advised of the approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding for the 2019-2020 fiscal year; WHEREAS, the region is receiving an award for HOME funds for fiscal year 19-20 of which the City will receive $73,603 to be expended on affordable housing initiatives such as homeowner rehab and downpayment assistance. WHEREAS, it is a requirement of this grant that projects funded with HOME initiatives money be matched with local funding in varying degrees; BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the local match for the above listed programs will be covered by the a surplus of match from previous appropriations from the Charlottesville Housing Fund (account CP-0084 in SAP system) in the amount of $18,400.75. Project totals also include previous entitlement made available through program income of $28,379. The total of the HUD money, program income, and the local match, equals $120,382.75 and will be distributed as shown below. PROJECTS HOME EN PI MATCH TOTAL AHIP-Homeowner Rehab $73,603 $28,379 $18,400.75 $120,382.75 Total $73,603 $28,379 $18,400.75 $120,382.75 * includes Program Income which does not require local match. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $73,603 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Should the total actual amount of entitlement received differ from the appropriated amount, all appropriated amounts may be administratively increased/reduced at the same pro-rated percentage of change between the estimated entitlement and the actual entitlement. The total appropriated amount will not to exceed 2.5% total change, nor will any agency or program increase more than their initial funding request, without further action from City Council. The amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (subreceipients) are for the sole purpose stated. The City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with those agencies and organizations as he may deem advisable to ensure that the grants are expended for the intended purposes, and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations; and The City Manager, the Directors of Finance or Neighborhood Development Services, and staff are authorized to establish administrative procedures and provide for mutual assistance in the execution of the programs. APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACCOUNT Reprogramming of Funds for FY 19-20 WHEREAS, Council has previously approved the appropriation of certain sums of federal grant receipts to specific accounts in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and WHEREAS, it now appears that these funds have not been spent and need to be reprogrammed, and therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that appropriations made to the following expenditure accounts in the CDBG fund are hereby reduced or increased by the respective amounts shown, and the balance accumulated in the Fund as a result of these adjustments is hereby reappropriated to the respective accounts shown as follows: Program Account Code Purpose Proposed Proposed Proposed Year Revised Revised Revised Reduction Addition Appropriation 16-17 P-00001-05-18 Seedplanters $25.82 17-18 P-00001-05-20 Community Investment $1,875.00 Collaborative 19-20 Priority Neighborhood $1,900.82 $1,900.82 TOTALS: $1,900.82 $1,900.82 $1,900.82 CDBG & HOME RFP SUBMISSIONS - FY 2019-2020 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested Charlottesville Public Housing Association of Internship Program Residents Brandon Collins $24,000 City of Charlottesville Office of Economic GO Public Works Development Hollie Lee $24,400 Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville/Albemarle Ellen Osborne Basic Literacy Instruction $10,000 Piedmont Housing Alliance Karen Klick Renter Resource Program $18,077 Coordinated Entry System Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless Anthony Haro $30,000 PACE Secure Seniors Program Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless Anthony Haro $15,000 Total Amount of Requests $97,477 Total Projected Budget $61,200 Request Overage $36,277 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested AHIP Corey Demcheck Homeowner Rehabs $76,000 Total Amount of Requests $76,000 Total Projected Budget $76,000 Request Overage $0 CDBG TASK FORCE Minutes Second Floor Conference Room, City Hall Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:00pm – 1:00pm Attendance: Task Force Members Present Absent Taneia Dowell X Howard Evergreen X Kathy Johnson Harris X Joy Johnson X Sherry Kraft X Kelly Logan X Sarah Malpass X Kelsey Cox X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 12:00pm. HOME Funding Allocation  Staff mentioned that $76,000 in HOME entitlement funds are available for HOME applicants. The only applicant was AHIP.  On a motion by Sherry Kraft (SK), seconded by Taneia Dowell (TD), the CDBG/HOME Task Force unanimously approved the HOME funding recommendations as follows: Fund AHIP at $76,000 (entitlement). Because actual entitlement amounts for HOME are not known at this time, the Task Force recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro‐ rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. Discussion related to TJACH’s Application Scoring for the Priority Neighborhood Criteria  Staff mentioned that there was a need for discussion related to both of TJACH’s applications regarding how to score the priority neighborhood response as it relates to the homeless population. There were inconsistencies in the Task Force scores.  There was discussion about giving TJACH a three because serving the homeless population is a priority for the City the same way that the priority neighborhood is a priority.  Staff mentioned that from the application it appears as though TJACH does not go out into the community and recruit homeless persons, rather persons needing services come to them.  One member mentioned that in this case the Salvation Army is located in Ridge Street and would be a way in which persons located in Ridge Street are served by TJACH.  There was discussion about applicants not being penalized because the question does not fit the applicant and/or the services provided. One member responded and mentioned that 1 applicants aren’t being penalized, however it is an opportunity to gain bonus points for responding appropriately to the question.  Another member mentioned that we have the question so that funds can be targeted in the priority neighborhood similar to previous priority neighborhoods such as 10th & Page and that all applications meet Council Priorities.  There was discussion about it being unfair to give points to TJACH other than a zero. Staff suggested that the Task Force focus on the response to the application question. One member mentioned that the application question gives applicants the opportunity to address the priority neighborhood.  There was discussion about separating question #21 in the future so that the question is clear.  It was mentioned that the Task Force should focus on the question and the response and utilize what is provided in the response to come to a consensus about the score. A task member urged the group that applicants are not being penalized, rather applicants have the opportunity to score additional points for answering the question.  Staff mentioned that TJACH potentially serves clients or makes/receives referrals to/from the Salvation Army and they failed to mention it in their application and perhaps if they had made the connection to the Salvation Army, there would have been an opportunity for points in the priority neighborhood category.  Staff reminded the Task Force that they agreed to score the proposals based solely on the responses and agreed to be objective in the scoring.  A member agreed that the Task Force has to be objective and have to be fair with the scoring and that there was an opportunity to address the question. Another member agreed.  The group came to a consensus that both TJACH applications would be provided a zero for the priority neighborhood score because it was not addressed in the proposal response.  The group agreed to discuss the priority neighborhood proposal question in the future. CDBG Funding Application Recommendation  Staff shared the average scores for each proposal.  Per a question asked by a Task Force member, staff explained that all other grants provided to applicants from the City’s Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund is included in the staff summary (but does not include funds received from Agency Budget Review Team or other sources).  There was discussion about whether the Task Force wanted to fully funding agencies or spread funding amongst several applicants. Staff provided clarification on which agencies mentioned that they could operate their projects without receiving full funding.  The group mentioned that some applicants are requesting funding to fund staff hours and reductions in funding would reduce the number of beneficiaries and/or the number of staff hours.  The group agreed to fully fund Literacy Volunteers as they were the top scorer.  One member mentioned that that it makes sense to support the TJACH Coordinated Entry System project a second year, however, that long‐term sustainability of supporting the position outside of CDBG is something that they should be aware of.  There was discussion about why the task force is taking time to score applications if the scores aren’t going to be used as the basis for making funding decisions. One member mentioned that the only reason why there should be room to consider discussions regarding funding amounts relative to scores is if there are other applicants that can’t operate a program without full funding (only opportunity for subjectivity). Another member mentioned that the group should prioritize funding 2 amounts based upon the score and have the option to alter the amounts if necessary. Another member mentioned that the scoring tool does not take into account the applications as a whole and the needs that the City has as a whole. A rubric will never be able to serve as the only decision‐maker for funding allocation decisions.  There was discussion regarding whether or not to fully fund the next top scorer which is TJACH at $30,000. There was discussion about being okay with fully funding TJACH but making sure that they are aware that CDBG shouldn’t be used as their only funding source and that they should build a sustainable amount of funds to fund the position over the next 10 years.  Discussion continued on whether to fully fund TJACH and how to fund OED and/or PHAR as another option.  One member thought PHAR’s application was a lot better than the previous application and that a lot of improvements were made. The member mentioned that PHAR is working on empowerment of leaders and the work being done by PHAR will impact redevelopment of public housing. The benefit is not just immediate but PHAR will be seeking to make the housing fit the needs of the community long‐term. PHAR’s application has a broader impact and it stood out as being unique in terms of the moment the City is in right now as it pertains to affordable housing. Others thought that the application wasn’t strong at all and that the application didn’t answer the questions clearly related to how the narrative answered Council priority/goal of affordable housing options and evaluation methods. The group discussed how there were there were stronger applications such as literacy volunteers, TJACH, and OED.  One member suggested that the Task Force make a recommendation to fund the three top scorers and split funding amongst the second and third top scorers. The Task Force members agreed on the suggestion.  The group agreed to that TJACH should be fully funded due to the work that was put into the application.  Staff mentioned that OED informed staff that they can still carry out program without being fully funded. On a motion by HE, seconded by KC, the CDBG/HOME Task Force unanimously approved the CDBG funding recommendations as follows:  Fund Literacy Volunteers at $10,000; and  Fund TJACH at $30,000; and  Fund OED GO Public Works at $21,200.  Because actual entitlement amounts for CDBG are not known at this time, the Task Force recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro‐rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. Group mentioned that they liked the new scoring rubric and the rubric went along with the application. The meeting adjourned at 1:00pm. 3 CDBG RFP SUBMISSIONS - FY 2019-2020 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested City of Charlottesville Office of Economic GO Start-Up Development Hollie Lee $20,000 Community Investment Collaborative Stephen Davis Entrepreneur Scholarships $12,500 Total Amount of Requests $32,500 Total Projected Budget $20,000 Request Overage $12,500 STRATEGIC ACTION TEAM (SAT) Minutes Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room, City Hall Thursday, February 7, 2019 11:00am – 12:00pm Attendance: Task Force Members Present Absent Gretchen Ellis X Diane Kuknyo X Kelly Logan X Sue Moffett X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 11:00am. Discussion of Proposals  The SAT members discussed both economic development applications. Member felt that the Office of Economic Development’s (OED) application provided insufficient evidence of community need and provided no evidence‐based information.  Members mentioned that the OED’s application was well‐written, however, businesses need capital and funds to run a business. One member felt like that application was lacking an explanation of or connection to capital and that the program may set businesses up for failure due to the lack of a connection to capital. One member mentioned that the funding request will not directly serve beneficiaries, rather grant funds would be allocated to staff time. Another member mentioned that the program’s measure of success is tied to persons completing the program and not to starting a business. The application also lacked research on the specific model that would be implemented.  One member questioned if OED’s proposal was the best model and what factors would determine if people were ready for CIC. It appeared as though the only criteria was income and not readiness.  One member felt as though OED needed to provide evidence that entrepreneurship is a way out of poverty.  The group discussed wanting to fully fund the Community Investment Collaborative (CIC) application, however, they were concerned about lack of outreach and engagement in the priority neighborhood (Ridge Street). The members also discussed that their application had a low score based upon the points available.  One member noted that they scored CIC low on their outreach strategy and organizational capacity sections.  The SAT unanimously agreed to provide a funding recommendation to fully fund CIC at their $12,500 request and to not fund OED’s request. Because actual entitlement amounts for CDBG are not known, the SAT recommended that all recommendations be increased/reduced at the same pro‐rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. 1 The meeting adjourned at 11:30pm. 2 Applicant Average Score Funding Request TF Funding Recommendations Literacy Volunteers 38.7 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 TJACH 36.3 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 OED 35.2 $ 25,400.00 $ 21,200.00 PHAR 34.3 $ 24,000.00 TJACH Seniors 33.2 $ 15,000.00 PHA 27.8 $ 18,077.00 $ 61,200.00 Funds Available 61,200 Funds Leftover $ ‐ AHIP 37 76,000 76,000 EN Available Description Goal Need Outcomes Strategies Implement Evaluation Demography Financial Collaboration Engagement PN Org Capacity Budget Sum Average Score AHIP HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 SM 3 3 3 3 1 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 37 KL 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 39 KC 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 30 SK 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 40 TD 3 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 34 222 37 PHAR HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 40 SM 3 3 3 2 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 36 KL 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 19 KC 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 37 SK 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 38 TD 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 36 206 34.33333333 OED HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 1 37 SM 3 3 3 3 1 0 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 35 KL 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 33 KC 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 35 SK 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 37 TD 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 34 211 35.16666667 LIT VOL HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 SM 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 39 KL 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 38 KC 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 37 SK 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 40 TD 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 36 232 38.66666667 PHA HE 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 24 SM 3 3 2 2 1 0 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 30 KL 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 23 KC 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 27 SK 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 30 TD 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 33 167 27.83333333 TJACH HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 39 SM 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 36 KL 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 2 37 KC 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 0 3 2 34 SK 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 39 TD 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 0 3 2 33 218 36.33333333 TJACH SENIORS HE 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 2 37 SM 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 3 2 3 3 0 3 3 33 KL 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 0 3 1 29 KC 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 0 3 3 33 SK 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 2 0 3 2 33 TD 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 0 3 2 32 197 32.83333333 CIC SM 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 37 GE 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 3 36 DK 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 0 2 2 26 KL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 2 36 135 33.75 OED SM 2 3 2 2 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 22 GE 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 31 DK 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 28 KL 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 36 117 29.25 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Allison Farole, Emergency Management Coordinator Staff Contacts: Allison Farole, Emergency Management Coordinator Gail Hassmer, Chief Accountant Title: Local Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG) - $7,500 Background: The Virginia Department of Emergency Management has allocated $7,500 in 2018 Emergency Management Performance Management Grant (L.E.M.P.G.) funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the City of Charlottesville. The locality share is $7,500, for a total project of $15,000. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville is the grant administrator for this grant, which will be passed to the Office of Emergency Management at the Charlottesville-U.V.A.-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center. The grant award period is July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. The objective of the L.E.M.P.G. is to support local efforts to develop and maintain a Comprehensive Emergency Management Program. The 2018 L.E.M.P.G. funds will be used by the Office of Emergency Management to enhance local capabilities in the areas of planning, training and exercises, and capabilities building for emergency personnel and the whole community. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This emergency management program supports City Council’s America’s Healthiest City vision, specifically, “Our emergency response system is among the nation’s best, ” as well as Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan, specifically sub-elements 2.1 (Provide an effective and equitable public safety system) and 2.4 (Ensure families and individuals are safe and stable). Maintaining our response and recovery capability is an on-going process that requires regular planning discussions and well as training and exercising with community response partners. Citizen preparedness, including awareness of local hazards and actions they can take to survive and recover from an emergency is a critical part of the local response system. Community Engagement: The L.E.M.P.G. engages the community through public outreach efforts led by the Office of Emergency Management. Increasing citizen awareness of hazards and promoting steps individuals can take to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergency situations is a critical priority for the Office of Emergency Management. Community outreach efforts include presenting on preparedness to community groups and designing and implementing targeted messaging through various media. This funding allows the Assistant Emergency Manager to dedicate additional time in support of this mission. Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. The funds will be expended and reimbursed to a Grants fund. The locality match of $7,500 will be covered with an in-kind match from the Office of Emergency Management budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If grants funds are not appropriated, the Office of Emergency Management will not be able to completely fund the full-time salary for the Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator. A reduction in time for this position will negatively impact the quantity and quality of public outreach on emergency preparedness to community members. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION 2018 Local Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG) $7,500 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received funds from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management in the amount of $7,500 in federal pass through funds and $7,500 in local in-kind match, provided by the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center Office of Emergency Management; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to support programs provided by the Office of Emergency Management; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $7,500 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $7,500 $7,500 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900319 G/L: 430120 State/Fed pass thru Expenditures - $7,500 $7,500 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900319 G/L: 510010 Salaries BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $7,500 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, and the matching in-kind funds from the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center Office of Emergency Management. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Sunny Hwang, Interim Director Department of Information Technology Staff Contacts: Sunny Hwang, Interim Director Department of Information Technology Harold Young, Fleet Manager Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst Title: Funding Requirements for SAP Integration for the FASTER Fleet Management Software - $48,000 Background: The Department of Public Works is implementing a new fleet management system, FASTER, to help enhance operational efficiency. The City Information Technology Department (City I.T.) is working closely with Public Works staff and the vendor to help facilitate successful implementation of this project. The FASTER project requires three integration interfaces that must be properly designed and configured to interface with the City's S.A.P. enterprise resource planning system to ensure seamless and efficient operation. City I.T. seeks appropriation of $48,000 I.T./City Link Operations Fund Balance to acquire S.A.P. consulting services needed to implement this integration. Discussion: An internal analysis was performed to access the S.A.P. integration needs prior to the purchase of the new fleet management system. Efficacy of this assessment was confirmed by a S.A.P. consultant and an accurate estimate of the consulting work required to properly perform the work has been established. Specifically, this proposed integration work will help address system integration between FASTER and S.A.P. on Inventory Purchases and Associated Returns, Settlement of Work Orders, and Bulk Fluid/Fuel Inventory Expenses. Without this work, the City staff would need to enter the same data more than once and this will create significant operational inefficiency and business risk. The nature of the integration work to be performed is highly specialized and critical, therefore it is recommended that the work be performed by an experienced S.A.P. consultant to ensure successful and timely implementation of this project. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council's "Smart, Citizen-Focused Government" vision. It also contributes to Goal 3 and 5 of the Strategic Plan to integrate effective business practices and strong fiscal policies, provide responsive customer service, and provide reliable and high quality infrastructure. Community Engagement: Not applicable. Budgetary Impact: No new funding will be required. Funding for the S.A.P. integration costs for the FASTER Fleet Management software will be appropriated from the existing fund balance in the Information Technology Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of Information Technology/City Link Operations fund balance for the S.A.P. Integration costs related to the implementation of the FASTER Fleet Management Software system. Alternatives: If I.T./City Link Operations fund balance is not appropriated, the project implementation would be delayed until another funding source could be identified. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Appropriation of Information Technology Fund Balance for SAP Integration for the FASTER Fleet Management Software $48,000 NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of up to $48,000 in Information Technology fund balance, will be transferred to the Equipment Replacement Fund to be used as funding for SAP integration cost for the FASTER Fleet Management software implementation and shall be hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $48,000 Fund: 106 Cost Center: 1631001001 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures - $48,000 Fund: 106 Cost Center: 1631001001 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the fund balance transfer from the Information Technology fund is hereby appropriated in the following manner; Expenditure - $48,000 Fund: 705 Cost Center: 2111001000 G/L Account: 561106 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: April 15, 2019 Action Required: Amend City of Charlottesville Code (1st of 2 Readings) Presenter: Andrew Baxter, Charlottesville Fire Department Chief Staff Contacts: Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of Police Andrew Baxter, Charlottesville Fire Department Chief John C. Blair, II, City Attorney Title: Amend Charlottesville City Code Section 15-131 Background: Charlottesville City Code Section 15-131 currently provides a special parking tag to members in good standing of the Charlottesville Fire Company and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS). Additionally, City residents who are members of an Albemarle County volunteer fire company also receive special parking tags. Discussion: The rationale for providing special parking tags to members of volunteer emergency response organizations is to provide safe, easy, and quick access to a member’s vehicle when responding to an emergency call for service. The current emergency response system for both fire incidents and emergency medical services incidents is based on the response of staffed units responding from a fire or rescue station and no longer relies on the individual response of volunteer members from their workplace, home, or other non-station-based location. Members of the Charlottesville Volunteer Fire Company only respond to emergency calls for service as part of a career-staffed Charlottesville Fire Department unit. Every CARS member in good standing does not respond to emergency calls for service. Instead, only CARS active members in good standing actively respond to calls for service as part of a staffed unit from the McIntire Road rescue station. The proposed ordinance amendment limits the special parking tag to CARS full, active members. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This ordinance amendment aligns with City of Charlottesville Strategic Plan Objective 2.1 “Reduce adverse impact from sudden injury and illness and the effects of chronic disease.” Community Engagement: The City Fire Chief has discussed this ordinance change with the leadership of the Charlottesville Volunteer Fire Company, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, and Albemarle County Fire Rescue. Budgetary Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the proposed ordinance amendment. Alternatives: The Council could decline to enact the proposed ordinance amendment. Attachments: Ordinance Amendment AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTION 15-131 OF CHAPTER 15 (MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that: Section 15-131 of Article V of Chapter 15 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990) is amended and reordained as follows: Sec. 15-131. Application of parking regulations to volunteer firefighters and rescue squad members. (a) Every full, active member in good standing of the volunteer organizations known and designated as the Charlottesville Fire Company and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, and every member in good standing of an Albemarle County volunteer fire company who resides within the corporate limits of the city shall be eligible for a special license tag or decal issued by the treasurer. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, members of the city volunteer fire company or volunteer rescue squad who have been issued a special tag or decal by the city treasurer shall be permitted to park their vehicles displaying such special tags or decals in disregard of the provisions of sections 15-140 and 15-174(a), but shall comply with all other provisions of this article in the same manner as any other persons are required to comply therewith. (b) In determining whether to issue the license tag or decal referenced in paragraph (a), above, the treasurer shall utilize the membership list provided to the commissioner of revenue pursuant to section 30-39 of the City Code. Upon confirmation of eligibility, the treasurer shall issue to each such member a special license tag or decal which such member shall display on such vehicle as designated by the treasurer. Any person having been issued such special tag or decal who ceases to be a member in good standing of any such organization shall immediately surrender such special tag or decal to the treasurer and shall pay the appropriate license tax on such vehicle for the balance of the license year. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Resolution Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Lisa Robertson, Chief Deputy City Attorney John Blair, City Attorney Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Title: Street Closing Policy Resolution Background: On July 16, 2018, City Council directed staff to evaluate the existing alley policy and develop a new policy on the public right-of-way as it pertains to alleys, local and “paper” streets. The Office of the City Attorney defines a “paper” street or alley as “one that has been created by a dedication indicated on a recorded subdivision plat, but which has never been actually established and accepted by the City.” The Belmont Neighborhood was selected for the project as directed by the City Council due to the large number of alleys in the area (29). Between 1985 and 2018, there were 152 alley closings; approximately 4.6 per year. There are 5 City-accepted alleys citywide; four are in Belmont. The following alleys are specifically accepted and maintained by the City: 1. The alley connecting Avon Street to 6th Street NE, between Belmont Avenue and Monticello Avenue (Tax Map 58, Block 10). 2. The alley connecting Avon Street to 6th Street NE, between Monticello Avenue and Bolling Avenue (Tax Map 58, Block 16). 3. The alley connecting 4th Street, NW to 5th Street NE, between East Market Street and the Downtown Mall (Tax Map 53). 4. The alley connecting Elliott Avenue to Altavista Avenue between Avon Street and Rialto Street (Tax Map 59, Block 40). 