CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Members March 1, 2021 Nikuyah Walker, Mayor Sena Magill, Vice Mayor Heather D. Hill Michael K. Payne J. Lloyd Snook, III N/A Closed session as provided by Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. Virtual/electronic meeting in accordance with the local ordinance amended and re-enacted February 16, 2021, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease. NOTE: Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. CALL TO ORDER MOMENT OF SILENCE ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL ANNOUNCEMENTS RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS CONSENT AGENDA* 1. Minutes: January 19 Regular Meeting 2. Res./Approp.*: FY2020-2021 CDBG Substantial Action Plan Amendment and Reprogramming 2019 CDBG funds for COVID-19 Public Services (2nd reading) a. Appropriation: Appropriation of Funds for 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant COVID Rental Relief - $244,950.82 b. Resolution: Approval of FY 2020-2021 Substantial Action Plan Amendment of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan 3. Appropriation: Additional State Funding for Adoption Assistance - $600,000 (1st of 2 readings) 4. Appropriation: Virginia Transit Association (V.T.A.) Free Transit Fare for Working Families Grant – $180,750 (1st of 2 readings) CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) COMMUNITY MATTERS Public comment for up to 16 speakers (limit 3 minutes per speaker). Preregistration available for first 8 spaces; speakers announced by Noon on meeting day (9:00 a.m. sign-up deadline). Additional public comment at end of meeting. Public comment will be conducted through electronic participation while City Hall is closed to the public. Participants can register in advance at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. ACTION ITEMS 5. Resolution*: Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan – Endorsement Request (1 reading) 6. Resolution*: Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan (1 reading) 7. Resolution*: Honorary Street Designation requests and Policy Discussion (1