5. The alley connecting Page Street to West Street between 10th and 10 ½ Street NW (Tax Map 4). A working group of representatives from City departments (NDS, Public Works, Utilities, Fire, Parks and Recreation), the Place Design Taskforce, and the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee was set up to guide the study of re-evaluating the City’s alley policy. The group created a map showing alleys within Belmont, utility intersections, roadways, and other pertinent information. Alley benefits were compiled and used in the development of criteria for evaluating alleys for approval or denial of a closure request. A rating system was developed to assist in determining whether an alley should be closed or accepted upon request. The scoring system was designed to remove subjectivity in evaluating alleys. Ten alleys were selected for field survey using the developed criteria. Two different groups conducted two field surveys; the information was analyzed and the results used in developing the final criteria for informed decision making process. The benefits identified for alleys include: a) Vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation; b) Utility route; c) Access to rear property parking; d) Reduction or elimination of driveways from primary streets; e) Reduction of on-street parking; f) Improved access to greenways: g) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development opportunities; h) Café and retail opportunities in commercial areas; and i) Potential to improve stormwater absorption. Most of the alleys surveyed were used by the property owners for rear access to their properties and for parking. With the exception of two alleys; one with a dead-end and the other with a tree in the middle of the alley, the rest are bicycle and pedestrian accessible. Seven of the alleys surveyed provided increased access to potential ADUs. Discussion: The Council received a report about the proposed Alley and Paper Street Scoring Rubric at its April 15, 2019 meeting. The Council expressed support for the Scoring Rubric and the Neighborhood Development Services Department’s proposal that alleys that score 1.5 or greater on the Scoring Rubric should not be closed. The Council asked that staff present it with a Resolution adopting the Scoring Rubric at its May 6, 2019 meeting. Staff has prepared a Resolution and an updated Street and Alley Closing Policy for the Council’s consideration. Budgetary Impact: There is no anticipated budgetary impact. Alternatives: Council could decline to adopt the Resolution and the Street and Alley Closing Policy. Attachments: Alley and Paper Street Closing Rubric Proposed Resolution Proposed Street and Alley Closing Policy CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATON OF APPLICATIONS FOR STREET OR ALLEY CLOSINGS (Adopted ___________, 2019) Part One: Application (1) Application may be made to the Department of Neighborhood Development Services (“NDS”). The application shall be accompanied by the following: (a) Application Fee, in such amount as may be specified within the most recent fee schedule approved by City Council, payable to the City of Charlottesville; (b) Copy of the Subdivision Plat or other recorded instrument by which the street or alley was originally created, including Deed Book/Page Reference and date of recordation, and copies of any related deed(s) and plat(s) referring to the street or alley; (c) A narrative description of why the street or alley closing is being proposed, and of what benefit(s) the Applicant is seeking to obtain as a result of the closure; (d) List of all lots adjoining the street or alley proposed to be closed, and for each lot, the applicant shall provide: street address, City parcel identification number; name and mailing address of current landowner; (e) Endorsements of the landowners of lots abutting the street or alley proposed to be closed. The Applicant must demonstrate that each of the abutting landowners was contacted at least ten (10) days prior to the Application date with a request for endorsement; if the Applicant fails to demonstrate this, the Application will be rejected. (If some abutting landowners do not endorse the Application, or do not respond to the landowner’s contact(s), the Application may move forward for review and consideration so long as the Applicant provides evidence that each of the landowners whose signature does not appear on the endorsement Form was previously contacted by the Applicant regarding the proposed closing). (2) NDS will reject any application that does not contain all of the required information and materials. Part Two: Staff Review (1) When the Application is complete, NDS will arrange an appropriate City staff person to have responsibility for guiding the Application through the Staff Review and City Council process. This assigned staff member will be the single point of contact for the Applicant as well as all other City departments regarding the Application. (2) NDS will circulate the application to all of the following, each of whom shall provide written comments to be included within the Council Agenda Memo Form, and will provide the calculation required by the Scoring Rubric, for his or her area of expertise: a. City Housing Coordinator b. City Traffic Engineer c. City Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator d. City Planner e. Director of Parks and Recreation f. Director of Utilities (3) After staff has completed its review of the Application: a. If the Application receives a score of 1.5 or higher on the Scoring Rubric: then the assigned Staff member will notify the Applicant, on behalf of City Council, that the Application is denied. b. If the Application receives a score of less than 1.5 on the Scoring Rubric: then the completed Council Agenda Form and Scoring Rubric may be referred to the Clerk of Council for scheduling of a public hearing date and to the City Attorney’s Office for completion of final Council Agenda packet materials. Part Three: City Council Consideration of an Ordinance (1) Once an Application has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Clerk of Council, the City Attorney's Office will prepare a proposed Ordinance. a. Public notice of the scheduled public hearing shall be given in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2204. Staff will provide the Applicant with signs giving notice of the public hearing date for the Application. The Applicant shall post the signs and provide verification to Staff that the posting was done at least seven (7) days prior to the public hearing date. b. Any person may appear at the public hearing to speak in support of, or to object to, the proposed Ordinance. c. In its consideration of an Ordinance during its first reading (following the public hearing) City Council will give consideration to the following [in addition to any other matters Council may deem relevant]: i. Will vacating the street or alley impede any person's access to his property, or otherwise cause irreparable damage to the owner of any lot shown on the original subdivision plat? ii. Are there any public utilities currently located in the area proposed to be vacated? If so, is the applicant offering to allow the City to reserve a public utility easement? iii. Will vacation of the street or alley result in an adverse impact on traffic on nearby public streets, or result in undesirable circulation conditions for vehicular movements in and through the subdivision? iv. Is a street proposed to be closed part of an established street that is owned by the City, or is a street depicted within the City’s Comprehensive Plan as part of a public street network? If the answer to either question is “yes”, then following Council’s first reading of the Ordinance, the Application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration at its next regular meeting following the date of Council’s public hearing, as to whether the proposed street closing will be substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan). The Commission will act on the referral within 60 days of Council’s first reading of the ordinance. (The Planning Commission is not required to conduct a public hearing). v. If the street or alley is currently owned by the City, and if the purpose of the proposed closing/ vacation is to accommodate expansion or development of an existing or proposed business, does City Council wish to condition the vacation upon commencement of the expansion or development within a specified period of time? vi. If the street or alley is currently owned by the City, does City Council desire staff to negotiate a purchase price with the Applicant and other abutting property owners? (2) An Ordinance approving the closing of a street or alley will require only one reading by Council, EXCEPT: any Ordinance for either of the following shall require two readings: a. An Ordinance proposing the vacation of a street or alley that is currently owned by the City will require two readings by City Council. The following steps shall be completed following Council’s first reading of the Ordinance: i. The Ordinance and accompanying Staff Report will be referred to the Planning Commission for a Comprehensive Plan review in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2232. The Commission will act on the referral within 60 days of Council’s first reading of the ordinance. (The Planning Commission is not required to conduct a public hearing); ii. If Council has indicated a desire for the area to be purchased by abutting landowner(s), then the City Attorney’s office shall contact the Applicant to negotiate a sales price prior to any second reading of the Ordinance; iii. If Council has indicated a desire to condition the vacation upon commencement of a development within a specified period of time, then prior to any second reading of the Ordinance Staff shall confer with the Applicant as to what amount of time is anticipated prior to commencement of the development activity; iv. Prior to scheduling an Ordinance for a second reading and final action by City Council, the Clerk of Council shall verify with the City Attorney’s Office that all matters contemplated to be set forth within a final Ordinance have been incorporated into a final draft Ordinance for Council’s consideration. b. An ordinance proposing the vacation of a street or alley that is depicted or referred to within the City’s Comprehensive Plan as part of the City’s public street network shall require two readings by City Council, regardless of whether or not the City currently owns or maintains the street or alley. i. The Ordinance and accompanying Staff Report will be referred to the Planning Commission for a Comprehensive Plan review in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2232. ii. The Commission will act on the referral within 60 days of Council’s first reading of the ordinance. (The Planning Commission is not required to conduct a public hearing). Council’s second reading may be scheduled anytime following the Commission’s report of its findings on the Comprehensive Plan review. Appeals Va. Code §15.2-2272: when an Application presents matters within the scope of Virginia Code §15.2-2272, then an appeal may be taken to the Charlottesville Circuit Court from a City Council decision to adopt an Ordinance vacating a street or alley. Any such appeal must be filed within 30 days after City Council’s final decision on the Application. Va. Code §15.2-2272: when an Application presents matters within the scope of Virginia Code §15.2-2006, then an appeal may be filed within the Charlottesville Circuit Court within 60 days of the adoption of an Ordinance. Attachments: Scoring Rubric Council Agenda Memo Format for Street/ Alley Closings Adjacent Landower Endorsement Form This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Public Hearing and Approval Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Director of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, Director of Neighborhood Development Services Title: Approval of FY 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan Background: The Consolidated Plan sets forth goals to support our community development needs over a five-year period (2018 – 2022) for low and moderate income individuals in the City and counties that make up the Planning District. The current five year Consolidated Plan was adopted at the May 7, 2018 City Council Meeting. Discussion: Each year localities are required to complete an Action Plan that details goals and objectives to be carried out in the upcoming program year. This is the second Action Plan of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan. This document also serves as the City’s application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District’s application for HOME funds. It is due, in its final form, to HUD on May 15th or after the HUD allocations have been published. Community Engagement: On March 12, 2019 the proposed FY 19-20 CDBG and HOME budget came before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The CDBG and HOME budget/action plan had a public hearing which was held at the Water Street Center of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission on April 4, 2019 and an additional public hearing will be held by Council at the May 6th meeting. The Action Plan has been advertised for a thirty-day comment period (March 26th – April 26th 2019) before being sent to HUD for approval. The Housing Directors Council had an opportunity to make comments on the Action Plan at their March 19 and April 23, 2019 meetings. Comments received from Housing Directors will be incorporated into the Action Plan. The plan is in draft form pending approval from Council at the May 6th meeting. Following approval of the Action Plan, data will be entered in the HUD database which will then create a final formatted version of the Action Plan. 1 The Participation section of the Action Plan summarizes all community engagement efforts, as well as all comment received and incorporated into the plan. Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Areas: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to have Economic Sustainability, A Center for Lifelong Learning, Quality Housing Opportunities for All, and A Connected Community. It contributes to variety of Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives including: Goal 1: Inclusive, Self-sufficient Community; Goal 3: Beautiful Environment; Goal 4: Strong, Diversified Economy; and Goal 5: Responsive Organization. Budgetary Impact: The HOME program requires the City to provide a 20% match. The sum necessary to meet the FY 2019-2020 match is $18,400.75, which will need to be appropriated out of the Charlottesville Housing Fund (CP-0084) at a future date. The Action Plan will have no additional budgetary impacts. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 2019-2020 Action Plan of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan. Funds will not be available or eligible to be spent until HUD releases funds. Alternatives: No alternatives are proposed. Attachments: Action Plan Resolution Priority Neighborhood Resolution 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan - Draft - http://tjpdc.org/housing/public-comments-sought-for- home-cdbg-action-plan/ 2 RESOLUTION Approval of FY 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan BE IT RESOLVED, that the Charlottesville City Council hereby approves the FY 2019- 2020 Action Plan of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan as presented at the May 6, 2019, City Council meeting. All CDBG and HOME project estimates shall be increased or reduced at the same pro-rated percentage of actual entitlement. No agency’s EN amount will increase more than their initial funding request. A RESOLUTION PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD FUNDS FOR BELMONT FY 19-20 WHEREAS, on March 12, 2019, Planning Commission of the City of Charlottesville recommended Belmont as the priority neighborhood for FY 19-20; BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the funds for FY 19-20 shall be allocated as follows: - The allocation for FY 19-20 shall be allocated to Belmont. - The allocation for Ridge Street shall be allocated simultaneously for FY 20-21 and FY 2021-2022. - The allocation will alternate between both Ridge Street and Belmont for FY 2022-2023 (Belmont) and FY 2023-2024 (Ridge Street). In total Belmont will receive a total of two years of funding, and Ridge Street will receive three years of funding. Belmont was funded in FY18-19 as well so each neighborhood will receive a total of 3 years funding each. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Requested: Public Hearing/1st Reading of Amended Ordinance Presenter: John Blair, City Attorney Staff Contacts: Lisa A. Robertson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Title: Amend Conditions for Closing a Portion of the Coleman Street Right of Way (Unaccepted ROW) Background: Habitat for Humanity is the owner of three (3) parcels of land (City Tax Map 49, Parcels 112, 112.1 and 112.2) located southeast of an unaccepted portion of Coleman Street, and adjacent to that unaccepted (“paper”) street. With a previous application, Habitat requested that City Council close the unaccepted portion of Coleman Street (“Subject Right of Way”) adjacent to these three lots, in order to facilitate its plans for construction of affordable dwelling unit(s). The adjoining property owners on the west and northwest sides of the Subject Right of Way agreed with Habitat to transfer to Habitat whatever legal interest they may acquire in the Subject Right of Way as a result of any street closing. With this updated request, Habitat requests the City Council to amend and re-enact the Ordinance that Council adopted on August 6, 2018, approving Habitat’s request for vacation of the Subject Right of Way. The reasons for this updated request are set forth in the Discussion section, below. Discussion: With Habitat’s 2018 Application, Habitat submitted a plat showing very specific locations for two new utility easements to be granted to the City (“Plat”). At that time, Habitat’s plan was to construct one (1) duplex on the adjacent property, which [according to Habitat’s representatives] would NOT require the existing utility line(s) to be relocated. The Ordinance that City Council adopted on August 6, 2018, approving the vacation of the Subject Right of Way, referenced a specific Plat and was conditioned upon Habitat’s recordation of the easement depicted in the Plat. After Council adopted the August 6, 2018 Ordinance, Habitat obtained a variance from the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals, modifying certain building setback requirements for their property. This approval means that Habitat can explore the feasibility of establishing up to six (6) single-family attached dwelling units on this difficult site; however, if more than one (1) duplex is constructed on Habitat’s property, the Utility Easement that was included within the August 6, 2018 Ordinance cannot be satisfied and the legality of the vacation of the Subject Right of Way could be questioned (potentially creating a cloud on legal title to the property). Habitat’s current request is for City Council to amend and re-enact the Ordinance previously approved, to omit reference to the specific utility easement shown on the Plat and to modify the conditions applicable to the existing utilities. (See Attachment 1 to this Agenda Memo). The Subject Right of Way was originally created by an extension of the Locust Grove Subdivision, shown on a plat dated November 11, 1941, recorded in the Albemarle County Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 252, page 287-289. It was never formally accepted by the City as a public street, although at some point either the City or a private developer installed a sanitary sewer line and storm sewer line within the area proposed to be vacated. There is no record (at least none located at this point in time) of whether the City ever officially accepted these lines for ownership and maintenance. The zoning ordinance currently allows up to six (6) single-family attached dwelling units by right in this location (subject to compliance with applicable building setback requirements and other applicable lot requirements; the BZA’s recent decision has created new possibilities for Habitat). When Habitat previously brought their petition to vacate Coleman Street to you, its plan was to combine the existing lots into 2 lots (Lot 321 and 326), both with frontage on Coleman Street—i.e., one lot for each single-family-attached dwelling (two dwelling units, total). The benefit of the originally-proposed single-family attached dwelling (“duplex”) was the ability to utilize the existing location of utilities; the benefit of allowing Habitat the flexibility to “vet” the alternative for up to 6 dwelling units (3 single-family-attached-dwellings)—which may require the abandonment and relocation of water, sewer and/or storm sewer lines—would be the possibility that Habitat could fit four additional affordable dwelling units on the development site. The Subject Right of Way is 50’ wide, approximately 125 feet in length with a 30% grade, and is heavily wooded, so it is currently inaccessible by vehicles and pedestrians. Currently, only pedestrians authorized by the adjacent landowners to use the area would have a right to do so. A sanitary sewer line and a storm drain pipe (with riprap) which outflows into the woods, are within the Subject Right of Way. According to Utilities, the location of the existing waterline is unknown, and would need to be field-verified. Habitat designated on the previously-submitted Plat a 20’ wide easement centered on the sanitary sewer line and a 20’ wide drainage easement centered on the storm drain pipe. The Utilities staff has performed a video inspection of the existing sewer and storm sewer lines to determine their current condition. The CCTV showed that the mains are currently in acceptable condition, but once Habitat gets further along in the preparation of specific construction plans, Utilities will need to assess the impact of the specific construction activities on the capacity of the lines. If Habitat pursues its original proposed development (one (1) single-family-attached dwelling, consisting of two dwelling units) then the City will require an easement to be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit, no less than 20 feet wide centered on the current location each existing utility line (sewer, storm sewer, and the field-verified waterline). If Habitat pursues an alternative development plan, requiring relocation of existing utilities, then Habitat will be required to remove [demolish] the existing utility lines, and replace them in a new location approved by the Utilities engineers in accordance with City standards, and the City will need an easement at least 20-feet wide centered on the as-built location of each new/relocated utility line. Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-2272 allows City Council to vacate and close the Subject Right of Way, after consideration of the following questions: 1. Will vacating the street impede any person’s access to his property, or otherwise cause irreparable damage to the owner of any lot shown on the original subdivision plat? Answer: The Subject Right of Way does not provide vehicular or pedestrian access to any adjoining lot, and the City Traffic Engineer is of the opinion that topography would prevent development as a functional City street constructed to City street standards within a reasonable budget. 2. Are there any public utilities currently located in the area proposed to be vacated, and is the applicant offering to allow the City to reserve a public utility easement? Answer: There is a sanitary sewer line and storm sewer pipe within the Subject Right of Way. Habitat will offer easements to the City over the actual location of the utility lines to be used within the Subject Right of Way as part of the development of the lots. 3. Will vacation of the street result in an adverse impact on traffic on nearby public streets, or result in undesirable circulation conditions for vehicular movements in and through the subdivision? Answer: If Habitat were to construct only one duplex on their property, the traffic impact on neighboring streets could be expected to be less than the impact that would be anticipated from development of the existing three lots. Coleman Court is a cul-de-sac so Coleman Street is the only affected street. If Habitat pursues a three-lot, six-dwelling plan, traffic would be slightly greater than if the three lots were developed with single-family housing, but the difference should be nominal and would not increase traffic beyond levels currently permitted by right if the road vacation were not to take place. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This street closing application supports Council’s Vision for Quality Housing Opportunities for All: Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric while offering housing that is affordable and attainable for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities. It also is consistent with the Strategic Plan, Goal 1.3 (Increase Affordable Housing Options). Community Engagement: Habitat posted a sign on the Subject Right of Way notifying passersby that a public hearing would be held on the closing of this unaccepted street, in accordance with the City’s Street Closing Policy. A public hearing is also scheduled at this meeting, notice of which was published in the Daily Progress as required by law, to allow the general public to offer comment. Habitat previously reached out to all the adjoining property owners and received their written agreement to convey their one-half property interest in all of the closed right of way to Habitat. Budgetary Impact: There is no negative budgetary impact that can be ascertained at this point. Additional real estate tax revenue could be generated as a result of construction and occupancy of the dwelling units proposed by Habitat. Recommendation: City NDS staff does not oppose the proposed vacation. According to the City Traffic Engineer, although a connection road between Coleman Street and Smith Street could theoretically be constructed, the cost to do so would be prohibitive as some combination of bridge and/or retaining wall would be needed. The Director of Utilities and Utilities Engineers do not oppose the proposed vacation, so long as:  Any closing is conditioned upon the conveyance by Habitat of utility easements to the City for all existing [and relocated] water, sewer and storm sewer lines (City Attorney is authorized to accept easements on behalf of the City). The easements must be at least 20 feet in width (possibly wider, depending on topography and depth of cover), in accordance with City standards. Existing utility lines may remain in their current location(s), and new dwellings may be connected to them, subject to verification that the existing lines can handle the additional capacity generated by the development.  If existing utility lines are proposed by Habitat to be abandoned [relocated] the City will not be required to participate in the cost of that abandonment, which would require construction/ installation of new, upgraded lines in a different location. The City Attorney’s Office recommends approval of an amended and re-enacted Ordinance. Doing so will avoid having to record the prior Ordinance in the City’s real estate land records, knowing that the Utility conditions may never be satisfied as referenced within the Ordinance. The proposed amended Ordinance will give Habitat additional flexibility to complete a planning process suitable for this difficult site, without the added complexity of a specifically-sited Utility easement that may not work for Habitat’s ultimate development plans. Alternatives: City Council can choose to deny the Ordinance, or to approve the Ordinance with conditions. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING AN ORDINANCE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ON AUGUST 6, 2018 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING AN UNACCEPTED PORTION OF COLEMAN STREET WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity (“Landowner”), as the owner of certain land adjacent to Coleman Street, designated on 2018 City Real Estate Tax Map 49 as Parcels 112, 112.1 and 112.2, initiated a petition seeking to close a portion of the 50’ wide Coleman Street right-of-way adjoining its property (approximately 125 feet in length from its origin at the intersection of Coleman Street and Coleman Court), hereinafter “Subject Right of Way”; and, WHEREAS, the Subject Right of Way was initially platted in 1941 as part of the Locust Grove Extension Subdivision, and was never accepted by the City as part of the City’s public street system; and WHEREAS, there are existing utility lines located in the Subject Right of Way, including sanitary sewer and storm sewer, and there is an existing water line, the exact location of which is currently unknown; and WHEREAS, following notice to the public pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2272, a public hearing by the City Council was held on July 16, 2018, and comments from City staff and the public were made and heard, and after consideration of the factors set forth within the City Street Closing Policy (2005), this City Council did, on August 6, 2018, adopt an Ordinance closing, vacating and discontinuing the Subject Right of Way, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, due to certain changed circumstances, including a variance granted by the City’s board of zoning appeals modifying building setback requirements for petitioner’s property, additional development prospects are possible for petitioner’s land, and petitioner has requested this City Council to amend and re-enact the Ordinance previously granted on August 6, 2018; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the City hereby closes, vacates and discontinues the Subject Right of Way, subject to the conditions listed below, described as follows: That portion of Coleman Street, 50 feet wide and 125 feet in length, adjacent to land identified as 2018 City Tax Parcel Identification numbers 490112000, 490112100, 490112200, 4900125000 and 490124000. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that as a condition of City Council’s vacation of the Subject Right of Way, the owner of the land (“Landowner”) designated on 2018 City Real Estate Tax Map 49 as Parcels 112, 112.1 and 112.2, inclusive of the land area within the vacated portion of Coleman Street (in the aggregate, the “Land”) shall comply with the following: (A) Use or abandonment of existing utility lines--Landowner shall provide the City of Charlottesville with utility easements, as follows, as deemed necessary by the City’s Director of Utilities; (i) To accommodate all existing water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines in situ, Landowner shall convey easements to the City of Charlottesville, no less than 20 feet in width (centered on the verified location of each of the existing lines) for the operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of each of the existing lines; (ii) To tie new utility lines into existing water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines, Landowner shall convey easements to the City of Charlottesville no less than 20 feet in width, allowing the installation, operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of the new lines, and Landowner shall install the new lines within the easements; or (iii) To abandon the existing water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines and replace them with new lines (in the same, or different location(s)) Landowner shall convey easements to the City of Charlottesville, no less than 20 feet in width, allowing the installation, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of new lines, and the Landowner shall install the new lines within the easements. (B) Submissions, approvals and costs: (i) Landowner, at its sole cost, shall be responsible for preparing site plans, utility plans and easement plats for the City’s review and approval, prior to taking any action(s) referenced within Conditions (A)(i) – (iii), preceding above. (ii) All easements required by condition (A) shall be conveyed to the City, and recorded in the land records of the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, prior to issuance of any building permit authorizing a building or structure to be constructed on the Land. (iii) The cost of abandoning and replacing existing lines and of installing any new lines, shall be at the sole cost of the owner of the Land if: (a) the existing utility lines must be relocated, or new lines must be installed, to accommodate construction of buildings on the Land, or (b) if the existing lines in their current state of repair, are insufficient to support the additional capacity added by tying new lines into existing water, sanitary sewer or storm lines or by connecting building(s) constructed on the Land. (iv) Landowner shall not demolish or abandon any existing utility line, and Landowner shall not install any new line, until the City’s Director of Utilities approves Landowner’s proposed action(s). To obtain this approval, Landowner shall submit plans for its proposed action(s) to the City and the City’s Director of Utilities determines that, based on the information within the plans, existing lines are in good condition and can handle the additional capacity of the development and that proposed new lines comply with City standards. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance amends and re-enacts the Ordinance adopted by City Council on August 6, 2018, and that prior ordinance shall be of no further force or effect; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, unless an appeal from Council’s enactment of this ordinance is made to the Charlottesville Circuit Court within thirty (30) days of the date of adoption, the Clerk of the Council shall send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for recordation in the current street closing book. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Report/Update on Committee’s Activities Presenter: Mike Murphy, Interim City Manager Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Acting Assistant City Manager Title: Update from City Manager’s Advisory on Organizational Equity Background: The City Manager’s Advisory on Organizational Equity was charged to consider methods and models of assessing organizational equity, review internal and external equity profiles, and make policy, practice, process and investment recommendations to the city manager so that the city’s operations and impact match its stated values. The advisory was formed because the city seeks to adopt an intentional equity lens to understand how both internal and external operations contribute to inequity. As an organization, we must create effective internal operations to ensure that:  Our role as public servants is solution oriented and customer focused  We become a community where black and brown babies are just as likely to be born safe and healthy as white babies  All children are equally likely to be ready for school  School is a place where all students can be successful  We improve economic mobility and opportunity for families in poverty  The systems that are meant to keep children safe do so in a culturally responsive way that keeps families together whenever possible  Our justice systems are fair and equitable regardless of the color of your skin or the country in which you were born  People enjoy many modes of safe accessible transportation to get out and about  Everyone can enjoy clean air and water, green spaces and a healthy environment  We work together to create safe and affordable housing for all  People have access to the medical and behavioral health services they need Membership Cass Bailey Lance Blakey Andrea Douglas Charlene Green Paul Martin Matthew Murphy Kelli Palmer David Saunier Jordy Yager Kaki Dimock, staff Discussion: Process Prior to convening the committee, staff reviewed steps taken by other communities to evaluate internal, organizational equity including Multnomah County, Oregon; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Austin, Texas; Asheville, North Carolina; Baltimore, Maryland; St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and Toronto, Canada and studied additional tools and processes recommended by the Racial Equity Institute, the Racial Justice Network, Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Kellogg Foundation, and the Government Alliance for Racial Equity. Internally, department directors were asked to complete an organizational equity assessment tool by January 2019. The committee analyzed data on city employees by race, job category band, salary, and FTE status; reviewed equity tools used in other communities; reviewed the results of the internal organizational equity assessment; and considered recommendations for improving the city’s internal equity. City salary analysis & demographics data Salary data was obtained from the Department of Human Resources. The original data set contained information about 1,414 individuals. This data was “cleaned” to eliminate returning retirees, seasonal temporary workers, and employees who work less than 20 hours per week. This resulted in a dataset of 953 employees, upon which the following analysis is based. The dataset included hourly salary, employment band, gender, and race, along with other information such as employment date, department, and pay scale level group and level. The following analysis is based on salary, band, race, and gender. Future analyses could include age and ethnicity. Racial Distribution of City Employees Number of Employees in Racial Groups By Human Resources ‘Band’ All White Black Asian Other Unknown Management 60 50/83.3% 6/10% 4/6.7% Professional 303 223/73.6% 58/19.1% 3/1% 2/.7% 15/5% Protective 210 176/83.8% 28/13.3% 4/1.9% 2/1% Technical 362 211/58.2% 128/35.3% 13/3.6% 3/.82% 7/1.9% Total 935 660/70.6% 220/23.5% 24/2.6% 5/.5% 24/2.6% Table 1 Percentage and Distribution of Employees by Race by Human Resources ‘Band’ All White Black Asian Other Unknown Management 6.4% 5.3% 0.6% 0.4% Professional 32.4% 23.9% 6.2% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% Protective 22.5% 18.8% 3.0% 0.4% 0.2% Technical 38.7% 22.6% 13.7% 1.4% 0.3% 0.8% Total 100.0% 70.6% 23.5% 2.8% 0.5% 2.6% Table 2 Employee Demographics Compared to City Populations Table 3 shows the overall 2017 population of the City of Charlottesville. Charlottesville Population Total White Black Asian Other 48,019 33,561 8,984 3,727 1,747 69.9% 18.7% 7.8% 3.6% Table 3 Source: US Census American Factfinder Table 4 shows the demographic make-up the City’s employees, which is similar to the City population. Demographic Make-Up of City Employees Total White Black Asian Other Unknown Number of employees 935 660 220 26 5 24 % of City workforce 70.6% 23.5% 2.8% 0.5% 2.6% Table 4 Salary Differences by Race Table 5 shows the average hourly salary rate for all City employees by race and gender. All Charlottesville Employees Average Salary Overall White Black Asian Other Unknown All $24.50 $25.60 $21.31 $26.30 $22.49 $21.85 Female $24.52 $25.79 $21.52 $33.87 $24.40 $19.25 Male $24.48 $25.50 $21.14 $22.93 $19.64 $25.15 Table 5 Table 6 shows deviation from the average hourly salary rate for all employees by race and gender. Negative differences are shown in red. Deviation from Average White Black Asian Other Unknown All $ $1.10 -$3.19 $1.80 -$2.01 -$2.65 % 4.5% -13.0% 7.3% -8.2% -10.8% Female $ $1.29 -$2.98 $9.37 -$0.10 -$5.27 % 5.3% -12.2% 38.2% -0.4% -21.5% Male $ $1.10 -$4.29 $4.99 -$3.81 $0.65 % 4.5% -17.5% 20.4% -15.5% 2.7% Table 6 Table 7 shows the average pay in each band by race. Average Pay by Band All White Black Asian Other Unknown Management $52.77 $52.06 $57.86 $54.03 Professional $26.75 $27.33 $24.67 $32.31 $23.59 $23.88 Protective $22.23 $22.29 $22.48 $19.18 $19.32 Technical $19.24 $20.26 $17.82 $17.64 $17.89 $18.24 Table 7 Table 8 shows deviation from average pay in each band. Negative differences are shown in red. Deviation from Band Average White Black Asian Other Unknown Management $ -$0.71 $5.09 $1.26 % -1.3% 9.6% 102.4% Professional $ $1.02 -$2.08 $5.56 -$3.16 -$2.87 % 3.8% -7.8% 20.8% -14.2% -10.7% Protective $ $0.06 $0.25 -$3.05 -$2.91 % 0.3% 1.1% -13.7% -13.1% Technical $ $1.02 -$1.42 -$1.60 -$1.35 -$1.00 % 5.3% -7.4% -8.3% -7.0% -5.2% Table 8 Temporary Employees The City employs 471 temporary, seasonal, and substitute employees. These individuals work between 5 and 40 hours per week, with an average of 11.1 hours per week. Their average salary is $16.75 per hour. White temporary employees receive the highest average wage (17.29), 3.2% above the average wage for all temporary employees, while employees identifying as multiracial receive the lowest wage (14.76), 11.8% below the average wage for all temporary employees. Average Salary by Race for Temporary Employees Native Multi- All White Black Asian American racial Unknown Number 471 296 125 20 4 4 22 Average hours 11.1 8.89 14.56 15.25 5 13.75 17.27 Average wage $16.75 $17.29 $15.72 $16.10 $16.40 $14.76 $16.00 Table 9 Internal/Organizational Equity Assessment Tool Department directors were asked to complete an organizational equity assessment tool by January 2019. The committee reviewed responses to evaluate potential opportunities to expand promising practices across the organization and to assess the culture and context of departments. The following 14 questions were developed through review of tools engaged in other communities, drawing most heavily on those questions asked of departments in Austin, Texas: 1) Does the department have written equity goals and priorities? If yes, what are they? 2) Does the racial demography of the departmental staff reflect that of the community? 3) Does the racial demography of the departmental staff reflect that of the department’s primary customers or consumers? 4) Does your department routinely disaggregate data by race? 5) Are staff supported and evaluated in deepening knowledge and building skills around issues of white privilege, equity, inclusion, and developing culturally responsive services? If yes, how? 6) Do department staff routinely exhibit cultural competence in interactions with diverse groups? If yes, how do you know? 7) Is the department’s general environment and culture (food, art, holiday activities, etc) intentionally multicultural? If yes, provide examples. 8) Are people of color on staff specifically supported in identifying and participating in leadership development opportunities? How? 9) What strategies does the department employ to ensure departmental policies, practices, programs and investments do not adversely impact communities of color? 10) Describe any training your department has had or made available to staff in the last 18 months related to diversity, equity and inclusion. 11) Describe all opportunities your department offers consumers and customers to provide recommendations on policies, practices, programs and investments. 12) Does your department translate public documents for people with limited English proficiency and/or visual/hearing impairments? 13) What does your department do to understand the lived experience of members of marginalized communities? 14) Describe two new or additional things your department could do now to impact diversity, equity and inclusion goals. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The City Manager’s Advisory Committee on Organizational Equity’s work and recommendations are strongly aligned with City Council’s Strategic Plan Goal #1: An Inclusive City of Self- Sufficient Residents, Objective 1.5: Intentionally address issues of race and equity. Community Engagement: Five members of the committee are community members who have agreed to assist the city in its review of internal operations. Improving community engagement across the organization is a fundamental part of most municipal plans for improving equity. Budgetary Impact: This report is intended to serve as an update and therefore, has no immediate impact on the General Fund. Recommendation: Though the committee’s discussion continues, four broad categories of recommendations have emerged and include:  Implement diversity, equity and inclusion best practices throughout organization with emphasis on Human Resources functions related to recruitment, hiring, and staff development activities  Create Office of Equity & Inclusion to sustain the effort o Invest in staff to support these activities to include training and data evaluation o Support with staff and community advisory board  Consider using a formal equity impact assessment tool to evaluate new programs, investments, practice changes, and policies based on equity and impact; incorporate as part of the council memo process  Establish meaningful and sustained community engagement strategies at every level of the organization The committee strongly advises that the city take steps to prepare city staff and leadership for future actions aimed at improving equity. These steps will help ensure that this effort has staying power, is meaningful, and engages all staff in the change process. Initial steps for this preparation include:  Identify and engage in training so that all employees understand and can articulate why an equity-focus in necessary for this community o Groundwater Training by the Racial Equity Institute o Racial Sensitivity & Cultural Awareness by Dr. Ken Hardy o Undoing Institutional Racism  Identify internal policy changes that support an emphasis on equity o Integrate departmental equity goals into strategic performance goals o Consider adding an equity component to performance appraisal tool  Create opportunities for safe and supported growth among employees o Informal group discussion forums o Incentivized participation o Engage external facilitators Alternatives: N/A Attachments: Sample of Equity Impact Assessment Tools used in other communities. Racial Equity Impact Assessment What are Racial Equity Impact Assessments? EXAMPLES OF RACIAL JUSTICE EQUITY A Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) is a IMPACTS systematic examination of how different racial and ethnic Equity and Social Justice Initiative groups will likely be affected by a proposed action or King County, WA decision. REIAs are used to minimize unanticipated adverse consequences in a variety of contexts, including the analysis The county government is using an Equity Impact Review Tool to intentionally consider the promotion of equity in the of proposed policies, institutional practices, programs, plans development and implementation of key policies, programs and budgetary decisions. The REIA can be a vital tool for and funding decisions. preventing institutional racism and for identifying new options to remedy long-standing inequities. Race and Social Justice Initiative Seattle, WA Why are they needed? City Departments are using a set of Racial Equity REIAs are used to reduce, eliminate and prevent racial Analysis questions as filters for policy development and discrimination and inequities. The persistence of deep budget making. racial disparities and divisions across society is evidence of institutional racism––the routine, often invisible and Minority Impact Statements unintentional, production of inequitable social opportunities Iowa and Connecticut and outcomes. When racial equity is not consciously addressed, racial inequality is often unconsciously Both states have passed legislation which requires the examination of the racial and ethnic impacts of all new replicated. sentencing laws prior to passage. Commissions have been created in Illinois and Wisconsin to consider adopting When should it be conducted? a similar review process. Related measures are being proposed in other states, based on a model developed by the REIAs are best conducted during the decision-making Sentencing Project. process, prior to enacting new proposals. They are used to inform decisions, much like environmental impact Proposed Racial Equity Impact Policy statements, fiscal impact reports and workplace risk St. Paul, MN assessments. If approved by the city council, a Racial Equity Impact Policy would require city staff and developers to compile a “Racial Where are they in use? Equity Impact Report” for all development projects that The use of REIAs in the U.S. is relatively new and still receive a public subsidy of $100,000 or more. somewhat limited, but new interest and initiatives are on the rise. The United Kingdom has been using them with success Race Equality Impact Assessments for nearly a decade. United Kingdom Since 2000, all public authorities required to develop and publish race equity plans must assess proposed policies using a Race Equality Impact Assessment, a systematic process for analysis. © 2009, Terry Keleher, Applied Research Center. www.arc.org Racial Equity Impact Assessment GUIDE Below are sample questions to use to anticipate, assess and prevent potential adverse consequences of proposed actions on different racial groups. 1. IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS 6. CONSIDERING ADVERSE IMPACTS Which racial/ethnic groups may be most affected by and What adverse impacts or unintended consequences concerned with the issues related to this proposal? could result from this policy? Which racial/ethnic groups could be negatively affected? How could adverse impacts be 2. ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS prevented or minimized? Have stakeholders from different racial/ethnic groups— especially those most adversely affected—been informed, 7. ADVANCING EQUITABLE IMPACTS meaningfully involved and authentically represented in the What positive impacts on equality and inclusion, if any, development of this proposal? Who’s missing and how can could result from this proposal? Which racial/ethnic groups they be engaged? could benefit? Are there further ways to maximize equitable opportunities and impacts? 3. IDENTIFYING AND DOCUMENTING RACIAL INEQUITIES 8. EXAMINING ALTERNATIVES Which racial/ethnic groups are currently most advantaged OR IMPROVEMENTS and most disadvantaged by the issues this proposal seeks Are there better ways to reduce racial disparities and advance to address? How are they affected differently? What racial equity? What provisions could be changed or added to quantitative and qualitative evidence of inequality exists? ensure positive impacts on racial equity and inclusion? What evidence is missing or needed? 9. ENSURING VIABILITY 4. EXAMINING THE CAUSES AND SUSTAINABILITY What factors may be producing and perpetuating racial Is the proposal realistic, adequately funded, with inequities associated with this issue? How did the inequities mechanisms to ensure successful implementation and arise? Are they expanding or narrowing? Does the proposal enforcement. Are there provisions to ensure ongoing data address root causes? If not, how could it? collection, public reporting, stakeholder participation and public accountability? 5. CLARIFYING THE PURPOSE 10. IDENTIFYING SUCCESS INDICATORS What does the proposal seek to accomplish? Will it What are the success indicators and progress benchmarks? reduce disparities or discrimination? How will impacts be documented and evaluated? How will the level, diversity and quality of ongoing stakeholder engagement be assessed? © 2009, Terry Keleher, Applied Research Center. www.arc.org This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Report and Discussion Presenter: Jason Vandever, City Treasurer Staff Contacts: Jason Vandever, City Treasurer Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance John Blair, City Attorney Title: Charlottesville Retirement Fund and Divestment Considerations Background: City Council has requested information regarding the City’s investment portfolio, its investment strategies, portfolio composition, and potential targeted divestment strategies in regards to certain market sectors. This memo will explain the current strategy and describe the process Council could use to explore a targeted divestment approach or alternative investment strategy. There are two separate City funds that hold direct investments in companies. The City’s Core Portfolio ranges from $50-$100 Million, and is comprised of operating funds used in the course of conducting City business. Investment decisions related to these funds are made by the City’s elected Treasurer, who is charged with safeguarding City funds with the primary objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield. Additionally, the City of Charlottesville operates an independent retirement plan comprised of approximately $154 Million in assets set aside for the future payment of retirement and medical benefits for City employees. Authority for investment decisions related to plan assets are made by the Retirement Plan Commission, with the assistance of an investment advisor. The current investment strategy was devised to reach the City’s investment assumptions while minimizing portfolio risk. To that end, the plan’s assets are invested in the following manner:  Domestic Equity: 50.1%  International Equity: 13.3%  Real Assets: 15.5%  Fixed Income: 19.5%  Cash: 1.5% Within this framework there is a mixture of actively managed funds (where the managers are hand-selecting holdings), mutual funds (co-mingled investments), and passive funds (funds that mirror a benchmark). This mixture is set by the Commission with the assistance of the plan’s investment consultant. Charlottesville City Code Section 19-63 states that “the fund and the retirement plan shall be maintained for the exclusive benefit of employees or their beneficiaries.” Plan assets are held in trust by the Commission in accordance with the standards of a fiduciary. It is important to note that these funds are not held in the General Fund, they are being held in trust for the exclusive benefit of plan participants. Any changes made to the asset allocation, including targeted divestment strategies, should be vetted thoroughly with the plan’s legal counsel and investment advisor to ensure that fiduciary standards are met in both the result and the decision-making process. The Commission’s current Investment Policy Statement, which is attached to this Memorandum, was crafted over several years of experience and discussion with the plan’s investment advisor. Changes to the Investment Policy Statement are approved by the Commission. Discussion: A request has been made for City Council to consider placing a restriction on plan assets by excluding certain sectors from the investable universe, specifically companies involved in fossil fuel extraction and the manufacturing of weapons. According to staff estimates based on portfolio holdings and sector classifications (which can vary by source), the City’s retirement plan has the following direct investments in these sectors:  Equity positions in “defense” companies: $1.56 Million  Equity positions in “energy” companies: $818k  Bonds issued by “energy” companies: $788k The retirement plan also has indirect investments through index funds and mutual funds. Based on sector estimates, the retirement plan indirectly holds approximately $2.16 Million in “Energy” related companies through index and mutual funds. Because weapons/defense is not a specified sector category, it would be difficult to make an estimate of indirect investments in those types of companies. There are also a whole host of sectors that are not directly related to energy, but potentially contribute to climate change, such as chemical manufacturers, railroad companies, airlines, and utilities. The plan holds assets in all of these sectors as well. When approaching and considering divestment decisions, it is important to define certain terminology relevant to the discussion:  Sustainable, Responsible, and Impact Investing (SRI)- An investment discipline that implements additional investment criteria to generate long-term competitive financial returns and positive social impact. SRI strategies include the consideration of ESG factors, positive or negative screening, community investing, shareholder resolutions, and shareholder engagement.  Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) Factors- Additional factors beyond financial performance considered in investment analysis and portfolio construction. ESG strategies seek to complement traditional investment evaluation methods with additional qualitative and quantitative factor analysis.  Divestment- Also known as negative or exclusionary screening, divestment is one type of SRI investing where certain sectors or companies are excluded from a portfolio based on specific criteria. These criteria may or may not be solely based on financial merit. Charlottesville Retirement Plan Commission members are subject to the fiduciary duties of loyalty and care. The duty of loyalty requires the Commission to invest and manage the Plan’s assets solely in the interest of the Plan’s beneficiaries. The duty of care requires the Commission to invest the Plan’s assets with the care, skill, prudence and diligence that a prudent person would employ under the prevailing circumstances. Similar divestment efforts by other local governments are subject to the same fiduciary duties. As an example, the State of Vermont’s pension plan concluded that certain divestment strategies could breach its fiduciary duty. Some localities, including New York City, are further examining divestment strategies that will not breach either fiduciary duty. In conclusion, while it appears initially that an immediate divestment from a given market sector could potentially be a violation of fiduciary duty, the Commission may find that a gradual, data- driven approach that incorporates ESG factors into the plan’s investment process may be legally permissible in the long run. The Retirement Plan Commission has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Investment Advisory Services. The role of an investment advisor is to assist the Commission in crafting and executing its investment policy, selecting portfolio managers, and helping the Commission set performance expectations for the fund. The RFP has included language asking respondents to detail their experience working with public sector clients interested in exploring sustainable and responsible investment practices. The Commission expects to make a selection as a result of this search later this summer. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This proposal aligns with the following City Council Strategic Plan Goals:  3.4 Be Responsible Stewards of Natural Resources  5.1 Integrate Effective Business Practices and Strong Fiscal Policies Community Engagement: Council has received input from several individuals both at Council meetings and through email regarding potential divestment. Additionally, the City Treasurer has met with representatives of Divest Cville to gather further input and ideas. Budgetary Impact: Any standard review of the retirement plan’s investment strategy would be included in the upcoming investment advisor contract. If it is Council’s desire to commission a special study of the plan’s current investment strategy and the implications of a Sustainable, Responsible, and Impact (SRI) investment strategy (including possible divestment), Council would need to appropriate up to $30,000-$50,000 for such a study. Divestment in the City’s operating fund of individual securities of the magnitude discussed in this memo would not have a significant budget impact. Recommendation: Retirement Fund: Part of the RFP responses for investment advisory services will include an evaluation of each firm’s experience in Sustainable Investing and the implementation of ESG strategies for public retirement plans. We recommend allowing the Retirement Plan Commission to complete that evaluation and begin the conversation with the fund’s investment advisor later this summer. If, at that point, the Council desires for the Commission to explore divestment from fossil fuel equities and investments, then it should consider the following steps. First, it should craft a resolution that encourages the Retirement Plan Commission to explore divesting its assets from fossil fuel equities and bonds. Second, the resolution should request that the Retirement Plan Commission authorize its investment advisor to conduct a study to determine if divestment would breach one or both of the Commission’s fiduciary duties and if any divestment strategy can be devised which would not breach either fiduciary duty of loyalty and care. Third, the resolution should request that a Commission representative appear before Council to discuss the final findings of the study. Finally, the Council should appropriate the necessary funds for the Commission to fund the study. Operating Fund: Because the investment policy statement guiding the City’s operating funds does not have the same fiduciary duty requirement, Council could, if it desires, pass a resolution supporting an effort to divest operating fund investments from any asset class it wishes. Alternatives: Attachments: City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund Investment Guidelines CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE RETIREMENT FUND INVESTMENT GUIDELINES With Revisions Adopted –2018 I. PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT GUIDELINE STATEMENT The City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund has been created and funded to provide retirement benefits for those employees who through their years of service have earned a right to a pension benefit. The purpose of this fund is to provide for the accumulation and distribution of money in an actuarially sound fashion over the years of the employees’ service and subsequent retirement. This document is designed to set forth the policies and guidelines for those who administer and invest the funds in the portfolio. The Retirement Commission maintains that an important determinant of future investment returns is the expression and periodic review of the Fund’s investment objectives. To that end, the Commission has adopted this statement of Investment Guidelines. In fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility, the Commission recognizes that the retirement system is an essential vehicle for providing income and benefits to retired participants and/or their beneficiaries. The Commission also recognizes that the obligations of the Fund are long-term and that the investment guidelines should be made with a view toward performance return over a number of years. The general investment objective, then, is to obtain a reasonable total rate of return, defined as interest and dividend income plus realized and unrealized gains or losses, commensurate with the Prudent Investor Rule and any other applicable statute or requirement. A reasonably consistent and adequate return, protection of the assets against the inroads of inflation, and absolute safety of the assets are paramount. However, the volatility of interest rates and securities markets make it necessary to judge results within the context of several years rather than over short periods of one or two years. Performance will be measured quarterly. II. REGULATORY REQUIREMENT AND APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES Since the City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund is a defined benefit plan as defined and set forth by Virginia law, certain investment procedures and restrictions set forth under these regulations must be followed. Additionally: EVERY FIDUCIARY SHALL:  Discharge his or her duties for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund members and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the Plan;  Act with care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims;  Diversify investments of the City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund so as to minimize the risk of large losses unless under the circumstances it is clearly not prudent to do so, and;  Operate in accordance with the City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund procedures, documents and instruments. NO FIDUCIARY SHALL:  Deal with the City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund assets for his or her own account or his or her own interest, or;  Act in any matter affecting the retirement system on behalf of any person or organization whose interests are adverse to the interests of the City of Charlottesville Retirement Fund, its members or beneficiaries. III. BROKERAGE Investment managers shall use their best efforts to ensure that portfolio transactions are placed on a “best execution” basis. Brokerage transactions should not be directed to any firm if in doing so, taking all factors into consideration, the Fund will incur a disadvantage with respect to the market price of the security. Further, irrespective of any obligations to pay for services engaged by either the investment managers or the Trustees, only transactions that would normally be made for the Fund in the absence of such obligations should be executed. IV. PROXY VOTING Responsibility for the exercise of ownership through proxy solicitation shall rest solely with the investment managers. Guidelines for voting proxies will be listed in individual manager guidelines. V. INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES Based upon the Fund’s latest actuarial report, the Trustees have established long-term goals for the overall investment portfolio consistent with the liabilities of the Fund. At a minimum, the Fund in aggregate needs to earn a compound annualized rate of return over time of 7.5%. A. Total Fund Performance The performance of the total fund will be measured each quarter for rolling three and five year periods. These periods are considered sufficient to accommodate the different market cycles commonly experienced with investments. In addition to achieving the required actuarial rate of return, the total return of this portfolio is expected to exceed the return of the calculated model index as provided by the consultant. The model index is defined as a composite of passive indices whose composition is determined each quarter based on the plan’s target allocation mix. B. Domestic Equity Performance The equity portion of the portfolio is expected to perform at a rate greater than the Russell 3000 Index and/or in the top 50% of an appropriate broad market equity universe. The large capitalization equity portion of the portfolio is expected to perform at a rate greater than the S&P 500 Index and/or perform in the top 50% of an appropriate large cap equity universe. The mid capitalization equity portion of the portfolio is expected to perform at a rate greater than the Russell Mid Cap Index and/or perform in the top 50% of an appropriate mid cap equity universe The small capitalization equity portion of the portfolio is expected to perform at a rate greater than the Russell 2000 Index and/or perform in the top 50% of an appropriate small cap equity universe. C. International Equity Performance The international equity portion of the portfolio is expected to perform at a rate greater than the MSCI EAFE Index and/or in the top 50% of an appropriate international equity universe. D. Fixed Income Performance The fixed income portion of the portfolio is expected to perform at a rate greater than the Barclay’s Capital Aggregate Index and/or in the top 50% of an appropriate broad market fixed income universe. While the Commission acknowledge that market conditions can produce periods where such returns are difficult to achieve, the advisor is expected to contribute to meeting the long term objectives of the plan as well as others set forth in this document. VI. ASSET ALLOCATION The Retirement Commission has currently adopted the following asset allocation at market value: Market Sector % allocated Corresponding Index Domestic Stock 50.0% Russell 3000 Index Domestic Bonds 20.0% Barclay’s Aggregate Bond Index International Stocks 15.0% MSCI ACWI-ex US Index. Real Assets (R/E, Timber, Agriculture) 15.0% NCREIF Indices Although cash is not included in the asset allocation of the Fund, the Commission realizes the need to provide liquidity to pay obligations as the come due. Surplus cash flows, additional contributions, and investment manager cash will be utilized to pay obligations of the Fund and periodic re-balancing of the assets. The Fund’s investment manager(s) shall be kept informed of the liquidity requirements of the Fund, and to the extent possible, avoid untimely sales of assets which could be detrimental to the performance of the Plan. VII. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE To diversify plan assets so as to minimize the risk associated with dependence on the success on one enterprise, the Retirement Commission has decided to employ a multi-manager team approach to investing plan assets. Investment managers will be employed to utilize individual expertise within their assigned area of responsibility. Each manager will be governed by individual investment guidelines. Separate manager guidelines for each investment manager shall serve as addenda to this Policy. The asset management structure at market value is currently as follows: Target MINimum MAXimun Domestic Stocks 50.0% 40.0% 60.0% Large Cap SSgA * (Passive S&P 500) 12.5 7.5 17.5 Wells Capital (Large Cap Growth) 10.0 5.0 15.0 Cornerstone (Large Cap Value) 7.5 5.0 10.0 Mid Cap Davenport Capital (Mid Cap) 7.5 5.0 10.0 SSgA * (Passive Mid Cap) 5.0 0.0 10.0 Small Cap Atlanta Capital Mgmt. (Small Cap Value) 5.0 0.0 7.5 SSgA * (Passive Small Cap Growth) 2.5 0.0 5.0 Domestic Bonds 20.0% 10.0% 35.0% Earnest Partners – Core-Plus * 20.0 10.0 35.0 International Stocks 15.0% 10.0% 20.0% Developed Markets SSgA * (Passive EAFE) 3.0 1.5 4.5 SSgA Int’l Alpha Fund * (Int’l Value) 3.5 2.5 5.0 Artisan Partners Int’l Growth Fund * (Int’l Growth) 3.5 2.5 5.0 Emerging Markets SSgA * (Passive EM) 2.5 0.0 4.0 Axiom * (Emerging Markets) 2.5 0.0 4.0 Real Assets 15.0% 0.0% 20.0% Real Estate Prudential PRISA I * 5.0 0.0 7.5 Prudential PRISA II * 5.0 0.0 7.5 Agriculture/Farmland Ceres Partners * 2.5 0.0 5.0 UBS AgriVest Farmland * 2.5 0.0 5.0 *Indicates Commingled Fund VIII. IMPLEMENTATION All monies invested for the Plan by the investment managers after the adoption of these Investment Guidelines shall conform to this statement. Adopted this ________________ day of __________________, 20__ _____________________________________________________ for: Charlottesville Retirement Fund This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Approval of Homeowner Tax Relief Grant Program Presenter: Todd D. Divers, Commissioner of the Revenue Staff Contacts: Todd D. Divers, Commissioner of the Revenue Title: Homeowner Tax Relief Grant – 2019 Background: Attached is an ordinance for Council’s consideration for the Homeowner Tax Relief grant program for low-and moderate-income homeowners for Calendar Year 2019. The program allows the owners of eligible homeowner-occupied properties grant amounts applied to real estate taxes due on the property for the second half of calendar year 2019. Discussion: Enabling language for the CHAP Program is found in Sec. 50.7 of the City’s Charter, which requires that in determining who are “low and moderate income persons” the City must apply the income guidelines issued by the VHDA for use in its single-family mortgage loan program. Those guidelines also contain limitations on the value of the home in question. Current VHDA guidelines stipulate a maximum income threshold of $90,000 and a maximum home value of $375,000. During this year’s budget discussions, Council adjusted the grant and income parameters for the 2019 CHAP Program as follows (after a similar adjustment for 2018): CHAP IN PRIOR YEARS Applicant Income $0 - $25,000 $25,001 - $50,000 Grant Amount $525 $375 2018 CHAP Applicant Income $0 - $20,000 $20,001 - $35,000 $35,001 - $50,000 Grant Amount $1000 $750 $500 2019 CHAP Applicant Income $0 - $25,000 $25,001 - $35,001 - $45,001 - $35,000 $45,000 $55,000 Grant Amount Full Relief $1000 $750 $500 Maximum value for a qualifying home increased in 2018 from $365,000 to $375,000 and remains at that level for 2019. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: This aligns with the City Council’s Vision “…to be flexible and progressive in anticipating and responding to the needs of our citizens.” Budgetary Impact: Cost of this program is funded with the annual budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 2020 previously approved by Council. Recommendation: Approve proposed ordinance AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A GRANT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE AND PRESERVE HOMEOWNERSHIP BY LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME PERSONS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2006, §50.7 of the Charter of the City of Charlottesville authorizes City Council to make grants and loans of funds to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in the purchase of a dwelling within the City; and WHEREAS, this City Council desires to offer a monetary grant for Fiscal Year 2020, to aid low- and moderate-income citizens with one of the ongoing expenses associated with the purchase of a dwelling, i.e. real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, public funding is available for the proposed grant; NOW, THEREFORE, effective July 1, 2019 and for calendar year 2019, the Charlottesville City Council hereby ordains: Grant—provided. (a)There is hereby provided to any natural person, at such person’s election, a grant in aid of payment of the taxes owed for the taxable year on real property in the city which is owned, in whole or in part, and is occupied by such person as his or her sole dwelling. The grant provided within this section shall be subject to the restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed herein following. (b)If, after audit and investigation, the Commissioner of Revenue determines that an applicant is eligible for a grant, the Commissioner of Revenue shall so certify to the City Treasurer, who shall implement the grant as a prepayment on the applicant’s real estate tax bill due on December 5, 2019. (c)The amount of each grant made pursuant to this ordinance shall be equal to the total 2019 real estate taxes owed by taxpayers with a household income less than or equal to $25,000; $1,000 for taxpayers with a household income of $25,001-$35,000; $750 for taxpayers with a household income of $35,001-$45,000; and $500 for taxpayers with a household income from $45,001- $55,000, to be applied against the amount of the real estate tax bill due on December 5, 2019. Any remaining grant amount in excess of what is owed on the taxpayer’s second half bill, but not to exceed the entire annual tax due, shall be remitted to the taxpayer. Definitions. The following words and phrases shall, for the purposes of this division, have the following respective meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1)Applicant means any natural person who applies for a grant authorized by this ordinance. (2)Dwelling means a residential building,or portion such building, which is owned, at least in part, by an applicant, which is the sole residence of the applicant and which is a part of the real estate for which a grant is sought pursuant to this ordinance. (3)Grant means a monetary grant in aid of payment of taxes owed for the taxable year, as provided by this ordinance. (4)Spouse means the husband or wife of any applicant who resides in the applicant’s dwelling. (5)Real estate means a city tax map parcel containing a dwelling that is the subject of a grant application made pursuant to this ordinance. (6)Taxes owed for the current tax year refers to the amount of real estate taxes levied on the dwelling for the taxable year. (7)Taxable year means the calendar year beginning January 1, 2019. (8)Household income means (i) the adjusted gross income, as shown on the federal income tax return as of December 31 of the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year, or (ii) for applicants for whom no federal tax return is required to be filed, the income for the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year: of the applicant, of the applicant’s spouse, and of any other person who is an owner of and resides in the applicant’s dwelling. The Commissioner of Revenue shall establish the household income of persons for whom no federal tax return is required through documentation satisfactory for audit purposes. Eligibility and restrictions, generally. A grant awarded pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (1)The household income of the applicant shall not exceed $55,000. (2)The assessed value of the real estate owned by the applicant shall not exceed $375,000. (3)The applicant shall own an interest in the real estate that is the subject of the application (either personally or by virtue of the applicant’s status as a beneficiary or trustee of a trust of which the real estate is an asset) and the applicant shall not own an interest in any other real estate (either personally or by virtue of the applicant’s status as a beneficiary or trustee of a trust of which the real estate is an asset). (4)As of January 1 of the taxable year and on the date a grant application is submitted, the applicant must occupy the real estate for which the grant is sought as his or her sole residence and must intend to occupy the real estate throughout the remainder of the taxable year. An applicant who is residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for physical or mental care shall be deemed to meet this condition so long as the real estate is not being used by or leased to another for consideration. (5)An applicant for a grant provided under this ordinance shall not participate in the real estate tax exemption or deferral program provided under Chapter 30, Article IV of the City Code (Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Persons) for the taxable year, and no grant shall be applied to real estate taxes on property subject to such program. (6)An applicant for a grant provided under this division who is delinquent on any portion of the real estate taxes due on a property to which the grant is to be applied, must be in good standing on a payment plan with the Treasurer’s office with the aim of paying off said delinquency. (7)Only one grant shall be made per household. Procedure for application. (a)Between July 1 and September 1 of the taxable year, an applicant for a grant under this ordinance shall file with the Commissioner of Revenue, in such manner as the Commissioner shall prescribe and on forms to be supplied by the city, the following information: (1)the name of the applicant, the name of the applicant’s spouse, and the name of any other person who is an owner of and resides in the dwelling. (2)the address of the real estate for which the grant is sought; (3) the household income; (4)such additional information as the Commissioner of Revenue reasonably determines to be necessary to determine eligibility for a grant pursuant to this ordinance. (b)Changes in household income, ownership of property or other eligibility factors occurring after September 1, but before the end of the taxable year, shall not affect a grant once certified by the Commissioner of the Revenue, in which case such certified grant shall be applied to the subject real estate. (c)Any person who willfully makes any false statement in applying for a grant under this division shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $25 nor more than $500 for each offense. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Vote on Resolution Presenter: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Manager Staff Contacts: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Manager Kristel Riddervold, Environmental Sustainability and Facilities Development Manager Paul Oberdorfer, Director of the Department of Public Works Title: Resolution in Support of Federal Congressional Action to Adopt Legislation for a Carbon Fee & Dividend Policy to Address Climate Change Background: H.R. 763, cited as the “Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019”, has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently in committee. The bill proposes a two-part economic strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated within the United States: a fee on carbon and a dividend (a direct payment of the collected funds) to individual households. A carbon fee is one of two leading economic approaches for placing a price on carbon in order to bring its social costs into account in market pricing. The other approach is implementing a cap and trade program for carbon. Both approaches aim to utilize price signals in the market to generate competition and demand for lower carbon products. While there are differences of preference amongst economists, both approaches are considered to be effective options. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an example of a cap and trade program. The City of Charlottesville has supported Virginia’s participation in RGGI – most recently in the City’s 2019 Legislative Program for the General Assembly. On April 19, 2019, the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board approved regulations that prepares Virginia to be ready to begin participating in RGGI. RGGI applies a cap on the carbon emissions from large fossil fuel fired electric power generating facilities in participating states. When implemented, this will reduce carbon emissions from these facilities by 30 percent by 2030. Virginia will become the 12th state in the nation, and the first southern state, to regulate carbon pollution. (Press Release) The proposed congressional carbon fee and dividend policy (CFD), in contrast, would have a national scope and would apply to the carbon content of fuels, including crude oil, natural gas, coal, or any other product derived from those fuels that will be used so as to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Additionally, the funds generated by collection of the carbon fee would be returned directly to citizens through the dividend (i.e. direct payments) and in a manner that has progressive incidence (i.e. it would benefit lower income households the most). More information regarding how a CFD policy works and its impacts and benefits can be found on the Citizens’ Climate Lobby website and the Spring 2019 edition of the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, On the Economics of a Carbon Tax for the United States, by Gilbert Metcalf, Tufts University. Staff also consulted with William M. Shobe, Director of the Center for Economic & Policy Studies, Professor of Public Policy, and University Sustainability Fellow at the University of Virginia. Discussion: Recognizing the economic benefits and the climate action benefits that can result from placing a price on carbon and utilizing market mechanisms, the City of Charlottesville supports Virginia’s participation in RGGI, affirmed as recently as in the City’s adopted 2019 Legislative Program. A carbon fee and dividend (CFD) approach would similarly price carbon and utilize market mechanisms. RGGI and a CFD policy can be implemented sequentially. Congressional CFD legislation would have a greater effect on reducing emissions as it would be applied nationally and would apply to all carbon-based fuels. 84% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are in the energy sector, of which 91% are associated with the carbon from fossil fuel combustion.1 Looking at Charlottesville’s 2016 greenhouse gas inventory data, RGGI will impact ~43% of the city’s emissions profile whereas the proposed CFD policy would affect ~90%. The currently proposed CFD legislation and the proposed resolution for the City of Charlottesville includes a dividend component structured in a manner that would benefit city residents, including lower income households, and carbon-based fees and rebates for imports and exports to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. companies internationally. By both RGGI and the proposed CFD legislation utilizing market mechanisms and pricing, both approaches will stimulate competition and demand for low-carbon fuels. As a number of renewable energy companies are headquartered in Charlottesville (see cvillerea.org for a partial list), such activity would be expected to result in local economic development and more job opportunities and pathways. Such relationships are already being established through initiatives such as the City’s GO Solar program. Lastly, Charlottesville has a long history of environmental stewardship and commitment to climate action. As listed on the Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s website, 130 U.S. municipalities and states have adopted resolutions in support of a CFD policy. The proposed resolution would add Charlottesville to this list. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: These efforts are in alignment with City Council’s Green City Vision, the Strategic Plan: Goal 3 – A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment; and the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 4 (and as proposed in the 2018 update). 1 Metcalf, G. On the Economics of a Carbon Tax for the United States, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, page 2. Community Engagement: Members of the local Citizens’ Climate Lobby approached the City of Charlottesville regarding consideration of a resolution in support of congressional action to adopt a carbon fee and dividend policy. Review of the proposed legislation and the CFD policy approach demonstrated that the proposed resolution aligns with other recent Council actions. Budgetary Impact: No additional budgetary impact. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution. Alternatives: Council can amend the proposed resolution or not adopt it. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution in Support of Federal Congressional Action to Adopt Legislation for a Carbon Fee & Dividend Policy to Address Climate Change RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO ADOPT LEGISLATION FOR A CARBON FEE & DIVIDEND POLICY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE WHEREAS, the weight of scientific evidence and scientific consensus indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities is driving climate change, especially the combustion of fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases; and WHEREAS, climate change has been widely recognized by government, business, academic, and other community leaders as a worldwide threat with the potential to harm our economy, safety, public health, and quality of life; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville resolved in June 2017 to stand with cities and other public and private sector partners throughout the world to advance action in accordance with the goals outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement, a globally accepted commitment to fight climate change; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been involved in and continues to explore a variety of important actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our community; and WHEREAS, the external environmental, health, and social costs of carbon emissions are not included in prices paid for fossil fuels; and WHEREAS, phased carbon fees on greenhouse gas emissions are an efficient, transparent, and enforceable market-based mechanism to incentivize an effective and fair transition to a renewable-energy economy; and WHEREAS, a carbon fee and dividend policy can stimulate investment in low carbon-energy technologies and give residents and businesses in Charlottesville a powerful incentive to increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions; and WHEREAS, a steadily increasing revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend would be minimally disruptive to the economy while sending clear and predictable price signals to individuals and business purchasing and using carbon-based energy resources; and WHEREAS, a national carbon fee and dividend will make the U.S. a leader in mitigating climate change through a market-based mechanism, spurring innovation; and WHEREAS, dividends from carbon fees paid to households can ensure that families can continue to afford the energy they need during a transition to a low carbon economy while simultaneously stimulating our local economy and adding jobs; and WHEREAS, a carbon fee and dividend regime is one of many policies that could effectively reverse the unacceptable risks posed by greenhouse gas emissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that it encourages the U.S. Congress to enact legislation that address the significant risks posed by greenhouse gas emissions and that such legislation potentially include, but not be limited to, the following carbon fee and dividend policy components: 1. An annually increasing fee on carbon dioxide (or greenhouse gas equivalents) emissions produced by fossil fuels at the points of production and importation; and 2. A dividend that returns all the net revenues generated from the carbon dioxide fee to citizens in a manner that has a progressive incidence; and 3. Carbon-based fees and rebates for imports and exports to and from nations that have not implemented a carbon fee and dividend policy, which incentivizes trading partners to adopt similar laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Vote on Resolution Presenter: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Manager Staff Contacts: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Manager Kristel Riddervold, Environmental Sustainability and Facilities Development Manager Paul Oberdorfer, Director of the Department of Public Works Title: Update on City’s Global Covenant of Mayors Commitment: Draft Recommendations for a New GHG Reduction Goal & Key Focus Areas for Phase 3 Background: This report provides an update on the June 2017 commitment by City Council to the Global Covenant of Mayors (the Covenant) as part of a Response to the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. The commitment built on previous commitments and existing efforts of the City through its Climate Protection Program. The most recent update was presented to City Council on November 19, 2018 and included a proposed timeline for community engagement and consideration of a new greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for the City. Review of Timeline and Activities From February 14 – March 17, 2019, staff solicited direct input from the community on a new greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal. Community members could completed an online questionnaire with a set of questions and an open response option or could contact staff directly. The online questionnaire provided information regarding what the City aimed to achieve with this process and points of reference from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) October 2018 findings and data from Charlottesville’s 2016 greenhouse gas inventory. Following this report to City Council, a second period for public input will be open through May 31, 2019 for community response and further input on the draft reduction goal recommendations (presented below). Staff is aiming for the first Council meeting in July to propose a reduction goal for adoption, which will be before the July 10, 2019 reporting deadline for the Covenant of Mayors. Community Input – First Comment Period February to March 2019 From February 14th through March 17th, staff received 142 responses to the online questionnaire and three community letters signed by 41 for-profit and non-profit businesses, 7 independent schools, and 827 residents of whom 422 live in the city. The full responses are included here as Attachments 1-4. Summaries of the input received and additional information from staff are shared below: Goal Alignment with Albemarle County and the University of Virginia Over 80% of respondents felt it was important or very important (66%) to align the GHG reduction goals of the City, County, and UVA. County staff have recommended a 45% reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. UVA expects to meet its reduction goal of 25% by 2025 ahead of schedule and is now in the process of setting a new climate target. Reflection of the IPCC Recommendations Over 90% of respondents felt it was important or very important (83.8%) for the City’s reduction goal to reflect the IPCC recommendations. The most recent IPCC report supports global efforts at the local level to limit global warming to 1.5ºC as compared to 2ºC, or more. Limiting warming to 1.5ºC would help limit the negative effects of climate change and would reduce environmental harm, but would not maintain the same climate conditions and environmental state as we currently experience. To limit global warming to the 1.5°C level, the IPCC recommends aiming for 45% GHG reduction by 2030, based on 2010 emissions levels, and net carbon zero by 2050. All three community letters expressed support this “best-in-class” two-part goal. Importance of Charlottesville as a Leader Respondents felt it was very important for Charlottesville to be a leader in its GHG reduction goal within Virginia and within the USA, and important to very important to be a leader compared to international communities. The Charlottesville Climate Collaborative (C3) shows a map of climate goals around the southeast. Richmond, Blacksburg, Roanoke, and Alexandria have goals of an 80% reduction by 2050. Washington DC, amongst others in the country, has set a goal of 50% by 2032 and carbon neutral by 2050. Interim Targets within the Overall Goal Respondents felt it was very important to have interim targets within the overall goal. A two-part goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 with an interim goal of 45% reduction by 2030 would be in alignment with this interest. Additional interim targets can be assessed during Phase 3 of the Covenant commitment while developing a Climate Action Plan. Pacing Reductions When asked how the total amount of reductions should be distributed over the timeline for the goal, the majority of respondents were in favor of a greater amount of reductions at the beginning and tapering off towards the end. This can also be referred to as ‘front-loading’. A goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 from a 2010 baseline (e.g. over 40 years) with a goal of a 45% reduction goal by 2030 (e.g. over 20 years) would not be considered ‘front-loaded’ but would communicate value in exceeding the 2030 target. Identification of Sub-Goals Respondents felt it was very important to have sub-goals for individual sectors within the community GHG emission profile (ex. residential, commercial, etc.) and for types of strategies (ex. renewable energy, energy efficiency, etc.). These responses help to indicate a desired level of analysis and detail to be addressed in the development of a Climate Action Plan. Addressing Equity Respondents felt it was very important that both the City’s GHG reduction goal and the climate action strategies in the Climate Action Plan specifically address equity. These responses will help to inform the evaluation of strategies for the Climate Action Plan and confirm that – like the three pillars of sustainability – the Charlottesville community sees a successful climate action effort as one that embraces multiple core values. Such considerations could range from the broader scope of environmental justice to consideration of effects on individual households. For example, a 2016 review of the amount households pay for their energy – also known as the “energy burden” – in 48 major U.S. metropolitan areas found that:  Low-income households had to dedicate up to three times as much income to energy costs as do other, higher-income households (7.2 percent compared to 2.3 percent)  Low-income households experienced the highest median energy burden (7.2 percent), followed by African-American households (5.4 percent), low-income households living in multifamily buildings (5.0 percent), Latino households (4.1 percent), and renting households (4.0 percent)  Experiencing high energy burdens can greatly affect the mental and physical health of families by increasing financial stress, cases of asthma, respiratory problems, heart disease, arthritis, and rheumatism. Children and the elderly are most susceptible to these health impacts caused by improperly heated or cooled homes  If low-income housing stock were brought up to the efficiency level of the average US home, this would eliminate 35 percent of the average low-income energy burden of low- income households. For African-American and Latino households, 42 percent and 68 percent of the excess energy burden, respectively, would be eliminated Measurements & Accountability The three community letters all ask for a commitment to conducting a greenhouse gas inventory every two years track progress towards our goal. When undertaking the most recent greenhouse inventory, staff made efforts to improve the process for future inventories. Data tracking and metrics will need to be a well-thought out element in the Climate Action Plan. The Importance of Funding and Financing The community letter from the for-profit and non-profit organizations also included support for financing mechanisms that support and further the private sector’s ability to invest in local renewable energy and energy efficiency projects to reduce the commercial sector’s emissions. Staff agrees that identification of accessible and effective funding strategies is essential to overcoming upfront financial barriers for climate action strategies in the commercial sector as well as in the residential sector. Discussion: Evidence for climate change being human-driven has reach a “gold standard” level, which is the same threshold used to confirm discoveries such as gravitational waves and the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe. The most recent IPCC report, which took two years to develop and references 6,000 works, lays out the scientifically-based challenge that communities and governments face. News articles, such as this one by the Guardian, attempt to capture some of the key highlights:  the world has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius (1C), and we are experiencing the effects of climate change;  while only 0.5 degrees different, the impacts to ecological and social systems of our world will be substantially improved if we can limit warming to 1.5C as opposed to 2C;  pathways to limiting the amount of warming have been identified, but they are not achievable under current commitments;  commitments of 45% reduction by 2030 from 2010 levels and carbon neutral by 2050 are in alignment with a 1.5C warming limit Responses from the community indicate acknowledgement of the challenge ahead and interest in pursuing goals and actions that are proportional to the challenge. Staff recommends that the City of Charlottesville adopt a new GHG reduction target that represents leadership in the topic of climate change and adequately responds to the challenges of climate change in both scale and timeline. Given the use of new inventory protocol standards as part of the Covenant commitment and recommendations from the IPCC that reference 2010 as a baseline emissions year, staff also recommends that the City maintain comparison to its 2000 inventory for reference, but establish its 2011 inventory year as the basis for emissions reductions. As a draft recommendation, staff proposes that the City of Charlottesville adopt a 45% reduction by 2030 interim target, from its 2011 inventory year, and the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. A precise path from the City’s 2016 emissions inventory to carbon neutrality in 2050 is not currently clear. There is wide-spread recognition that carbon capture and sequestration will need to be part of the strategy globally to limit warming, and investments are being made to further the potential and understanding of these strategies (DOE $20 million investment, H.R. 763, Washington DC Carbon Neutrality Strategy). The level of advancement that has been made in energy storage and renewable energy technologies over the past 10 years speaks to the potential for further technological advancement in this area over the next 30 years. Accompanying this reduction goal would be direction to develop a Climate Action Plan that focuses clearly on the 2030 interim target and incorporates periodic reviews to track and integrate new developments in technology and strategies that develop. Similarly, as staff begin to consider how to structure and develop a Climate Action Plan to meet Phase 3 of our Covenant commitment, staff seeks direction from Council regarding four key focus areas, three of which relate specifically to the city’s three largest emissions sectors. Confirmation from Council in support of these four focuses will help inform staff’s direction of time and resources over the coming months and will provide confidence to the community that these areas will be addressed in the plan. As such, staff has drafted a proposed resolution and welcomes Council’s comments on the draft recommendations for a new emissions reduction goal and key focus areas for the climate action plan. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: These efforts are in alignment with City Council’s Green City Vision, the Strategic Plan: Goal 3 – A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment; and the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 4 (and as proposed in the 2018 update). Community Engagement: City staff discussed the public input process during focus group sessions with community groups that are “climate mission aligned” in the fall of 2018. Based on their input, staff have pursued the public input timeline and opportunities as described above. In addition, sustainability staff from the City, County, and UVA, recognizing that all three organizations are undertaking climate action planning and goal setting concurrently, are working together to coordinate on community engagement. We have set up a joint landing page website – climateactiontogether.org – as a central landing point for information about climate action planning locally. Through this webpage, each organization’s website, press releases, and social media, we are promoting opportunities for community engagement. City and UVA staff participated in the County’s Climate Open House event on March 18th, City and County staff co-presented at the March Sierra Club Chapter meeting, and City, County, and UVA staff have participated in community events and tabling opportunities in April that were organized in honor of Earth Day. Additional joint efforts are anticipated. Budgetary Impact: Funds have already been appropriated as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget within the Environmental Sustainability Division cost center to be used for this purpose.. No additional budgetary impact. Recommendation: Staff recommends consideration of the proposed GHG reduction goals and support for conducting a second period for public input (to run through May 31). Staff also recommends adopting the proposed resolution identifying four key focus areas to be addressed by the Climate Action Plan. Alternatives: Council can modify the proposed GHG reductions goals for consideration. Council can also amend the proposed resolution or not adopt it. Attachments: 1. Online Community Input Questionnaire Responses 2. Community Letter: For-Profit and Non-Profit Organizations 3. Community Letter: Private Schools 4. Community Letter: Citizens 5. Resolution Identifying Four Key Focus Areas for Phase 3 Online Questionnaire Setting a GHG Reduction Goal - Community Input Welcome! Our region has a history of commitments to sustainability and climate action. The community’s input has consistently been an important part of the process that informs policy goals and future actions. We hope that you will engage in this and other upcoming public comment opportunities to help advance climate action in our region. What are we aiming to achieve? The City of Charlottesville first committed to greenhouse gas reductions by joining the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2006. This commitment was most recently renewed in 2017 when Charlottesville committed to joining the Global Compact of Mayors (since renamed to the Global Covenant of Mayors). We are currently in Phase 2 of that commitment, where we will set a new greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal and assess climate vulnerabilities. Where can I get more information? Information on the City’s Climate Protection Program and progress its Global Covenant of Mayors commitment can be found at www.charlottesville.org/cpp Information on concurrent climate action processes during 2019 in the Charlottesville-Albemarle- UVA region is available at www.climateactiontogether.org Demographic Questions Please answer the following two questions for demographic purposes. Responses to this form will be incorporated in the City of Charlottesville's GHG reduction goal setting process and will be shared for informational purposes with Albemarle County and UVA Sustainability staff members. Online Questionnaire 1) OTHER Other Responses: Fluvanna Fluvanna Fluvanna County Formerly resident of Waynesboro I live and work and have intercourse and enterprise across all these jurisdictions Nelson County Palmyra Southern Maryland Waynesboro Online Questionnaire 2) GHG Reduction Target Questions POINT OF REFERENCE - IPCC Report A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends efforts at the local level to limit global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC, or more. (IPCC REPORT: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/) Two key messages of the report are: - we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes, and - a number of climate change impacts could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5ºC, as compared to earlier recommendations of 2ºC. The report acknowledges that actions to limit global warming to the 1.5°C level are underway, but need to be greatly accelerated and aimed at a 45% GHG reduction by 2030, based on 2010 emissions levels, and net zero carbon by 2050. POINT OF REFERENCE - CHARLOTTESVILLE GHG REDUCTIONS Charlottesville achieved a 2% GHG reduction from 2000-2011, and an additional 21% GHG reduction from 2011-2016. Online Questionnaire To help inform a Charlottesville GHG reduction goal proposal, please tell us: 3) 1 = Not Important 5 = Very Important Online Questionnaire 4) 1 = Not Important 5 = Very Important 5) Online Questionnaire 6) 1 = Not Important 5 = Very Important 7) Online Questionnaire 8) Online Questionnaire 9) In regards to pacing, how should Charlottesville aim to achieve its new GHG reduction goal? For example, if Charlottesville adopts a 30-year GHG reduction target, should it: Aim to reduce an equal amount 20.1% every 10 years Aim to reduce a large amount over 57.6% the first 10-15 years and a smaller amount after that Aim to reduce a small amount over 7.2% the first 10-15 years and a larger amount after that 15.1% Other Other: Climate Change is an interplanetary issue -- NASA reports show that all of the planets in the solar system are heating up little by little from the inside, so as much as we think we are to blame -- we cannot prevent this shift since it is happening from within the Earth itself, not as a direct result of any thing humans are doing. Granted we should move to tidal power, solar power, wind power, geothermal, piezoelectric, and other new energies and remove these archaic and dirty fossil fuels. But making a cit y- wide mandate is pointless and shows a myopic outlook hard to understand this one I think Charlottesville should make a GHG reduction goal that grows a certain percentage each year. Incremental change. If we don't wish to pay the social and economic costs associated with climate change, we should move as swiftly as possible. I would say goals of a massive change, especially with regard to corporate GHG in the next 5 years. Let the free market work Let's do it as quickly as possible we have the technology now. Make steady progress No need to waste money on this at all rental properties and renters and multi-family properties and their owners in the City should be the focus of REDUCING A LARGE AMOUNT one the first 10 years because these are the MOST TRANSIENT, the MOST POLLUTING/WASTE generating communities, THE LEAST LIKELY to invest in infrastructures, systems, and practices to reduce GHG Set 2 year goals with built in measurement. Solve the current problems at hand before tackling the frivolous ones. This is a waste of time and resources Online Questionnaire This really is unnecessary. Whatever makes the most sense. In theory, if you could implement projects like wide-scale composting in restaurants and public spaces, you would have a big GHG reduction impact, and it could snowball from there. There should be a long-term focus to make sure goals are being met in a practical way. You can't do enough. LARGE AMOUNTS ALL THE TIME. reduce a large amount over the next 10 to 15 years to initiate the energy devoted to the process similar to when recycling was introduced in the 80s and community members slowly developed a pattern and a habit of being conscious of recycling and then continue large amounts of reduction from there on out. 30 years is too long. We need a huge amount in the next 10 years (>80% or nearly total), and continued reduction after that (remaining <20%). aim to keep reducing larger amounts 10) Is there anything else you would like to share with us? (not sure if this is on the next page) but would be great to solicit ideas from the public on what specifically the City/County could do to meet their goal. 15 years is too late. ABSOLUTELY NO STUDIES. ACTIONS ONLY. DO IT. Also, please consider banning plastic bags in Albemarle County. An awareness program should be implemented concerning Stratospheric Aerosol Spraying. 20% reduction now greatly effects Solar Energy production. An urban tree revitalization program would add beauty as well as reduce CO2. As a scientist, it is clear to me that the climatological, meteorological, geological, and hydrological, and biological data all suggest that broad, substantial action is needed as soon as possible. Besides working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it would be very wise to begin factoring and building resiliency into all present and future design and infrastructure considerations, to buffer our community against inevitable disruptions from extreme climate events. And inasmuch as history shows us that these kinds of events disproportionately impact poor and marginalized communities, these are matters not just of environment but of equity, as well. The good news is that there are communities well ahead of ours that have proven that it's possible to take these measures while also maintaining or even upgrading quality of life; we just need the political and collective courage and will to endeavor for something new. Boulder, Colorado and many other cities in the US have blueprints for how to do this. We just need to embrace them and implement them here. There isn't any need to reinvent the wheel. Get non- motorized transportation implemented to get cars off roads, incentivize businesses, push the state for alternative energry credits. WE CAN DO THIS! Charlottesville and Albemarle County will have little to no affect on this. China and India could care less. You will put our area and country at severe economic disadvantage. Don't waste time and money on this. Online Questionnaire Climate Change is an interplanetary issue -- NASA reports show that all of the planets in the solar system are heating up little by little from the inside, so as much as we think we are to blame -- we cannot prevent this shift since it is happening from within the Earth itself, not as a direct result of any thing humans are doing. Granted we should move to tidal power, solar power, wind power, geothermal, piezoelectric, and other new energies and remove these archaic and dirty fossil fuels. But making a city-wide mandate is pointless and shows a myopic outlook Costs will be high but less than if we do nothing and the world warms too much. Divest from high-carbon output industries. Don't take nuclear off the energy mix table while we still have it generating low/no carbon electricity. Eliminate single use plastic bags in city and county businesses like LA did Green roofs! Having been involved in climate change research since 1974, I am amazed how naive this interface to Charlottesville and Albemarle County citizens is! A fancy website is not going to guide the City and county into meaningful contributions toward GHG emissions reductions. I highly recommend that those involved in this effort actualy read, very carefully, all of the reports of the IPCC as well as those issued by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. With espect to reduction of carbon dioxide and methane emissions, the U.S. State of the Carbon Cycle Reports are absolutely essential. I am so glad that cville is undertaking this initiative. It is so important. Being a smaller community we are more agile than larger ones and can achieve larger reductions faster than bigger cities. We need to take advantage of that ability. I applaud the goals and process so far. Sustainability is also a very important part of earth renewal. I and many of my friends and family make big efforts to reduce our footprint on the earth. One thing that the city, county and uva could agree to do jointly us the ban plastic bags. I live near meadow creek and see many plastic bags caught in the creek bed and banks...not to mention the rivanna river. Many us communities have taken this action and had big improvments in the trashing of their communities. I urge you to pass a ban on plastic bags here. I answered only "Somewhat" important for whether the City, County, UVA align their goals with -- as I understand the question -- WITH EACH OTHER because we don't want a situation where one entity holds the others back, where there's a path-of-least-resistance goal. I answered the next question that ALL 3 entities should align goals with IPCC, and that should be enough. I believe it is extremely important for the City to include interim goals (every 5 years or so) to mark our progress and determine if we are on pace for success. I think this is the most important challenge we are facing today. Please help us do this for our children. I would like to move away from natural gas use, have strict building codes for new construction, and recycling that works (no contamination). Introduce Policy that benefit all communities. Always be mindful of equity. It is utterly hypocritical that the City ships its waste outside City limits. And furthermore and even more hypocritical it ships it FAR AWAY requiring MANY MANY MANY trucks polluting with hydrocarbons. AND speaking of equity: WHAT could be MORE IN-EQUITABLE than dumping your SHITTY ROTTEN STANK POLLUTING WASTE into poor and working class RURAL communities! many to them poor and working class communities of color! HOW hypocritical - and POLLUTING - is that?! Keep on pushing! More frequent GHG inventory/reporting and report on milestones Our end goal should be net-zero carbon by 2050, at the latest - the science on this is clear, given the likely impacts of further delay. There are several areas that I think a meaningful response to climate change needs to address - specifically, our natural gas utility, building efficiency, and urban mobility. With respect to Charlottesville Gas, it's currently operating as a conventional fossil fuel utility, providing incentives for the use of its product, although electric alternatives are cleaner and will continue to get cleaner as the grid decarbonizes. We need to immediately stop incentivizing installation of new gas infrastructure, and commit to full decarbonization of the utility by mid-century. Utility commissions in Online Questionnaire California and Massachusetts have endorsed building electrification (installation of efficient electric space & water heating appliances in place of gas-fueled models) as the most effective and efficient means of getting carbon out of buildings. We should follow their lead, and consider incentives for electrification as well (and removing incentives for adoption/install of gas infrastructure). Efficiency is one of the more cost-effective means of reducing a building's carbon emissions, and typically provides co-benefits in terms of improved indoor air quality and comfort. We should continue and expand our support of LEAP, for example providing free check-ups with the purchase of any residence in the city (homeowners are most likely to take on improvements early in their ownership of a home). I also recommend making building energy usage more transparent, such as requiring disclosure of energy usage data as part of sales in the city. Finally, for new construction or retrofits, I recommend improving the efficiency incentives, such as higher incentives for performance beyond the current efficiency baseline. Finally, improving urban mobility is the most cost-effective carbon reduction action available - largely due to the associated benefits from improved health outcomes (air quality improvements, physical fitness associated with increased walking/biking, etc.). The city should commit to an overhaul of urban mobility - increasing housing density within the city limits, particularly close to employment/retail centers, improving transit options to the extent that density allows, and road diets to allow for safer & more frequent pedestrian/bicyclist trips. Our time should be used better to address real issues like homelessness, housing affordability, and economic development in Charlottesville and the surrounding area. please consider adding an opt-in REC purchase line item to monthly gas/water bill Please consider partnering UVA with PVCC in all goals and adoptions. PVCC is a relatively small institution of higher education and would benefit by having the larger institution of UVA to partner with. Please don’t waste any time! This is critical! Please identity creating a resilient local food system as one of the sub-goals. Please incorporate insect-friendly practices into your goals. Stop mowing grass and plant meadows on city-owned land. This will help with carbon reduction, too. Thank you for doing this work! Thank you for working on this EXTREMELY urgent issue. Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion, and good luck to everyone! Thanks! Would like to see a consistent and similar plan between City, County, and UVA. The City of Charlottesville is in a somewhat unique position in that it owns a fossil fuel distribution utility (Charlottesville Gas), but will hopefully adopt aggressive emissions goals to be met over the next 30 years. In order to meet IPCC recommendations, Charlottesville will be required to ELIMINATE CO2 and methane emissions associated with Charlottesville Gas...either through helping building owners convert fossil fuel end uses (especially space heating and water heating) to carbon free electricity...or (much less likely) convert 100% of natural gas supply to renewable and/or synthetic gas created from zero-carbon electricity. Planning for this significant transition needs to start NOW. The GHG reduction goal should also include a goal of carbon neutrality as well as commitments to producing GHG emissions reports every 2 years. The goal must be 100% clean energy by 2030 The next 10 years is critically important so frontloading the actions is critically important There are tons of strategies out there for local/regional mitigation of GHG - please consider Phys.org as a source for innovation. Also, the City and County *NEED* to energetically work on adaptation and mitigation/recovery for disasters and knock-on effects such as refugees from VA Beach/other regions, droughts and food & water shortages, flooding in low-income and elderly areas, heat-wave impacts on health of elderly and Online Questionnaire children, etc. etc. It's not just about solar power 10 years from now - our region has many high risks in the *NEAR* term that are not being seriously considered. Think big! Maximize regional transportation coordination. Reduce barriers to density and mixed use in city/county ordinance. More on campus student housing. This is a major priority of our time and must be addressed by our local leadership from every section and most importantly UVA as a major employer and academic leader in our region. This is so important for future generations. We need to support and finds ways for all of us to be involved in aggressively reducing the impact of GHGs. Thanks for setting up this website. unsure about what you are asking in your equity question uva coal plant needs to go We have got to do better with recycling and composting initiatives across the city. And improving walkability and bikeability along with improved public transit is key to reducing Charlottesvilles GHGs. We have to act now, this is an emergency We have to act now, this is an emergency We must to everything in our power to dramatically reduce our community’s impact on the global climate. It’s clear that we can’t wait on the Federal Government or other institutions before we act. We need interim GHG inventories every 2 years to track our progress We should listen to experts/scientists, and we should do everything we can locally to slow climate change. Would love see single use plastics, styrofoam banned. Costs for using plastic bags. Cost for sending things to landfill vs composting. Incentives make good choiced March 17, 2019 Dear City Councilors and County Supervisors: Thank you for taking up the important task of setting new community climate goals for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and for recognizing the need to develop comprehensive Climate Action Plans to ensure we reach those goals. As the leaders of 41 local for-profit and non-profit businesses representing 2,974 employees, we share a common goal to protect the health and vitality of our community. The current climate action planning process presents the perfect opportunity to advance this common goal and establish the Charlottesville-Albemarle area as a leader in this 21st century challenge. Ultimately, all community sectors must engage and partner on climate action if we are to be successful. Setting an ambitious greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction goal would be a catalyst for the level of community partnership needed, and as businesses, we know that we have an important role to play in reducing emissions. The Charlottesville area business sector is concerned about climate leadership for a number of important reasons: ● We are all in this together. The health and well-being of the greater Charlottesville area is of the utmost importance, and we want to be proud of the community we call home and make sure it is leading the way on a central issue of our time. ● Climate leadership is vital to innovation and job creation. Innovation is fueling our local economy, and we must be on the leading edge of key issues to attract and retain entrepreneurs and the high-growth job creation engines that they build. ● Clean energy and energy efficiency are stimulating an energy revolution driven by economics. These technologies reduce cost, mitigate cost variability risk, and increase energy independence. The strategies of climate leadership strengthen our businesses. ● Our employees and customers care. There is a competitive advantage to be gained by embracing climate leadership. We urge the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to do the following: 1. Establish a best-in-class climate goal of: (a) reducing our year 2010 baseline greenhouse gas emissions 45% by the year 2030; and (b) achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. This goal is aligned with the overarching goal in the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2018 report of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It is what the world’s preeminent climate scientists tell us is needed to avoid the most harmful consequences of climate change. Some key factors weighing in support of this goal include: a. The City and County’s current emissions reduction goals lag conspicuously behind our peer communities in the region and throughout the Commonwealth. By selecting a goal in line with the IPCC’s 2018 report, the City and County will embrace the mantle of leadership. b. There has already been a 21% reduction in the City’s climate emissions since 2011 — nearly halfway to the 45% reduction goal — through reductions in energy use and a lowering of the carbon intensity of electricity in our region. 2. Commit to conducting a greenhouse gas inventory every two years. Regular inventories are absolutely critical. Looking back, the City conducted inventories of 2000, 2011, and most recently, 2016. The County’s last inventory was of 2008 emissions. With eleven years to reach a 45% reduction goal, frequent and regular measurement is necessary to: a. Ensure we are pursuing effective, state-of-the art strategies; b. Keep the community, individual sectors, and City and County leadership apprised of our progress; and c. Maintain the community’s focus. 3. Strongly consider the pro-clean energy and energy efficiency policies outlined below. As a commercial sector, we are already making strides in implementing energy efficiency and clean energy, and we want the business community to accelerate this progress, including extending the benefit of these technologies to low- and moderate- income businesses. Government has a role to play by implementing smart, cost-effective policies which enable businesses to implement more clean energy and energy efficiency sooner — thereby permanently reducing costs, improving air quality, and reducing GHG emissions. To this end, we encourage you to implement the following policy recommendations: ● Jointly authorize and implement Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) in both the City and the County. C-PACE is a financial tool which has been shown to accelerate the implementation of clean energy and energy efficiency in the commercial sector, including non-profit organizations and multifamily dwellings. C-PACE enables the long-term repayment of loans through a property assessment which is tied to the property, not the business. The financing comes from private capital providers rather than the government. C- PACE is broadly applicable, as both new construction and existing buildings qualify. The majority of projects are cash-flow positive from “day one” because the energy savings from the upgrades cover the cost of the loan payments. Furthermore, it removes investment timing risk for property owners. Property owners can implement clean energy and energy efficiency, recoup benefits while they own the property, and transfers the loan to the new property owner if they sell the property before the loan is repaid. For the City and County, C-PACE would make clean energy and energy efficiency economically viable for a larger and broader segment of property owners. The Virginia Energy Efficiency Council estimates 927 and 607 properties qualify for C-PACE in the City and County, respectively. C-PACE has been enabled by the Virginia General Assembly, and the program is currently available in Arlington and Fredericksburg. To be available locally, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors need to separately or jointly authorize it. Subsequently, City and County staff would need to separately or jointly design a program and contract with an administrator. Recommendation: We request the City Council and the Board of Supervisors pass a joint resolution by the summer of 2019 authorizing C-PACE locally and direct City and County staff to “fast track” the implementation of a joint program. ● Expand the Clean Energy Loan Fund (CELF) in the City and expand it to the County. The Clean Energy Loan Fund is an existing program in the City of Charlottesville. Since being converted to an interest rate buy-down program, CELF was rapidly deployed, facilitating over $1.6 million in private investment in clean energy and energy efficiency within the City, including over 650 kW in solar capacity across seven projects. For every $1 invested by the City, private industry invested $5 in response. With the assistance of CELF, implementing energy efficiency and solar becomes feasible for low- and moderate-income businesses because the energy savings cover loan repayment. The carbon emissions impact has been significant as well; the solar enabled by CELF to date has reduced CO2 emissions by an amount equivalent to burning of 708,543 pounds of coal each year. The program has been an unmitigated success. Based upon the performance of the City’s CELF to date, we believe an expanded and joint City-County CELF has the potential to facilitate the deployment of 5.5 MW of solar in the City and County over the next five years. Recommendation: We request that the City expand the fund to deploy up to $300,000 a year for five years with the goal of installing over 2.75 MW of solar in the City. Similarly, we request that the County implement CELF and deploy up to $300,000 a year for five years with the goal of installing over 2.75 MW of solar in the County. Ideally, the programs would have a single “front door” for both City and County businesses to access. Thank you again for recognizing the need to address this important issue. In summary, we encourage you to establish an aggressive community goal, require measurement every two years, and implement the policies outlined above to empower businesses to accelerate and expand clean energy and energy efficiency improvements. We are excited to work with City and County leaders to move our whole community forward. Should you have questions please contact, Susan Kruse at the Charlottesville Climate Collaborative, 434-284-0870, or susan@cvilleclimate.org. Sincerely, Members of the Charlottesville City and Albemarle County Business Community (See attached list of 41 for-profit and non-profit businesses) CC: Mike Murphy, City Manager, City of Charlottesville Jeff Richardson, County Executive, County of Albemarle March 17th, 2019 Dear City Councilors and County Supervisors: As educators and leaders of independent schools in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area, we have a unique perspective on the issue of a climate change. Everyday we witness young people turning concern into action on this issue. They have an important role to play in climate solutions for our community and are a strong force for change. We are working collectively to promote a more environmentally sustainable “now” and “future” for our students, staff, and the larger community. So thank you for taking up the important task of setting new community climate goals for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and for recognizing the need to develop comprehensive Climate Action Plans to ensure we reach those goals! The current climate action planning process presents the perfect opportunity to work with all members of our community to advance our common goals and establish the Charlottesville- Albemarle area as a leader in this 21st century challenge. We welcome the opportunity to marshall the energy, creativity, and passion of our community’s young people. Setting an ambitious greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction goal will be a catalyst for the level of community partnership needed. As schools, we value climate leadership for a number of important reasons: ● Our students and their families care and want government to lead on this issue. Studies consistently report that a majority of Americans want to prioritize climate solutions, and according to the 2018 Yale Climate Opinion map, the majority of Charlottesville and Albemarle County residents feel that the government, corporations, and citizens should do more to address climate impacts. ● We are all in this together. The health and well-being of Charlottesville-area young people and their families is of the utmost importance! We want to be proud of the community we call home and make sure it is leading the way on this issue. ● Climate leadership is vital to our community’s health. A recent NRDC report on the health impacts of climate change in Virginia reports that our community will face increased rates of asthma and heat-related illnesses, as well as water and food contamination. While climate change impacts all of us, low-income families, children, and the elderly are members of our community who feel the effects to an even greater extent. ● Clean energy and energy efficiency are stimulating an energy revolution Advancements in green technologies enable schools to reduce cost, mitigate cost variability risk, and increase energy independence. Therefore, we urge the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to do the following: 1. Establish a best-in-class climate goal of: (a) reducing our year 2010 baseline greenhouse gas emissions 45% by the year 2030; and (b) achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. This goal is aligned with the overarching goal in the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2018 report of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It is what the world’s preeminent climate scientists tell us is needed to avoid the most harmful consequences of climate change. The City and County’s current emissions reduction goals lag conspicuously behind our peer communities in the region and throughout the Commonwealth. By selecting a goal in line with the IPCC’s 2018 report, the City and County will embrace the mantle of leadership. 2. Commit to conducting a greenhouse gas inventory every two years. Regular inventories are absolutely critical. Looking back, the City conducted inventories of 2000, 2011, and most recently, 2016. The County’s last inventory was of 2008 emissions. We only have eleven years to reach a 45% reduction, so we must work diligently. Frequent and regular measurement of our progress is necessary to ensure we are pursuing effective strategies and keeping climate action a focus of our community. Thank you again for recognizing the need to address this important issue. In summary, we encourage you to establish a bold, leadership-level community goal and require measurement every two years for the health and vitality of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and for our children’s future. We look forward to working with City and County leaders to move our entire community forward. Should you have questions please contact Susan Kruse at the Charlottesville Climate Collaborative, 434-284-0870, or susan@cvilleclimate.org. Sincerely, Members of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Independent Schools (See attached list of 7 independent schools) CC: Mike Murphy, City Manager, City of Charlottesville Jeff Richardson, County Executive, County of Albemarle March 17, 2019 Dear City Councilors and County Supervisors, As citizens of the Charlottesville area, we share a common goal to protect the health and vitality of our community against effects of climate change impacting our built, social, and natural systems. The future of our community, of our children, and of our legacy is dependent on commitments to reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. So, we thank you for taking up the important task of setting new community climate goals for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and for recognizing the need to develop comprehensive Climate Action Plans to ensure we reach those goals! As community members, we recognize that we have an important role to play in reducing emissions for the health and safety of our families, friends, and future. But we cannot do it alone. Setting an ambitious GHG reduction goal would serve to catalyze and activate all members of the community around this common purpose. As citizens, we are concerned about climate leadership for a number of important reasons: 1. We believe our local government should make commitments that reflect our values. The issue of climate change concerns many families, students, and individuals who wish to see Charlottesville support and promote a more sustainable way of living. According to the 2018 Yale Climate Opinion map, the majority of Charlottesville and Albemarle County residents feel that more should be done to address climate impacts. 2. Climate leadership is vital for ensuring that our community remains a desirable place to live, work and play. The City and County’s current emissions reduction goals lag conspicuously behind our peer communities in the region and across the Commonwealth. As a community of forward thinkers and problem-solvers, Charlottesville has a reputation of innovation and progress to uphold. 3. The health and safety of our community is at risk. Extreme weather events, like flash flooding or intense heat, are becoming increasingly more frequent and severe. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (2018), the greater Charlottesville area is experiencing an average of 9-14 days of extreme heat per summer. While climate change impacts all of us, low-income families, children, and the elderly are members of our community that feel the effects to an even greater extent. 4. We are all in this together. As various sectors of the community come together to address this problem, we as citizens also aim to be part of the solution. Together, we have already reduced emissions by 21% since 2011 and with a leadership level goal driving our climate action plan, we can make even greater strides. We urge the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to do the following: 1. Establish a best-in-class climate goal of: (a) reducing our year 2010 baseline greenhouse gas emissions 45% by the year 2030; and (b) achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. This goal is aligned with the overarching goal in the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2018 report of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It is what the world’s preeminent climate scientists tell us is needed to avoid the most harmful consequences of climate change. 2. Commit to conducting a greenhouse gas inventory every two years. Regular inventories are absolutely critical. Looking back, the City conducted inventories of 2000, 2011, and most recently, 2016. The County’s last inventory was of 2008 emissions. We only have eleven years to reach a 45% reduction, so we must be diligent. Frequent and regular measurement of our progress is necessary to ensure we are pursuing effective strategies and keeping climate action a focus of our community. Thank you, again, for recognizing the need to address this important issue. We believe that together we can ensure the health and vitality of our residents, protect our natural resources, and strengthen the resilience of this dynamic community we call home. Sincerely, Charlottesville City and Albemarle County Residents (See attached list of 827 signatories – 422 City of Charlottesville, 405 Albemarle County) CC: Mike Murphy, City Manager, City of Charlottesville Jeff Richardson, County Executive, County of Albemarle Susan Kruse City of Charlottesville 22901 Claire Habel City of Charlottesville 22903 Luke Holloran City of Charlottesville 22903 Michael Kruse City of Charlottesville 22901 Joseph Rinkevich City of Charlottesville 22901 Liz Powers City of Charlottesville 22902 Sofya Olenicheva City of Charlottesville 22904 Sarah Bryan City of Charlottesville 22903 Robert Paxton City of Charlottesville 22902 Tina Rees City of Charlottesville 22902 Jacqueline Crocker City of Charlottesville 22902 Andrea Larson City of Charlottesville 22902 Morgan Butler City of Charlottesville 22901 Ellen Markowitz City of Charlottesville 22903 Jennifer Pullinger City of Charlottesville 24590 Eric Magrum City of Charlottesville 22902 Jonathan Blank City of Charlottesville 22903 Steve Bolton City of Charlottesville 22902 Teri Lamb City of Charlottesville 22902 Dorothy Batten City of Charlottesville 22903 Katherine McNamara City of Charlottesville 22901 Deborah Lawrence City of Charlottesville 22902 Kristin Taverna City of Charlottesville 22903 Chris Meyer City of Charlottesville 22903 Leena Cho City of Charlottesville 22903 Chris Gratien City of Charlottesville 22902 Willis Jenkins City of Charlottesville 22902 Denise Stewart City of Charlottesville 22902 Bridget Hamre City of Charlottesville 22902 Elizabeth Reynolds City of Charlottesville 22903 Amanda Nelsen City of Charlottesville 22903 Barbara Heritage City of Charlottesville 22901 Emily Morrison City of Charlottesville 22901 Kirby Moore City of Charlottesville 22902 Ellen Bassett City of Charlottesville 22901 David Langner City of Charlottesville 22903 Megan Greenwood City of Charlottesville 22903 Katie Shevlin City of Charlottesville 22903 Stephen Sellers City of Charlottesville 22903 Allison Pugh City of Charlottesville 22903 Holly Hatcher City of Charlottesville 22902 Clement Tingley City of Charlottesville 22902 Kate Bennis City of Charlottesville 22902 Claire Griffin City of Charlottesville 22903 Tim House City of Charlottesville 22902 Mieke Zylstra City of Charlottesville 22902 Julia Monteith City of Charlottesville 22902 Bradford Slocum City of Charlottesville 22903 Megan McGroddy City of Charlottesville 22903 Anne Rucker City of Charlottesville 22902 Tom Cormons City of Charlottesville 22903 Stephanie Roe City of Charlottesville 22903 Diane Cluck City of Charlottesville 22903 Sarah Norris City of Charlottesville 22901 Aven Kinley City of Charlottesville 22901 Claudine McElwain City of Charlottesville 22901 Casey Williams City of Charlottesville 22901 Colin McElwain City of Charlottesville 22901 MJ Smith City of Charlottesville 22903 Brooke Braun City of Charlottesville 22901 Barbara Maille City of Charlottesville 22903 Mary Roberts City of Charlottesville 22901 Philippe Sommer City of Charlottesville 22903 Bev Wann City of Charlottesville 22902 Kara West City of Charlottesville 22901 Matt Mongan City of Charlottesville 22903 Joyce Cheng City of Charlottesville 22903 Susannah Wood City of Charlottesville 22901 Derek Brown City of Charlottesville 22903 Marcia Geyer City of Charlottesville 22901 Rich Allevi City of Charlottesville 22902 Miller Susen City of Charlottesville 22903 Marisa Vrooman City of Charlottesville 22903 Neal Halvorson-Taylor City of Charlottesville 22903 Kate Boyle City of Charlottesville 22901 Charity Pennock City of Charlottesville 22901 Derek Sieg City of Charlottesville 22902 Kristin Clarens City of Charlottesville 22902 Ariana Williams City of Charlottesville 22902 Rachael McGowen City of Charlottesville 22902 Susan Blank City of Charlottesville 22903 Mark Goodwin City of Charlottesville 22901 Michael Prichard City of Charlottesville 22902 Emily Westlake City of Charlottesville 22903 Caleb Hersch City of Charlottesville 22902 Jason Halbert City of Charlottesville 22903 John Ashley City of Charlottesville 22902 Catherine Strumlauf City of Charlottesville 22902 Helene Austin City of Charlottesville 22902 Meagan Denman City of Charlottesville 22902 Mladen Nesic City of Charlottesville 22903 Elisabeth Jacobs City of Charlottesville 22901 Ann Watts City of Charlottesville 22902 Jade Scheele City of Charlottesville 22903 Jim Trousdale City of Charlottesville 22903 Nikhil Kondabala City of Charlottesville 22902 Kyle West City of Charlottesville 22902 Dylan Fraser City of Charlottesville 22901 Ashley Addington City of Charlottesville 22903 Sara Stovall City of Charlottesville 22903 Matthew Hantzmon City of Charlottesville 22903 James Barton City of Charlottesville 22902 Katherine Valdelievre City of Charlottesville 22911 Brian Kelly City of Charlottesville 22903 Brad Smith City of Charlottesville 22901 Victoria alexander City of Charlottesville 22902 Blakeley Greenhalgh City of Charlottesville 22902 Paul Miller City of Charlottesville 22902 Robert Winstead City of Charlottesville 22903 Wendy Brown City of Charlottesville 22903 Brett Andersen City of Charlottesville 22902 Russell Edwards City of Charlottesville 22903 Sarah Bedford City of Charlottesville 22903 Jennifer Phillips City of Charlottesville 22901 John Stone City of Charlottesville 22902 Stephanie Faires City of Charlottesville 22901 Phillip McKalips City of Charlottesville 22901 Dylan Ikkala City of Charlottesville 22903 Deepesh Rana City of Charlottesville 22902 Greyson Williams City of Charlottesville 22902 Ariel Billmeier City of Charlottesville 22903 Laurie Miller City of Charlottesville 22902 Kirk Henderson City of Charlottesville 22902 Martha Williamson City of Charlottesville 22902 kathryn kieffer City of Charlottesville 22902 Linda Whitley City of Charlottesville 22911 Kevin Chandler City of Charlottesville 22903 Delu Stricker City of Charlottesville 22903 Dana Mich City of Charlottesville David Stackhouse City of Charlottesville 22903 Kathryn Dunn City of Charlottesville 22902 Matt Chan City of Charlottesville 22902 Roxanne White City of Charlottesville 22902 Michele Mattioli City of Charlottesville 22903 Susan Kemp City of Charlottesville 22902 David Clemens City of Charlottesville 22902 Orlanden Baker City of Charlottesville 22903 Angela Orebaugh City of Charlottesville 22903 Jennifer Pease City of Charlottesville 22901 Andrew Robinson City of Charlottesville 22903 Kelly Jones City of Charlottesville 22903 Christiana Booher City of Charlottesville 22003 Emma Clark City of Charlottesville 23836 Ryley Brown City of Charlottesville 22902 Claire McKinley City of Charlottesville 22902 Jillian Regan City of Charlottesville 22903 Michael Bateman City of Charlottesville 22903 Sandhya Shukla City of Charlottesville 22902 Lindsey Fogle City of Charlottesville 22902 Nicola Datta City of Charlottesville 22902 Marit Melssen City of Charlottesville 22903 Christina Dean City of Charlottesville 22902 Donna Shaunesey City of Charlottesville 22903 Nate McFarland City of Charlottesville 22902 Hank Seltzer City of Charlottesville 22902 Lee French City of Charlottesville 22902 Gwendolyn Hall City of Charlottesville 22902 Alex Secora City of Charlottesville 22903 Angelique Demetillo City of Charlottesville 22901 Andrew Neils City of Charlottesville 22903 Linda Winecoff City of Charlottesville 22901 Christopher Luna City of Charlottesville 22903 M. Madeleine Ray City of Charlottesville 22903 Robyn Kells City of Charlottesville 22903 Carroll Courtenay City of Charlottesville 22902 Elizabeth Ike City of Charlottesville 22902 Hannah Coman City of Charlottesville 22903 Brynn Cook City of Charlottesville 22620 Calvin Brondyke City of Charlottesville 22902 Kate LeBoeuf City of Charlottesville 22902 Deborah Murray City of Charlottesville 22902 Monica Prichard City of Charlottesville 22902 Emily Wyche City of Charlottesville 22902 Abigail Wiebe City of Charlottesville 22903 Aldona Dye City of Charlottesville 22902 Cindy Cartwright City of Charlottesville 22902 Anna Beatrice City of Charlottesville 22903 Sally Christopher City of Charlottesville 22902 Katie Storer City of Charlottesville 22901 Claire Kettering City of Charlottesville 22903 Lindsey Knotts City of Charlottesville 22903 Allison Love City of Charlottesville 22902 Evelyn Courtenay City of Charlottesville 22903 Olivia Rivard City of Charlottesville 22903 Mark Evans City of Charlottesville 22901 Cassie Pegram City of Charlottesville 22903 Joanne McNergney City of Charlottesville 22902 Angela Ciolfi City of Charlottesville 22903 Jeffrey Stricker City of Charlottesville 22902 Mary Bauer City of Charlottesville 22902 Heather Cormons City of Charlottesville 22903 Erin Trodden City of Charlottesville 22902 Cathryn McCue City of Charlottesville 22903 Jeffrey Aten City of Charlottesville 22901 Tim Wallace City of Charlottesville 22901 deKoven Pelton City of Charlottesville 22901 Karlis Povisils City of Charlottesville 22902 Diane Cluck City of Charlottesville 22903 Liz Riley City of Charlottesville Zack Blatter City of Charlottesville 22902 Andrew Sneathern City of Charlottesville 22903 Roberta Williamson City of Charlottesville 22901 Terry Lilley City of Charlottesville 22902 Elizabeth Woodard City of Charlottesville 22903 Dave Norris City of Charlottesville 22902 Jane Spittler City of Charlottesville 22903 Carrie Ryan City of Charlottesville 22903 Jennifer Horne City of Charlottesville 22902 Rachel Smith City of Charlottesville 22901 Polly Breckenridge City of Charlottesville 22902 Claire Thompson City of Charlottesville 22903 Ben Campbell City of Charlottesville 22901 Thomas Steffes City of Charlottesville 22902 Abby Guskind City of Charlottesville 22902 Marsha Burger City of Charlottesville 22902 Vivi Rogers City of Charlottesville 22901 Amanda Burbage City of Charlottesville 22901 Sean Farber City of Charlottesville 22902 Ellen Balfrey City of Charlottesville 22901 Martha Keith City of Charlottesville 22902 Drew Hurst City of Charlottesville 22901 Elaine Poon City of Charlottesville 22902 Talia Marshall City of Charlottesville 22903 Leah Marshall City of Charlottesville 22903 Elizabeth Isley City of Charlottesville 22903 Patrick Belisle City of Charlottesville 22902 Arielle O'Shea City of Charlottesville 22902 Anne Hooff City of Charlottesville 22903 Frances Camp City of Charlottesville 22902 Kristen Davis Singh City of Charlottesville 22902 Kate Duvall City of Charlottesville 22901 Kay Fracher City of Charlottesville 22902 Kiersten Teitelbaum City of Charlottesville 22903 Peggy Cornett City of Charlottesville 22902 Patricia Sullivan City of Charlottesville 22903 Dan Boyle City of Charlottesville 22901 Andrea Trimble City of Charlottesville 22901 Clarence Green City of Charlottesville Samhita Sunya City of Charlottesville 22902 Samdup Pittard City of Charlottesville 22901 Broocks Meade City of Charlottesville 22902 Shawnee West City of Charlottesville 22902 Jill Lerner City of Charlottesville 22902 Sean Tubbs City of Charlottesville 22903 Aileen Bartels City of Charlottesville 22902 Virginia Chambers City of Charlottesville 22903 Natalie LaRoe City of Charlottesville 22903 Alexandria Searls City of Charlottesville 22902 Joy Johnson City of Charlottesville 22903 Louisa Bradford City of Charlottesville 22902 Elizabeth McQuade City of Charlottesville 22903 Ashley Morse City of Charlottesville 22902 Joan Chapman City of Charlottesville 22901 Alee Halsey City of Charlottesville 22903 Jessie Muniz City of Charlottesville 22911 R. Lee Stauter City of Charlottesville 22902 Kevin Davis City of Charlottesville 22903 Helen Humphreys City of Charlottesville 22902 Chris Heins City of Charlottesville 22903 Yong Un Ahn City of Charlottesville 22902 Scott Weiss City of Charlottesville 22902 Anne Runkle City of Charlottesville 22902 Laura Goldblatt City of Charlottesville 22902 Lewis Armistead City of Charlottesville 22902 Joshua René City of Charlottesville 22903 Brett Hicks City of Charlottesville 22902 Jason Surma City of Charlottesville 22902 Josh Morrison City of Charlottesville 22903 Paula Fallon City of Charlottesville 22903 Linda Goldstein City of Charlottesville 22903 Melissa Peterson City of Charlottesville 22902 Virginia Organizing City of Charlottesville 22903 Virginia Rose Kane City of Charlottesville 22902 Sheryle Yount City of Charlottesville 22902 John McLaren City of Charlottesville 22902 Horea Popa City of Charlottesville 22903 Jake Gold City of Charlottesville 22903 Walter Heinecke City of Charlottesville 22903 Trevor Francis City of Charlottesville 22902 Laurie Pallini City of Charlottesville 22903 Elizabeth Broyles City of Charlottesville 22903 Kevin Burke City of Charlottesville 22902 Matthew Gillikin City of Charlottesville 22903 John Semmelhack City of Charlottesville 22902 Frank Hardy City of Charlottesville 22902 Tray Biasiolli City of Charlottesville 22903 Anthony Stephan City of Charlottesville 22902 Katie Reynolds City of Charlottesville 22901 Ben Yazman City of Charlottesville 22902 Samantha Brook City of Charlottesville 22903 Beth Johnson City of Charlottesville 22903 Kristin Davis City of Charlottesville 22901 Rebecca Stoner City of Charlottesville 22901 Anna Towns City of Charlottesville 22902 Kate Heins City of Charlottesville 22903 Emily Irvine City of Charlottesville 22902 Sara Belkowitz City of Charlottesville Linnea White City of Charlottesville 22902 Erlin Yanira Garcia City of Charlottesville 22968 Michael Rodi City of Charlottesville 22902 Andrew Renshaw City of Charlottesville 22903 Judith Renshaw City of Charlottesville 22903 Michael Joy City of Charlottesville 22903 Jane Fisher City of Charlottesville 22902 Hal Movius City of Charlottesville 22902 Honnor Dorsey City of Charlottesville 22902 Brian Williams City of Charlottesville 22903 Daniel Stromberg City of Charlottesville 22903 Jennifer Silber City of Charlottesville 22903 Samantha Genz City of Charlottesville 22903 Riley Crowell City of Charlottesville 22902 Shannon Worrell City of Charlottesville 22903 Sally Hudson City of Charlottesville 22902 Marilyn Roselius City of Charlottesville 22902 Alexandra Cook City of Charlottesville 22903 Mason Hakes City of Charlottesville 22903 Susan Greer Harris City of Charlottesville 22903 Blair St Ledger-Olson City of Charlottesville 22903 Ruth Turner City of Charlottesville 22903 Kendall BIlls City of Charlottesville 22903 Nina Knight City of Charlottesville Charlotte Drummond City of Charlottesville 22903 Sara Shullaw City of Charlottesville 22902 Karen Riddle City of Charlottesville 22902 Kevin Riddle City of Charlottesville 22902 Justin Gandy City of Charlottesville 22903 Elizabeth Stark City of Charlottesville 22902 Victoria Whelan City of Charlottesville Bethany Bandera City of Charlottesville 22902 Michelle Kisliuk City of Charlottesville 22902 Rebecca Haydock City of Charlottesville 22902 Meridith Frazee City of Charlottesville 22902 Cale Jaffe City of Charlottesville 22903 Gentry Hall City of Charlottesville 22902 Solomon Goluboff-Schragger City of Charlottesville 22903 Salena Levi City of Charlottesville 22901 Bernard Beitman City of Charlottesville 22901 Samantha Lane City of Charlottesville 22901 Lori Derr City of Charlottesville 22902 Jay Glick City of Charlottesville 22903 Wendy Philleo City of Charlottesville 22902 Greg Buppert City of Charlottesville 22901 Elsa Spencer City of Charlottesville 22902 Jodie Plaisance City of Charlottesville 22902 Jennifer Scott City of Charlottesville 22902 Will Cleveland City of Charlottesville 22902 Peter Anderson City of Charlottesville 22903 Jan Glennie-Smith City of Charlottesville 22902 Karen Boyle City of Charlottesville 22901 Todd Barnett City of Charlottesville 22903 Frank Rambo City of Charlottesville 22903 Gordon Tully City of Charlottesville 22903 Peter Krebs City of Charlottesville 22902 Sabrina Lingenfelter City of Charlottesville 22904 Katie Keller City of Charlottesville 22903 Lewis Summers City of Charlottesville 22903 Olivia Bowers City of Charlottesville 22902 Navarre Bartz City of Charlottesville 22902 Mika Hilliard City of Charlottesville 22902 Andrew Young City of Charlottesville 22903 Matthew Toper City of Charlottesville 22903 Fazlah Rahaman City of Charlottesville 22904 Landon Holben City of Charlottesville 22903 Kim Biasiolli City of Charlottesville Ashley Addington City of Charlottesville 22903 Ian Iverson City of Charlottesville 22903 George Minor City of Charlottesville 22902 Pat Lloyd City of Charlottesville Kate Fraleigh City of Charlottesville 22901 Tracey Hopper City of Charlottesville 22902 Ellen Tully City of Charlottesville 22903 Jim Respess City of Charlottesville 22901 Richard Mccrone City of Charlottesville 22903 Olivia Patton City of Charlottesville 22902 Thomas Goad City of Charlottesville 22901 Anne Powell City of Charlottesville 22903 Séverine Frémy City of Charlottesville 22902 Salvatore Moschella City of Charlottesville 22902 Annelise Brand City of Charlottesville 22902 Daniel Mietchen City of Charlottesville 22902 Subagh Winkelstern City of Charlottesville 22902 Kristin Morgan City of Charlottesville 22902 Jeanne Maushammer City of Charlottesville 22902 Daniel Sunshine City of Charlottesville 22903 Doreen Bonnet City of Charlottesville 22902 Kristen Davis Singh City of Charlottesville 22902 Madi Glaser City of Charlottesville 22902 Tamar Glaser City of Charlottesville 22902 Jennifer Taylor City of Charlottesville 22902 Emily Lockwood City of Charlottesville Ethan Wilmer City of Charlottesville 22901 Nina Mellin City of Charlottesville 22903 Stuart Squire City of Charlottesville 22902 Richard Kennon Williams City of Charlottesville 22901 Susan Christmas City of Charlottesville 22901 Diane Cluck City of Charlottesville 22903 Antje Waxman City of Charlottesville 22911 Pam Hill City of Charlottesville 22901 Gale Courtney City of Charlottesville 22902 Sabr Lyon City of Charlottesville 22903 Sena Magill City of Charlottesville 22903 Emily Welch City of Charlottesville Trevor Marchhart City of Charlottesville 22904 Amy Woolard City of Charlottesville 22902 Herb Porter City of Charlottesville 22902 Connie Rosenbaum City of Charlottesville 22903 Tracy Nelson City of Charlottesville 22902 Nina Jackson City of Charlottesville 22902 Dorisse Aha City of Charlottesville 22902 Colette Brown City of Charlottesville 22902 Kitt Mattingly City of Charlottesville 22992 Eliza Fisher City of Charlottesville 22903 Jesse Fiske City of Charlottesville 22902 James Clark City of Charlottesville 22903 Abigail Haggerty City of Charlottesville 22902 Felice Boling-Key City of Charlottesville 22903 Gabriela Pachano City of Charlottesville 22903 Abby Tinsley City of Charlottesville 22911 Jen Dominic City of Charlottesville 22901 Lily West City of Charlottesville 22903 John Bonham City of Charlottesville 22903 Mara Sprafkin City of Charlottesville 22903 Teri Kent County of Albemarle 22901 John Dozier County of Albemarle 22959 Karl Quist County of Albemarle 22901 Kenny Chernauskas County of Albemarle 22903 Courtney Paxton County of Albemarle 22902 Molly Kelliher County of Albemarle 22911 Barbara Peters County of Albemarle 22903 Kellie Hocking County of Albemarle 22901 Maggie Murphy County of Albemarle 22901 Judith Curry County of Albemarle 22901 Devin Welch County of Albemarle 22902 Grey McLean County of Albemarle 22940 Erika Kerrigan County of Albemarle 22901 Polly A Davis Doig County of Albemarle 22903 Mary Celella County of Albemarle 22920 Jen Koym County of Albemarle 22911 Marla Palermo County of Albemarle 22902 Brian Richter County of Albemarle 22932 Dorothy Batten County of Albemarle 22901 John Murphy County of Albemarle 22901 Rita Reynolds County of Albemarle 22920 Sue Crane County of Albemarle 22936 Mary Jo Doig County of Albemarle 22902 Howard Epstein County of Albemarle 22932 Tedi Wright County of Albemarle 22920 David Redding County of Albemarle 22901 Bill Edgerton County of Albemarle 22901 Sarah duPont County of Albemarle 22901 Jamie Endahl County of Albemarle 22911 Nicholas Duke County of Albemarle 22937 Karen McGlathery County of Albemarle 22903 Lillian Mezey County of Albemarle 22932 Martha Hodgkins County of Albemarle 22932 Rebecca Ginsberg County of Albemarle 22933 Turner Tilman County of Albemarle 22911 Martin Shifflett County of Albemarle 22940 Mindy Goodall County of Albemarle 22901 Jean Abrl County of Albemarle 22936 Allison Hill County of Albemarle 22901 Hugh Meagher County of Albemarle 22901 Barbarie Hill County of Albemarle 22901 James Eaton County of Albemarle 24590 Lindsay Diamond County of Albemarle 22901 Nicola McGoff County of Albemarle 24590 Nan Halperin County of Albemarle 22901 Susan Weiner County of Albemarle 22903 Sierra Gladfelter County of Albemarle 22901 Philip D Dupont County of Albemarle 22901 Patricia Oppenheimer County of Albemarle 22924 Michael Reilly County of Albemarle 22903 Sunshine Mathon County of Albemarle 22901 Erin Malec County of Albemarle 22911 Wilson Ratliff County of Albemarle 24590 Tim Michel County of Albemarle 22940 John Cruickshank County of Albemarle 22936 B Albert County of Albemarle 22924 Katrina von Briesen County of Albemarle 22924 Anna Bella Korbatov County of Albemarle 22903 Elizabeth Dahmus County of Albemarle 22902 Emily Mathon County of Albemarle 22901 Carolyn Schuyler County of Albemarle 22911 Jed Verity County of Albemarle 22911 Latifa Kropf County of Albemarle 22901 Deborah Povich County of Albemarle 22901 Janet Wolfe County of Albemarle 22959 Sarah Lanzman County of Albemarle 22935 Carol DiCaprio County of Albemarle 22902 Paul Martin County of Albemarle 22903 Bill Edgerton FAIA County of Albemarle 22901 Jennifer Jacobs County of Albemarle 22932 Sarah McLean County of Albemarle 22940 Ed Miller County of Albemarle 22903 Janet Miller County of Albemarle 22903 Jennifer Till County of Albemarle 22920 Bridget Meagher County of Albemarle 22901 Shannon Burns County of Albemarle 22940 Kristina Parker County of Albemarle 22901 Catherine Mosley County of Albemarle 22901 James Spurlock County of Albemarle 22911 Rachel Repko County of Albemarle 22901 Jessica Cummings County of Albemarle 22902 Chuck Brown County of Albemarle 22903 Meagan Van Vuren County of Albemarle 22901 Sarah Fromme County of Albemarle 22901 Johannes Van Vuren County of Albemarle 22901 James Mackey County of Albemarle 22903 Charles Kennedy County of Albemarle 22903 Tom Hubbard County of Albemarle 22901 Kelly Mahanes County of Albemarle 22932 Blaine Loos County of Albemarle 22902 Diane Rozycki County of Albemarle 22901 Shirl Gager County of Albemarle 22902 Theresa Hainer County of Albemarle 22959 Pamela Jiranek County of Albemarle 22936 Kurt Friesen County of Albemarle 22901 Nathan Biediger County of Albemarle 22901 Charlie Johnson County of Albemarle 22901 Brian Rozycki County of Albemarle 22901 Locke Ogens County of Albemarle 22901 John Wheeler County of Albemarle 22902 Meredith Frazier County of Albemarle 22902 Eugene Lerman County of Albemarle 22901 Susan McCulley County of Albemarle 22903 Dave Redding County of Albemarle 22901 Gwynne Schultz County of Albemarle 22901 Jeanine Wolanski County of Albemarle 22911 Dana Quist County of Albemarle 22901 Steve Vavrik County of Albemarle 22901 Jennifer Wise County of Albemarle 22903 April Wang County of Albemarle 22901 Margaret Wheeler County of Albemarle 22936 Eric Parker County of Albemarle 22901 Ravi Respeto County of Albemarle 22901 Melissa Meece County of Albemarle 22902 Laura Markey Monroe County of Albemarle 22901 Neil James County of Albemarle 22902 Ron Povich County of Albemarle 22901 Carlos Armengol County of Albemarle 22903 Rachel Lloyd Miller County of Albemarle 22911 John Buckley County of Albemarle 22903 Brenda Lloyd County of Albemarle 24590 Robert Lloyd County of Albemarle 24590 Asha Greer County of Albemarle 22924 Maureen Perriello County of Albemarle 22903 Misty Vredenburg County of Albemarle 22932 Emily Dillard County of Albemarle 22903 Kathy Nathan County of Albemarle 22903 Mark Lepsch County of Albemarle 22959 Nicholas McIntosh County of Albemarle 22932 John Haydock County of Albemarle 22901 Carol Gardner County of Albemarle 22901 Bart Nathan County of Albemarle 22903 Brian Sosdian County of Albemarle 22903 Kelli Palmer County of Albemarle 22901 Sarah Trundle County of Albemarle 22901 Lesley Fore County of Albemarle 22903 Galen Staengl County of Albemarle 22932 Frank Deviney County of Albemarle 22903 Laurel Geis County of Albemarle 22901 Tom McIntosh County of Albemarle 22940 Kate Lucas County of Albemarle 22901 Sam Spilman County of Albemarle Geoffrey Robinson County of Albemarle 22902 Evan Schmit County of Albemarle 22901 Stephen Reiter County of Albemarle 22936 Tom Syre County of Albemarle 22959 Polly Cushman County of Albemarle 22903 David Silver County of Albemarle 22901 Anna McLean County of Albemarle 22940 Karlo Mendoza County of Albemarle 22903 Edith Crawford County of Albemarle 22923 Lena Lewis County of Albemarle 22902 Rachel Stukenborg County of Albemarle 22936 Anne Russell Gregory County of Albemarle 22911 Eric Walter County of Albemarle 22932 Christine Bowers County of Albemarle 22903 L Dudley County of Albemarle 22932 Loman Frazier County of Albemarle 22911 Sharyn Parlee County of Albemarle 22932 Christine Putnam County of Albemarle 24590 Leslie Back County of Albemarle 22932 Victor Luftig County of Albemarle 22932 Kathy Kildea County of Albemarle 22901 Andrew Niehaus County of Albemarle 22911 Heather Wetzel County of Albemarle 22901 Carol Carter County of Albemarle 22902 John Surr County of Albemarle 22911 Fleming Lunsford County of Albemarle 22959 Kevin Poindexter County of Albemarle 22937 Bill Sublette County of Albemarle 22903 David Carr County of Albemarle 22901 Anna Rossberg County of Albemarle 22932 Cathy Boyd County of Albemarle 22901 Travis Pietila County of Albemarle 22901 Ebony Hilton Buchholz County of Albemarle 22901 Denise Holman County of Albemarle 22911 Mark Sabath County of Albemarle 22903 Jon Proffitt County of Albemarle 22903 Ian Dixon County of Albemarle 22903 Jonathan Gendzier County of Albemarle 22902 Jan Harrison County of Albemarle 22901 Jessica Clark County of Albemarle 22903 Kristin Streed County of Albemarle 22901 Andrew Wright County of Albemarle 22932 Judy Dunscomb County of Albemarle 22901 Deborah Donnelly County of Albemarle 22903 Tom Brooks-pilling County of Albemarle 22966 Terri Mead County of Albemarle 22901 Amanda Alger County of Albemarle 22932 Dana Kirschnick County of Albemarle 22946 Douglas Burns County of Albemarle 22940 Pat Cummings County of Albemarle 22959 Cathy Cassety County of Albemarle 22903 Elizabeth Moore County of Albemarle 22937 Richard Monroe County of Albemarle 22932 Dennis Lo County of Albemarle 22903 Fang Yi County of Albemarle 22903 Dana Pauly County of Albemarle 22936 Rebecca Bronkema County of Albemarle 22901 Brad Sayler County of Albemarle 22932 John Holden County of Albemarle 22901 Denise Zito County of Albemarle 22940 Lola Weir County of Albemarle 22902 Renee O'Connell County of Albemarle 22901 Beverly Ingram County of Albemarle 22902 Marla Muntner County of Albemarle 22920 Phyllis White County of Albemarle 24590 John Wheeler County of Albemarle 22936 Frederick Paul County of Albemarle 22947 Jane Baker County of Albemarle 22947 Barry Sisson County of Albemarle 22911 Baylor Fooks County of Albemarle 22903 Alex Patterson County of Albemarle 22932 Laurie Collins County of Albemarle 22924 Charles Fitzgerald County of Albemarle 22920 Tim SanJule County of Albemarle 22932 Dean Lhospital County of Albemarle Teresa Miller County of Albemarle 22901 Brennan Gilmore County of Albemarle 22902 Linda van der Linde County of Albemarle 22901 Tobey Stultz County of Albemarle 22903 Mark Drusin County of Albemarle 22947 Dan Bieker County of Albemarle 22959 Therese Elron County of Albemarle 22901 Lydia Gaya County of Albemarle 22902 Natasha Heller County of Albemarle 22903 Roger Voisinet County of Albemarle 22902 Jef McCormack County of Albemarle 22911 Elizabeth Dudley County of Albemarle 22901 Fred Wittwer County of Albemarle 22911 Leslie Gregg County of Albemarle 22911 Jane-Ashley Skinner County of Albemarle 22901 Hallie Hegemier County of Albemarle 22940 Rusty Speidel County of Albemarle 22901 Lynne Brubaker County of Albemarle 22947 Fiona Forward County of Albemarle 22903 Annabel Forward County of Albemarle 22903 Jennie Moody County of Albemarle 22943 Elizabeth Spaulding County of Albemarle 22901 Gardner Bloemers County of Albemarle 22937 Constance Samuels County of Albemarle 22901 Susan Rives County of Albemarle 22947 Jenny Gardiner County of Albemarle 22947 Marina Ringström County of Albemarle 22947 Jim Andrews County of Albemarle 22903 Julie Hebert County of Albemarle 22911 Kate Hamilton County of Albemarle 22911 Laura Allen County of Albemarle 22902 Elizabeth Piper County of Albemarle 22902 Tracy Noelke County of Albemarle 22932 Laurie Blomstrom County of Albemarle 22903 John Parcells County of Albemarle 22940 Amanda Easton County of Albemarle 22969 Pat and Madison Cummings County of Albemarle 22959 David Sloan County of Albemarle 22936 Brian Sewell County of Albemarle 22903 Cynthia Neff County of Albemarle 22901 Kay Ferguson County of Albemarle 22901 Tracy Browne County of Albemarle 22920 Douglas Brown County of Albemarle 22903 Tom Bevacqua County of Albemarle 22901 Emily Little County of Albemarle 22901 Katherine Sewell County of Albemarle 22903 Matthew Crane County of Albemarle 22936 Sofie Swift County of Albemarle Nan Coleman County of Albemarle 22903 Jane Mills County of Albemarle 22936 Anna Henry County of Albemarle Pattie Frischkorn County of Albemarle 22901 Claire Mills County of Albemarle 22936 David Posner County of Albemarle Scott Ziemer County of Albemarle 22932 Mary Bennett County of Albemarle 22901 Eric Sherry County of Albemarle 24590 Michael Allenby County of Albemarle 22936 Richard Seide County of Albemarle 22911 Brooke Beaver County of Albemarle 22901 Elise Hertzberg County of Albemarle 22901 Trip Stakem County of Albemarle 22903 Robin Mason County of Albemarle 22936 Lindsey Mullen County of Albemarle 22901 Sheri Waddell County of Albemarle 22947 Emily Carroll County of Albemarle 22901 Mark Mascotte County of Albemarle 22901 Olivia Branch County of Albemarle 22974 Martin Betts County of Albemarle 22936 Karen Pape County of Albemarle 22901 Jeanne Stanborough County of Albemarle 22901 Sheryle Yount County of Albemarle 22902 Lucretia Blythe County of Albemarle 22901 Craig Jones County of Albemarle 22963 Barbara Hutchinson County of Albemarle 22936 Patricia Leavitt County of Albemarle 22920 Susan Payne County of Albemarle 22903 Emi Murphy County of Albemarle 22901 Maisie Whiting County of Albemarle 22902 Jill Trischman-Marks County of Albemarle 22923 Kim Cory County of Albemarle 22920 Lesley Hamilton County of Albemarle 22911 Rick Mangione County of Albemarle 22911 Amy Lastinger County of Albemarle 22903 John Stoner County of Albemarle Anna Chytla County of Albemarle 22911 Alisha McLaughlin County of Albemarle 22903 Christine Gyovai County of Albemarle 22901 Celia Castleman County of Albemarle 22901 Donna Frye County of Albemarle 22901 Deborah Norton County of Albemarle 22911 Charles Cory County of Albemarle 22920 Joyce Camden County of Albemarle 22902 Christine McNeely County of Albemarle 22901 Bob Putnam County of Albemarle 24590 Kiley Martin County of Albemarle 22901 Julia Weed County of Albemarle 22959 James Bennett County of Albemarle 22901 Leora Vincenti County of Albemarle 22932 Eliza Evans County of Albemarle 22959 Andre Hakes County of Albemarle 22903 Catherine Gillespie County of Albemarle 22903 Jocelyn Prostko County of Albemarle 22911 Betsey Soulsby County of Albemarle 22936 Gayle Davis County of Albemarle 22959 Michelle Kampsen County of Albemarle 22901 Craig DuBose County of Albemarle 22903 Alex Welch County of Albemarle 22902 John Campbell County of Albemarle 22902 Ken Horne County of Albemarle 22901 Allison Linney County of Albemarle 22926 Peter Thompson County of Albemarle 22901 Paul Zavada County of Albemarle 22959 Matt Hegemier County of Albemarle 22940 Lauri Ross County of Albemarle 22911 Brad Stoller County of Albemarle 22936 Paul Tucker County of Albemarle 22903 Sandy Reisky County of Albemarle 22936 Gabe Gavin County of Albemarle 22903 Micaela Raine County of Albemarle 22923 Dara Krute County of Albemarle 22911 Sonjia Smith County of Albemarle 22901 Cynthia Allred-Jackson County of Albemarle 22901 Marijean Oldham County of Albemarle 22903 Cliff Maxwell County of Albemarle 22901 Wanda SanJule County of Albemarle 22932 Janine Dozier County of Albemarle 22959 Jennis Warren County of Albemarle 22932 Marie Hawthorne County of Albemarle 22943 Andrew Green County of Albemarle 22932 Danielle Fontaine County of Albemarle 22902 Susannah Hornsby County of Albemarle 22932 Jeffrey Gleason County of Albemarle 22903 Louise Rambo County of Albemarle Alexander Williams County of Albemarle 22902 Liam Decker County of Albemarle 24590 Nancy Hiles Johnson County of Albemarle 22903 Stacey Jackson County of Albemarle 22937 Iva Gillet County of Albemarle 22935 Renee Fuller County of Albemarle 22902 Nora Seilheimer County of Albemarle 22903 Galen Staengl County of Albemarle 22932 Gary Alter County of Albemarle 22923 Max Lorenzo County of Albemarle 22911 Amanda Alger County of Albemarle 22932 Carol Wise County of Albemarle 22911 Irma Mahone County of Albemarle 22903 Margie Shepherd County of Albemarle 22940 Elizabeth seliga County of Albemarle 22932 James Loman County of Albemarle 22932 Charlotte Gibson County of Albemarle 22901 Michael Rettig County of Albemarle 22903 Joan Z Rough County of Albemarle 22901 Alison Peterson County of Albemarle 22932 Joanne Gamble County of Albemarle 22933 Kaye Monroe County of Albemarle 22902 Ursula Goadhouse County of Albemarle 22932 Kristin Breen County of Albemarle 22901 Judith Minter County of Albemarle 22924 Anita Holmes County of Albemarle Daniela Smith County of Albemarle 22936 Betty Clifton County of Albemarle 24477 Rebecca George County of Albemarle 22901 Hannah O'Donnell County of Albemarle 22902 Kiley Martin County of Albemarle 22901 Tina Morrison County of Albemarle 22932 Catherine Caldwell County of Albemarle 22901 Liza Khutsishvili County of Albemarle 22902 Elizabeth Nisos County of Albemarle 22903 Tracy Carver County of Albemarle 22903 Linda Capacchione County of Albemarle 22911 Cheri Jones County of Albemarle 22902 Sarah Humphrey County of Albemarle 22901 Cecilia Frazer County of Albemarle 22901 Jacob RG Canon County of Albemarle 22901 Charlotte Fracis County of Albemarle 22911 Dreama Joslin County of Albemarle 22943 Miriam Rushfinn County of Albemarle 22959 Jacqueline Lessard County of Albemarle 22901 Deanna Scott County of Albemarle 22901 Jeffrey Grosfeld County of Albemarle 22920 Anne Lindberh County of Albemarle 22902 Stephen Hamilton County of Albemarle 22901 Mary Kate McDevitt County of Albemarle 22902 Brooke Kinsey County of Albemarle 22903 Matthew Crane County of Albemarle 22936 Valerie Hung County of Albemarle 22936 Bill Bradley County of Albemarle 22902 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF KEY FOCUS AREAS TO ADDRESS IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the weight of scientific evidence and scientific consensus indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities is driving climate change, especially the combustion of fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases; and WHEREAS, climate change has been widely recognized by government, business, academic, and other community leaders as a worldwide threat with the potential to harm our economy, safety, public health, and quality of life; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville resolved in June 2017 to stand with cities and other public and private sector partners throughout the world to advance action in accordance with the with the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, the first global commitment to fight climate change; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville adopted a Statement of Economic Principles in September 2017 that supports growing a wide array of local industry sectors, the availability of excellent affordable housing, a globally competitive workforce, redevelopment that produces local jobs and affordable housing, builds upon Charlottesville’s commitment to sustainability, and promotes active partnerships at the regional level; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is currently in Phase 2 of implementing its Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy commitment, and will develop a Climate Action Plan in Phase 3; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been involved in and continues to explore a variety of important actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our community; and WHEREAS, 90% of Charlottesville’s carbon emissions profile is attributed to residential, commercial, and transportation sector activities; and WHEREAS, initial costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy measures can pose a barrier for residential, commercial, and non-profit property owners and slow adoption of low carbon actions despite many such installations resulting in net-cost savings over their lifetime; and WHEREAS, the private financial sector has access to resources that local government does not and that can aid in increased investment in energy performance of buildings in Charlottesville; and, WHEREAS, the affordability of housing is affected by the cost of the housing unit and the cost of powering the home, known as the energy burden; and WHEREAS, improvements in building energy performance through energy efficiency and renewable energy installations can reduce the energy burden cost for the building occupants and, in many cases, improve the comfort and quality of life of the building occupants; and WHEREAS, local investment in energy improvements for buildings and low carbon strategies requires a skilled local workforce and supports local businesses and industries that are seeing national and global growth, and enables partnerships such as those seen in the GO Solar program; and WHEREAS, strategies to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector can include mode shift, fuel switching, fuel economy, reduced travel distance; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville municipal fleet – including transit, school buses, service and maintenance trucks, and passenger vehicles – contributes to community-wide transportation carbon emissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the City of Charlottesville Climate Action Plan, to be developed under Phase 3 of its Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy commitment, will include, but not be limited to, strategies that address the following: 1. Further enabling private financial sector investment in energy performance upgrades for commercial properties in the City of Charlottesville through adoption of a commercial property assessed clean energy (C-PACE) financing program; and 2. Effective funding programs and models for increased residential energy performance, including programs that are compatible with affordable housing and owner or renter- occupied housing; and 3. The feasibility of integrating zero emission vehicles into the municipal fleet and supporting increased community adoption of zero emission vehicles; and 4. Working in conjunction with regional partners to implement seamless programs and services to increase ease of participation for Charlottesville organizations and residents. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Requested: Resolution Presenter: Grant Duffield, Executive Director, CRHA Staff Contacts: John Blair, City Attorney Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager, City Manager’s Office Title: Request for Approval for the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) to establish the Charlottesville Community Development Corporation (CCDC) Background: As a requirement of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding process, the CRHA needs to establish a non-profit subsidiary (instrumentality) to serve as the lead development entity for its LIHTC-funded redevelopment projects. With regards to the “powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions…” of housing authorities, Section 36-19(12) of the Virginia Code specifically states: “With the approval of the local governing body or its designee, to form corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, or any other legal entity or combination thereof, on its own behalf or with any person or public or private entity.” Discussion: For the past couple of decades, the CRHA has had a non-profit entity in place, previously approved by the City, identified as the Charlottesville Development Corporation (CDC) (the CDC Articles of Incorporation are dated effective 1986). However, the CDC has been inactive for a number of years, with no governing board, no annual meetings, no income or expenditures, etc. It is the opinion of the attorneys counseling the CRHA’s redevelopment partners at Riverbend Development that the CDC’s defunct status makes it vulnerable to a challenge by the LIHTC program and that there is a need to proceed with a clean slate. Riverbend’s attorneys will assist to incorporate a new non- profit subsidiary for CRHA that will have the exact same mission, By-Laws, governance structure, etc. as the inactive CDC, but with a new name and none of the CDC’s vulnerabilities. This new instrumentality shall be named the Charlottesville Community Development Corporation, and the Board of Commissioners of CRHA shall serve as its governing board. A copy of the draft proposed by-laws of the CCDC are attached for information. As required by State law, City Council must approve the CRHA’s formation of corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, or any other legal entity. This does not represent a change in policy or direction for CRHA. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The overall redevelopment of public housing supports City Council’s visions of Quality Housing Opportunities for All; A Green City; Community of Mutual Respect; and Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. Strategic Plan Goals: • Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options • Goal 1.5: Intentionally address issues of race and equity • Goal 2.3: Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources Community Engagement: A Redevelopment Committee comprised of residents, community members, and CRHA and City staff, and appointed by the CRHA Board of Directors, meets regularly and provides research, planning, community engagement and guidance to the CRHA Board on redevelopment planning progress. The CRHA Board regularly discusses the status of redevelopment activities as well as taking action on redevelopment milestones at their public meetings. At its meeting on March 25th, the CRHA Board of Directors unanimously adopted the following motion: The Board of Commissioners of the Charlottesville Redevelopment & Housing Authority (CRHA) hereby endorses a resolution by Charlottesville City Council authorizing CRHA to establish the Charlottesville Community Development Corporation (CCDC) as a Virginia [Non-profit] Stock Corporation. The CCDC will act in the capacity of a non-profit instrumentality of CRHA in the redevelopment of CRHA’s properties and the performance of related tasks. The CRHA Board of Commissioners will serve as the governing board for the CCDC, and the By-Laws of the CCDC will mirror those of the Charlottesville Development Corporation, which will formally cease to exist once the CCDC has been established. Budgetary Impact: 2 This request does not encumber any additional funding from the City budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council approve the attached Resolution. Alternatives: City Council could choose to not approve this Resolution, which could have a negative impact on redevelopment of public housing properties due to requirements based on receipt of LIHTC funding. Attachments: Resolution Draft by-laws for proposed CCDC 3 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FORMATION BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY (CRHA) OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CCDC), A NON-PROFIT ENTITY WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority was created pursuant to the Virginia Housing Authorities Law (the “Act”), found in Chapter 1, Title 36, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”), and is now existing and operating as a public body corporate and politic, and the Act empowers the CRHA to form corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, or any other legal entity or combination thereof, on its own behalf or with any person or public or private entity; and WHEREAS, the CRHA, through various entities, has applied to the Virginia Housing and Development Authority (“VHDA”) program for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC’s”), in part to provide financing for the rehabilitation and equipping of an existing affordable multi-family residential rental project comprised of an eight story building including 105 units known as Crescent Halls, the funding of debt service and other reserve funds and the payment of other transaction costs related to the award of LHTC’s to the project (collectively, the “Crescent Halls Reno Project”); and WHEREAS, the CRHA, through various entities, has applied to the VHDA program for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, in part to provide financing for the construction and equipping of a new affordable multi-family residential rental project comprised of three buildings located at 900- 1000 South First Street, including up to 63 units and a common resource space, the funding of debt service and other reserve funds and the payment of other transaction costs related to the award of LHTC’s to the project (collectively, the “South First Project”); and WHEREAS, to secure VHDA funding for its affordable housing redevelopment projects, certain entities need to be created by the Authority to undertake the development of such projects; and WHEREAS, Section 36-19(12) of the Virginia Code, requires, among other things, the approval by the local governing body of the formation by the CRHA of corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, or any other legal entity; and WHEREAS, the CRHA further has requested and needs the City Council to approve the formation of the Charlottesville Community Development Corporation (CCDC), a Virginia stock corporation, to be the developer of the Crescent Halls Reno Project, the South First Project and future affordable housing development projects; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia 4 that the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority is authorized to create the Charlottesville Community Development Corporation, a Virginia stock corporation, to enable the CRHA to secure VHDA funding for affordable housing redevelopment projects. ________________________ Nikuyah Walker Mayor 5 4/12/19 DRAFT BY-LAWS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Article One Name The name of this Corporation shall be the Charlottesville Community Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). Article Two Principal Office and Registered Agent The address of the registered office of the Corporation is the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, P.O. Box 1405, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, but the Corporation may establish other places of business and other offices at such other places either within or without the state of Virginia as the board of directors may from time to time determine. The registered agent of the Corporation is Delphine G. Carnes, Esquire, who is a resident of Virginia and a member of the Virginia State Bar, and whose business address is Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, P.L.C., 150 W. Main Street, Suite 1500, Norfolk, VA 23510. Article Three Purposes The purpose for which the Corporation is formed and the business and objectives to be carried out and promoted by it are as follows: 6 A. The Corporation shall seek to further the housing and economic development of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and its environs by promoting and assisting the growth and development of business concerns, including small business concerns in the City, and by promoting and assisting in projects, undertakings, studies and other activities directed toward the stabilization or revitalization of housing and neighborhoods within the City, including the provision and preservation of low and moderate income housing within those neighborhoods and the expansion of opportunities for home ownership by low and moderate income persons. The Corporation shall seek to further housing and economic development efforts through the development of mixed income housing and market rate housing as well as the development of mixed use communities. B. In furtherance of its purposes the Corporation will cooperate and coordinate with local governmental and civic bodies to resist community deterioration and to secure adequate housing, community facilities and other related facilities, services and conditions, economic and otherwise, conducive to the progress and general welfare of the community. The Corporation is authorized to receive and administer funds for the objectives enumerated above from any governmental or private source whatsoever and to expend such funds, either by loan or by grant, and receive or dispose of corporate property or income therefrom for any of the aforementioned purposes, without limitation, except such limitations, if any, as may be contained in the instrument under which such funds or property is received, the Certificate of Incorporation, or any other limitations as are prescribed by law. Article Four Nonprofit Stock Corporation The Corporation shall be a Virginia nonprofit stock corporation. No part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable to, its directors, officers or any private person, except that the Corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes enumerated above. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles, the corporation shall not engage in any activity not permitted to be carried on (1) by a corporation exempt from 7 Federal Income Tax under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provision of any United States Internal Revenue Law) or (2) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under section 170(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provisions of any United States Internal Revenue Law). This Corporation is not organized for the pecuniary profit of its directors, officers, members or any individual. No part of the activities of the Corporation shall be carrying on propaganda, or participating in, or intervening in (including the publication or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. Article Five Powers The Corporation is authorized and empowered to do all things necessary to carry on and accomplish the purposes for which it is organized and chartered, including those things set forth in sections 13.1- 826 and 13.1-827 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which are incorporated herein by reference; and shall also have all other additional powers necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Corporation as described above including but not limited to all of the following: The corporation has perpetual duration and succession in its corporate name and has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs, including, without limitation, the power: 1. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in its corporate name; 2. To have a corporate seal, which may be altered at will, and to use it, by impressing or affixing the seal or reproducing the seal in any other manner; 3. To purchase, receive, lease, or otherwise acquire, and own, hold, improve, use and otherwise deal with, real or personal property, or any legal or equitable interest in property, wherever located; 4. To sell, convey, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, and otherwise dispose of all or any part of its property; 5. To purchase, receive, subscribe for, or otherwise acquire, own, hold, vote, use, sell, 8 mortgage, lend, pledge, or otherwise dispose of, and deal with shares or other interests in, or obligations of, any other entity; 6. To make contracts and guarantees, incur liabilities, borrow money, and issue its notes, bonds, and other obligations, which may be convertible into, or include the option to purchase, other securities or property of the corporation, and secure any of its obligations by mortgage or pledge of any of its property, franchises, or income; 7. To lend money, invest and reinvest its funds, and receive and hold real and personal property as security for repayment; 8. To transact its business, locate offices, and exercise the powers within or without the Commonwealth; 9. To elect directors and appoint officers, employees, and agents of the corporation, define their duties and fix their compensation; 10. To make and amend bylaws, not inconsistent with its articles of incorporation or with the laws of the Commonwealth, for managing the business and regulating the affairs of the corporation; 11. To make donations for the public welfare or for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes; 12. To pay pensions and establish pension plans, pension trusts, profit-sharing plans, bonus plans, and benefit and incentive plans for any or all of the current or former directors, officers, employees, and agents of the corporation or any of its subsidiaries; 13. To insure for its benefit the life of any of its directors, officers, or employees and to continue such insurance after the relationship terminates; 14. To make payments or donations or do any other act not inconsistent with this section or any other applicable law that furthers the business and affairs of the corporation; 15. To cease its corporate activities and surrender its corporate franchise; 16. To have and exercise all powers necessary or convenient to effect any or all of the purposes for which the corporation is organized; and 17. To establish any necessary subsidiaries and/or to enter into partnership agreements, joint ventures or other associations of any kind with any person or persons or entity. 9 Article Six Membership The Corporation shall have no members. Article Seven Directors The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by a board of directors which is expressly empowered to adopt, alter or revoke bylaws of the Corporation. The Board of Directors for the Corporation shall consist of the seven members of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Article Eight Liability of Officers and Directors The officers and directors shall not be individually liable for the Corporation's debts or other liabilities and the private property of such individuals shall be exempt from any corporate debts or liabilities. The Corporation shall indemnify and hold harmless each person who shall serve at any time as director or officer of the Corporation from and against any and all claims and liabilities to which such person shall be subject by reason of his having been a director or officer of the Corporation, or by reason of any action alleged to have been taken or omitted as such officer or director, and shall reimburse each such person for all legal and other expenses reasonably incurred in connection with any claim or liability; provided, however, that no such person shall be indemnified against, or reimbursed for any expenses incurred in connection with any claim or liability arising out of their own gross negligence or willful misconduct. 10 Article Nine Amendments to By-Laws These By-Laws may be amended by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the directors then in office at a meeting called for that purpose. Article Ten Dissolution Dissolution of the corporation shall be in accordance with Virginia Code sections 13.1- 902 et al., as amended or superceded. Upon dissolution the assets of this corporation shall first be applied to satisfy and discharge all liabilities and obligations of the corporation lawfully incurred and owing. Thereafter, the assets shall be returned to the federal government, if required by law, or conveyed to the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority on the condition that such assets are used for the public purposes set forth in Article 3(A) of these Articles of Incorporation. Should the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority decline to accept the assets, then where permitted under Federal and/or State law to the City of Charlottesville provided that the City is permitted to receive such assets and where the City of Charlottesville is not permitted to receive the asset then to any corporation or organization which is organized and operated exclusively for the purposes specified in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future tax code. *** 11 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Requested: Resolution Presenter: Grant Duffield, Executive Director, CRHA Staff Contacts: Mike Murphy, Interim City Manager Alex Ikefuna, Director, Neighborhood Development Services Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager, City Manager's Office Title: Update presentation by the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) on the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP); and request for allocation of FY18/19 fundin!! Background: On June 19, 2017, City Council approved the Housing Advisory Committee's (HAC) recommendation for the creation of a supplemental rental assistance program for the City of Charlottesville. In October 2017, the City Council approved the program and funding for the program (out of typical budget cycle). The Grant Agreement between the City and the CRHA was executed in January 2018. At the time of approval of the program and funding, City Council requested a reporting at the one-year mark. The first voucher was issued in April 2018. Currently, the City Council has approved total fimding for this program in the amount of$2,595,000 ($900,000 in FY17/18; $945,000 in FY18/19; $750,000 in FY19/20). The purpose of the CS RAP is to provide rental assistance subsidies to assist with housing of some of our most vulnerable families. Some of the program highlights include: CRHA will endeavor to achieve the following income tier objectives: 50% of rental assistance subsidies shall be issued to Extremely Low-Income Households, defined as households with income less than 30% AMI; 25% of rental assistance subsidies shall be issued to Households with incomes between 30% and 50% AMI; with the remaining 25% of rental assistance subsidies reserved for Households with incomes between 50% and 60% AMI CRHA shall issue the CSRAP rental assistance according to the following priorities: 10 rental assistance subsidies will be issued to Households who are homeless; 20 rental assistance subsidies will be issued to Households enrolled in a local self-sufficiency program; the remainder of the funded rental assistance subsidies shall be issued to eligible households, if the individual(s) within those Households live or work in the City of Charlottesville, and ifthe Household(s) is or are on the CRHA's HCVP waiting list 10% of each year's program funding shall be retained to cover any increases in rental assistance payments due to decreases in participant household incomes; and 25% of the remaining program funds shall be retained as a rent reserve fund equal to four months housing assistance payment per household. All unused reserve funds shall be carried over in to the next year's program funding total Households shall have 90 days to locate, and lease, a rental housing unit within the City of Charlottesville; should a Household be unable to locate a rental unit that it can afford in the City of Charlottesville within the initial 90-day CS RAP voucher term the CRHA may grant one 90-day extension, or may allow recipient to search for rental housing within Albemarle County Households receiving a CSRAP voucher shall be required to contribute 30% of the monthly gross income of that Household toward rent each month CutTently, CRHA reports the following program data: Number of Households cmTently receiving assistance: 77 (242 people housed) Number of Households who have benefitted from the program: 89 Number of Households housed in the City of Charlottesville: 48 (62%) Number of Households housed in Albemarle County: 29 (38%) Number of Applicants unable to find housing: 30 Number of Households previously homeless: 9 Number of Households enrolled in a self-sufficiency program: 20 Total funds projected to be spent by June 30, 2019: $ 547,294 Current total monthly rental expense: $ 49,875 Average monthly rental assistance: $ 648 Average income of program recipients: $ 15,952 (22% AMI) Discussion: CRHA is providing an update on the CSRAP and also requesting City Council approve the release of the FYI 8/19 funding in the amount of $945,000. The Grant Agreement requires that "CRHA shall prepare and submit to the City an estimate of the amount of money needed during the ensuing fiscal year for the CSRAP, based on the Households then participating in the CSRAP at that time, and based on CRHA' s estimate of any rent increases for those participating Households, and (at CRHA' s option) CRHA's estimates of the cost of any desired expansion of the CSRAP to additional participants during the ensuing fiscal year" ... At the one-year mark of this new program, the questions we need to ask ourselves are: Is the program working as intended? Are we leveraging the funding the best we can to get more people off the waiting lists? 2 Are we serving the maximum number of households that we can with the funding allocated? Are we insuring housing stability (minimum 24 months) with the funding allocated- but not overly reserving funding that could be utilized for vouchers? Because this is a not static program - there are not a certain amount of vouchers issued all on the first day of the program - instead this is a "rolling" program in that vouchers are issued as Households find housing and enter into a lease. Therefore, the accounting of the funding of the program is not a straight formula, especially in the start-up phase. In addition, the 24-month housing stability protection is also a "rolling" provision as that timing also kicks in when a Household entei·s into a lease agreement. Fallowing various discussions with CRHA staff and HAC, the following items have been discussed as possibly requiring amendment in the Grant Agreement: Program timeframe is February 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 Insuring encumbrance of funding for 24-month lease up (reserve/coverage) Assessing utilization of the income tier objectives (i.e. are we best addressing housing needs at the various AMI levels? Subsidizing those with the greatest housing need?) Assessing the reserve calculations to determine if they remain practical/necessary. In the early/pilot stage of this program, this reserve was necessary to insure housing stability CRHA/HAC recommend utilizing a 10% escalator on rental rates An exception to the administration of the program to allow for single room or shared housing, in limited circumstances, that might not otherwise meet HUD rules and regulations CRHA staff provided a presentation on the status of the program to the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) on April 17, 2019. The HAC discussed providing a recommendation to the City Council regarding the operation and funding of the program. That recommendation is attached. Following input, an amended Grant Agreement will need to come back to the City Council for approval. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan: The provision of assistance with housing some of our most vulnerable families supports City Council's visions of Quality Housing Opportunities for All; Community of Mutual Respect; and Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. This program aligns directly with Strategic Plan Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options. Community Engagement: Status of the program has been provided by CRHA staff to the CRHA Board and the HAC. Both groups continue to discuss the merits and benefits of this program. In addition, the Human Rights 3 Commission has reviewed the program and provided a recommendation to the City Council. Budgetary Impact: This request does not encumber any additional funding from the City budget. The funding currently covering the vouchers was allocated in FY17/18 ($900,000). Funding for FY18/19 ($945,000) was allocated through the City's annual budget process through the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) and, per the Grant Agreement, is required to be allocated by City Council approval following a request by CRHA that includes specific estimates based on households, budget and other qualifying information. This funding was available as of July 1, 2018. Funding for FY19/20 ($750,000) was recently approved by City Council and will be available July 1, 2019, pending City Council allocation approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends: City Council approve the attached Resolution A group be created with CRHA, City and HAC to review the data, review a new target, review reserve limits, etc. Alternatives: City Council could choose to not approve this Resolution which may effectively end this program and/or negatively affect the provision of housing assistance currently providing relief for some of our most vulnerable families. City Council could also choose to allocate a portion of the funding budgeted. Attachments: Resolution HAC recommendation 4 RESOLUTION Allocation of Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) for the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) -- $945,000 WHEREAS, on June 19, 2017, the City of Charlottesville approved the Housing Advisoty Committee's recommendation to create a City-funded Supplemental Rental Assistance program; WHEREAS, on May 6, 2019, CRHA presented an update on the status of the program and a request for release of funding allocated in FY18/19, to continue the program; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $945,000 be allocated from previously appropriated funds in the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund to the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program, which will be administered by the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA). Fund: 426 Project: CP-084 G/L Account: 530670 Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) $945,000 Nikuyah Walker Mayor 5 5/1/19 TO: Charlottesville City Council Mike Murphy, Interim City Manager FROM: City of Charlottesville Housing Advisory Committee, Policy Sub-committee Phil d'Oronzio, Chair, Housing Advisory Committee ~ Dear Mr. Murphy and Members of City Council, At the April 17th meeting of the Housing Advisory Committee, the Policy subcommittee was charged with reviewing data provided by the CRHA regarding the CSRAP program. Data requested from the Housing Authority, which reflects City Council's stated goals in establishing the program, included the following: 1. Number of participants who have benefitted from the program. 2. Number of vouchers which have turned over. 3. Number of beneficiaries currently utilizing a voucher. 4. Number of formerly homeless individuals or families who obtained and utilized a CSRAP voucher. 5. Number of individuals or families in a local self-sufficiency program who have utilized a voucher. 6. % of vouchers issued that were able to be utilized. 7. % of vouchers utilized in Albemarle County vs. the City of Charlottesville. 8. Average AMI of beneficiaries of the program. Below you'll find a table of the data received on April 18, 2019. Number of participants who have benefitted from the program 89 Number of vouchers which have turned over 17 Number of beneficiaries currently utilizing a voucher 77 Number of formerly homeless individuals or families who obtained and 9 utilized a CSRAP voucher Number of individuals or families in a local self-sufficiency program who have 20 utilized a voucher % of vouchers issued that were able to be utilized 75% % of vouchers utilized in Albemarle County vs. the City of Charlottesville 37.6% in AC (29) 62.3% in C'ville (48) Annual income of program recipients (Average/Median/AMI%) $ 15,952/$14,466/22% Summary of data: The data suggests that the program has been largely effective in terms of its utilization rate, it's goal of subsidizing those (under 30% of AMI) with the greatest housing need, and its connection to two key strategic initiatives (homeless remediation and self-sufficiency). Current rental assistance per participant family per month averages to $647. 72. llPage Recommendations: On review of the data and having conferred with CHRA, Staff and the ICM, the HAC, - concurrent with CHRA, Staff and the ICM - recommends that Council: 1. Allocate the $945,000.00 already appropriated per the resolution. 2. Direct City Staff, CHRA and the HAC to collaborate to evaluate the program further, and revise it and the grant and contract based on that evaluation and experience to date. Elements to consider would include but not be limited to the following, as recommended by the HAC: • Revising the contingency and reserve components to provide for a voucher cost escalator of as much as 10% and a prudent funding margin. • Eliminating/streamlining the income band distribution requirements to retain only the income cap of 60%. • Expanding in some proportion the number of vouchers reserved for homeless applicants and participants in self-sufficiency programs as the program expands. • Providing some portion of the CSRAP allocation specifically for administrative expenses • Determine how best to maximize the number of vouchers and people assisted with the funding thus far appropriated. • Investigate partnerships with other programs to incentivize landlord acceptance of CSRAP vouchers (for example, Local Energy Alliance Program [LEAP] may offer energy efficiency upgrades to landlords who participate). • Amending the current CSRA program agreement to allow i. CSRA program funding to be used to provide rental assistance to those seeking housing in "shared housing" (i.e.: room within a rooming house). And ii. Easing the timing requirements for seeking housing in the City before turning to County alternatives. CC: Grant Duffield, CRHA 21Page This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Requested: Resolution Presenter: Grant Duffield, Executive Director, CRHA Staff Contacts: Mike Murphy, Interim City Manager Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager, City Manager’s Office Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst Title: Request for release of funding for the Residents on the Job Training (ROTJ) Program Background: Over the course of three City Council meetings in February and March 2018, the City Council approved funding to the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) for an immediate drawdown of $81,032 to make structural repairs at 10 public housing apartments, and a future drawdown of up to $110,000 to fund non-labor related costs to non-structural repairs at 23 public housing apartments. The $81,032 was paid up-front to CRHA, the $110,000 has not been requested by CRHA to be paid. In coordination with this request for a total of $191,032 in funding for structural and non-structural repairs at 23 public housing apartments, CRHA also requested $145,611 in funding for a Residents on the Job “Construction Assistants” program for FY17/18 and FY18/19. This Residents on the Job program, a joint effort between CRHA, Charlottesville Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR), Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) and Habitat of Greater Charlottesville was created to provide paid on the job training for public housing residents, their family members, and other very low-income residents to rehabilitate 23 currently off-line public housing apartments. $39,211 in funding was provided in May 2018, to fund the program from March 26, 2018 through June 30, 2018 following City Council approval of an off-budget cycle request from CRHA. The remainder of the funding request ($106,400) was provided as part of the FY 2018-2019 Adopted Budget. Discussion: As is the case with all outside agencies which request and receive funding through the annual budget process, a signed funding agreement was completed between the City and CRHA. The funding agreement is attached. CRHA’s March 29, 2019 ROTJ Close-out Report & Drawdown Funding Request was reviewed for compliance with the funding agreement. In summary, staff review noted the following deficiencies on reporting requirements: Task Complied CRHA provides a report to staff and City Council by no later than No June 18, 2018 regarding progress of the program and progress towards the measures that were identified as part of the March 19, 2018 funding request to City Council CRHA will present this report to Council at their July 2, 2018 City No Council meeting Receipt and review of October 15, 2018 quarterly report No Receipt and review of January 15, 2019 quarterly report No City staff provided numerous reminders to CRHA from June through November 2018. The funding agreement specifically states that in the event CRHA fails to perform any of the above terms and conditions, City reserves the right: a. to suspend future payments to the Agency; and/or b. to demand the return and repayment of any funds previously paid. In addition, at the March 19, 2018 City Council meeting, the following data was identified to be provided by CRHA: - How many construction assistants are CRHA residents and complete the program - Current status of assistants (still employed, quit, terminated, took new job, etc.) - Activities conducted, including classes, on-the-job training, skills learned - % of construction assistant time spent on CRHA projects and % of time on Habitat projects - Credentials earned, if any - # of additional CRHA residents housed because of project. Reporting information was either not provided or not provided in full for each of these items. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The overall redevelopment of public housing supports City Council’s visions of Quality Housing Opportunities for All; Community of Mutual Respect; and Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. This program aligns directly with Strategic Plan Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options. Community Engagement: This program is a joint effort between CRHA, PHAR, PVCC and Habitat of Greater Charlottesville. Because this item is a report and request for release of funding, no community engagement is required. 2 Budgetary Impact: No additional funding is required. This presentation and request is required because of non- compliance with requests from City Council and the funding agreement. Staff is not authorized to release the funds. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the funding be released following submittal of the data requested by City Council at the March 19, 2018 meeting. However, compliance with the City Council update presentation in July 2018 or past required quarterly reports are not able to be provided. Alternatives: City Council could choose to not release the funding or to only release partial funding. Attachments: Resolution Executed FY 2019 Funding Agreement 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on March 19, 2018 the City of Charlottesville approved $106,400 in funding for a Residents on the Job Program pursuant to terms and conditions outlined in the FY2019 Funding Agreement; WHEREAS, on March 29, 2019 CRHA submitted a ROTJ Close-out Report and Drawdown Funding Request for $74,748; WHEREAS, following staff review of that report and request, it was determined that there were significant deficiencies in the reporting requirements and that staff could not administratively approve release of funding; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $74,748 is hereby approved to be allocated from previously appropriated funds. ________________________ Nikuyah Walker Mayor 4 5 6 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 6, 2019 Action Required: Resolution Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Director, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Jeff Werner, Urban Design & Preservation Planner Carrie Rainey, Urban Designer, Neighborhood Development Services Charlene Green, Director, Human Rights Commission Title: West Main Streetscape Project Update Background: On March 21, 2016, Council approved the conceptual West Main Street Streetscape Plan Option 1 as the guiding document for executing streetscape improvements to the West Main Street corridor. Council established itself as the West Main Street Streetscape project’s review body, and directed the City Manager, his staff and consultants (led by Rhodeside & Harwell) to proceed immediately with construction documents needed to bid and execute the work and secure all necessary approvals. The West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Plan was completed and approved by the City Council on May 15, 2017. This approval set the stage for the modification of the contract to allow the consultant to undertake the next phase of the project – Design Development and Construction Drawing for Phase 1. The Design Development level plans provide a refined horizontal layout based on the introduction of the vertical design elements (profiles, engineering calculations for sizing, detailing, stormwater management, etc.) At the Design Development phase, the plans are approximately 40 - 60% complete. Since Council designated itself as the sole reviewer of the project, staff would like to get direction on a few items related to the project. The Design Development phase began in October 2017, and is expected to be completed in the summer of 2019. The Design Development plan drawings are under review by staff; and recent community engagement activities are detailed below under the Discussion section of this report. Upon resolution of staff comments and the items outlined below, the community engagement process will be continued, and at a later date a Certificate of Appropriateness will be sought from the Board of Architectural Review, as well as plan approval from City Council. The Smart Scale application for Round 3 funding was recommended by VDOT for approval at $2,009,265. Final approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board is expected in June 2019. 1 Discussion: Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea Memorial: Staff is operating under the assumption that since the City Council approved the Schematic Design Plan that set the stage for the Design- Development/Construction Drawing phase that there will be no change. In the approved Schematic Design Plan, the plan calls for a 20 feet shift of the Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea Memorial to the southwest of the current location. This shift provides additional pedestrian space at the intersection and improves pedestrian crossing safety. The shift also aligns the monument with the street axis, for which the Board of Architectural Review has been supportive. However, staff is aware that a member of the City Council had talked about removing the memorial entirely from West Main Street. Should Council decides to move the monument to a different location other than what has already been approved in the Schematic Design Plan, I would like to point out that it would result in a change work order and additional cost for design modifications, as well as delay the project. If Council desires to move the memorial from the West Main Street corridor entirely, I suggest further feedback from the Attorney’s Office is sought. In addition, removing the monument from the corridor would result in additional construction costs to move the monument, the final cost of which cannot be estimated without instructions on where the monument will go. This may impact the use of funds already approved by VDOT for the project, as discussions and actions on relocation will most likely delay the current design schedule. The spending of VDOT fund has some time constraints which may impact the City’s ability to utilize all approved funds, dependent on the extent of the delay. Historic Interpretation: Since the fall of 2018, staff has engaged community stakeholders to discuss and receive input on the proposed wayfinding and interpretative signage components of the West Main Streetscape Plan. Staff has met formally and informally with individuals and groups, including Mr. Alex Zan, Andrea Douglas (Executive Director, Jefferson School African American Heritage Center), the Burke Brown Steppe Chapter of the Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Society, the Central Virginia History Researchers, representatives of the Drewary J. Brown Community Bridge Builder committee, members of the Ebenezer Baptist Church congregation, and the City’s Historic Resources Committee. While comments varied from suggested stories to questions about their portrayal to strong dismissal of the idea, the general themes expressed are as follow: 1. Drewary Brown Bridge and recognition of Community Bridge Builders: General support for the proposed direction. Improve visibility of the markers that commemorate the Community Bridge Builders. Signage to identify and celebrate the Drewary J. Brown Memorial Bridge. 2. Wayfinding Signage (street direction, bus stop information): No issues; though concern expressed that sidewalk not be cluttered with signs and other pedestrian impediments. 3. Gateway Elements: No specific issues raised. 4. Etched Pavers: Opinions were mixed, however the prevailing concern was some groups and individuals might take offense to etched names being walked on. 5. Interpretive Signage (Historical markers): General concern with placing narrative markers on West Main Street. Key concerns include: 2 a. Too many stories to tell. Who decides which are included? b. Potential for street clutter if markers are too numerous. Attempting to capture and properly communicate an inclusive history through markers may result in more markers than already proposed, further limiting pedestrian space on the street. c. The markers would be replicative of the information available at the African- American Heritage Center. The presentation of the stories and oral histories of West Main Street and the neighborhoods would be best archived at the African- American Heritage Center. d. Questions about the proposed themes and their appropriateness. 6. Neighborhood Recognition: Strong support for identifying each neighborhood that borders West Main Street, and potentially undertaking a future project within the neighborhoods to develop markers for neighborhood history. Raised Crosswalks: Another item for which staff requests City Council to weigh-in is the raised crosswalks, which are no longer proposed for a variety of reasons. They have been proposed on some crossings (minor intersections only, and across side streets, not West Main). The physical conditions of West Main Street would require raised crosswalks to be set pretty low to meet grades for traffic and fire access (so vehicles don’t drag). They would also cause drainage issues, maintenance issues, and snow removal issues. In an ideal case, raised crosswalks are better for pedestrians (and Council may have liked that aspect as previously shown) but with the site limitations and concerns raised by appropriate city departments, not much benefit will be realized considering the reduced height at which they must be set. The crosswalks were shown on previous materials approved by Council; therefore, staff requests Council’s approval of the recommendation to remove the raised crosswalks from the design. Analysis from the consultant is attached. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The West Main Streetscape Plan aligns with the following City Council Vision Statements: Economic Sustainability, C’ville Arts and Culture, A Green City, American’s Healthiest City, A Connected City, and Community of Mutual Respect, 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan Goals The West Main Street Streetscape Plan meets many of the aspects of Council’s Strategic Plan: Goal 3: A beautiful and sustainable natural and build environment 3.1. Engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning and implementation: The Plan is the result of extensive public engagement, Steering Committee efforts, and the collaboration of a variety of disciplines to create a comprehensive plan for the corridor. The Plan takes into account the existing features of the corridor, the historic resources, and the vibrant commercial fabric. 3.2. Provide reliable and high quality infrastructure: The Plan recommends reorientation of 3 public and private utilities in locations that reduce conflicts with elements such as tree roots. Undergrounding utilities also minimizes potential outages due to the increased protection. Implementation of the Plan will call for new technologies to improve longevity of streetscape elements, including Silva Cells to reduce sidewalk upheaval and deterioration from tree roots. 3.3. Provide a variety of transportation and mobility options: The Plan will improve safety for all users by providing wider sidewalks where pedestrians can safely pass one another, and dedicated bike facilities to minimize conflicts with vehicular traffic, including ADA provisions. 3.5. Protect historic and cultural resources: The Plan proposes locations for art and installations providing education on the history of the West Main Street area and adjacent neighborhoods. Goal 4: Have a strong diversified economy 4.2. Attract and cultivate a variety of new businesses: The Plan provides a pleasant and safe atmosphere for walking and biking; the potential changes in travel modes may encourage businesses geared towards these groups (i.e. cycling shops, etc.) 4.3. Grow and retain viable businesses: The Plan improves the quality of the experience for users on the street, encouraging patrons to linger on the corridor and potentially visit multiple businesses. The Plan also improves access to the businesses on West Main Street for all users. The 2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ranked West Main Street as the second highest priority project for bicycle infrastructure. Community Engagement: The West Main Street Streetscape project has included extensive community engagement activities, focus groups discussions, public comments and feedbacks at City Council meetings, and engagement with the UVA representatives. Additional community engagement activities will take place at some point in the future. Budgetary Impact: This is a report requesting Council direction; therefore, there is no budget implication. Recommendation: Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea Memorial Reaffirm the slight shifting of the monument as approved in the Schematic Design Plan Historic Interpretation Staff recommends the following in moving forward with the wayfinding and interpretative marker elements of the West Main Streetscape project: 4 Bridge and Bridge Builders recognition, Wayfinding Signage, and Gateway Elements:  Continue with current design direction and allow consultant to further refine the proposed concepts. Consider including in the signage ways to direct people to the Jefferson School and the Heritage Center. Etched Pavers:  Consider their use only to indicate historic sites and locations; even then, only in carefully considered and vetted circumstances. For example, to indicate the site of a former business, buildings of note, or to indicate neighborhood boundaries. Do not use to memorialize individuals or groups. Interpretive Signage:  Forgo the proposed themes entirely and the concept of sidewalk signs.  Within the scope of the Streetscape project: Examine other, less intrusive elements that identify and invite people to learn about the neighborhoods. Etched curb stones; elements within the landscaping; brick variations; etc.  Outside the scope of the Streetscape project: o Research and work with each neighborhood towards markers that commemorate the neighborhood’s origin and history; erect the markers at locations within each neighborhood, not on West Main. o The single, overriding message from our meetings was that the histories, stories and narratives are complex, extremely intimate, and guardedly personal. It would be difficult to attempt to capture all of that, distill it down into key elements, and then portray it on one hundred signs, let alone a half dozen or so. As such, the appropriate solution is to collaborate with the African-American Heritage Center on a city-funded initiative to properly collect, memorialize, and archive these stories and narratives. There are specific scope, design and timing parameters associated with a transportation and infrastructure project of this nature, especially one with state and federal funding. The last two items above, fall outside of the Streetscape project scope. If pursued, city funds should be allocated to conduct the work, preferably concurrently with the West Main project, but under a separate process. Regardless of how that is undertaken or a direction is given on all of the items above, staff urges council to consider the importance of keeping the Streetscape project within its established scope and on track with its established milestones and target dates. Crosswalks Approve the staff decision to remove the raised crosswalks from the design. Alternatives: BY MOTION, City Council may take action on this agenda item to approve staff recommendations as submitted, or approve it with an amendment, or disapprove staff recommendations. Disapproval would create challenges in completing the project and would impact the timeline for spending State funds, cost escalation notwithstanding. 5 Attachments: Raised crosswalk analysis from the consultant Resolution 6 MEMORANDUM TO Alex Ikefuna, City of Charlottesville and Carrie Rainey, City of Charlottesville FROM Drew Taylor DATE February 13, 2019 REVISED March 27, 2019 RE: West Main Street – Streetscape Improvements SUBJECT: Raised Crosswalks – Potential for Removal from Project Through the course of the review and comment period for the Design Development Quality Assurance Quality Control (DD QAQC) submission for West Main Street, a design discussion started around the possibility of removing the raised crosswalks, also known as “pillows” in this project. City comments on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right- of-Way (PROWAG) issues specifically related to adequate landing and clear space at the top of curb ramps are the primary reason for this conversation. Below is a quick synopsis of the issues: To fully comply with the VDOT requirements for a Type A curb ramp, the paved width of the sidewalk/ R.O.W. needs to be a minimum of 12 feet. There are places along West Main Street that do not meet this requirement. One possible solution is to use a VDOT Type B curb ramp. The Type B ramp utilizes a curb to allow a bottom landing that is flush to the road grade with perpendicular ramps rising to the sidewalk level. If implemented, the curb would be in the middle of the sidewalk. RHI is concerned that the curb is a tripping hazard. A possible solution is to extend the bottom landing to the back of the right of way/ building face to avoid any abrupt grade changes in the sidewalk. This creates a condition where the full width of the sidewalk would occasionally dip down to these bottom landings. The raised crosswalks are a critical component of the original concept that proposed a nearly continuous pedestrian level along West Main Street that reinforces the pedestrian first experience. Site realities and engineering concerns previously reduced the six-inch height of the raised crosswalks to three inches with the associated sidewalk corners lowering in grade to meet the three inch raised crosswalks. The design team considered this revision an acceptable compromise to get the engineering to work. Since the sidewalk may be lowered in several locations to accept curb ramps not associated with the raised crosswalks as noted above, the design team feels that the original intent is being overcome by circumstances. This realization, added with the Fire Department concerns about driving over the raised crosswalks and various results of other similar installations throughout the City, has led us to consider the removal of the raised crosswalks. Additionally, we are considering lowering the entire corner to act as one large curb ramp as opposed to two curb ramps at each corner which would create a ripple effect and continuing to have pavers in the crosswalks parallel to West Main Street. We are also continuing to develop and explore other crosswalk/corner configurations. Here are some items to consider related to removing the raised crosswalks: o Eliminate Fire Department concern about vehicles driving over raised crosswalks. o Removal of raised crosswalks would also reduce the implied pedestrian first approach. 510 King Street Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-683-7447 ph 703-683-7449 fx www.rhodeside-harwell.com West Main Street City of Charlottesville, VA REV 3/27/2019 o Alleviate concerns about other raised crosswalk applications that have had mixed results. o Reduce the over-engineering to make the raised crosswalks drain correctly. o Improve ADA and PROWAG compliant access. o Simplify streetscape at corners to reduce groundplane visual clutter. o If the corners are reduced in height to be flush with the travel lanes, then there is the potential for: o Vehicles cheating the corner and driving on a portion of the sidewalk. This could be controlled by adding the freestanding planters already part of the project to the edges. o Repaving using asphalt overlays would be complicated and require milling and/or deeper milling. o Drainage water flowing in the gutter would most likely flow into the pedestrian space as it moves around the pedestrian landing potentially inundating this space. o If the corners are reduced to 3 inches in height in an effort to reduce the length of curb ramps, then there is the potential for: o Vehicles cheating the corner and driving on a portion of the sidewalk. This could be controlled by adding the freestanding planters already part of the project to the edges. o Repaving using asphalt overlays would be complicated and require milling and/or deeper milling. Memorandum - Page 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, by vote taken on March 21, 2016, City Council adopted the West Main Streetscape Improvement Plan (Option 1) (the “Plan”); and WHEREAS, as part of its adoption of the Plan, directed the City Manager, his staff, and consultants to proceed with construction documents, and Council retained the right and authority to review the construction plans as they are developed; and WHEREAS, Design Development and Construction Drawings for Phase 1 has been advanced, reviewed by staff and direction is being sought from City Council; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL the following direction is provided: 1) Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea Memorial shall be slightly shifted as approved in the Schematic Design Plan; 2) Historic Interpretation shall include: a) Bridge and Bridge Builders recognition b) Wayfinding Signage (including ways to direct people to the Jefferson School and the Heritage Center) c) Gateway Elements d) Etched Pavers only to indicate historic sites and locations which have been carefully considered and vetted circumstances. e) Replace Interpretive Signage and the concept of sidewalk signs with other, less intrusive elements that identify and invite people to learn about the neighborhoods. Possible examples could include: etched curb stones, elements within the landscaping, or brick variations. 3) Raised Crosswalks shall be removed due to site limitations which would minimize their effect and other concerns raised by various city departments 7 This page intentionally left blank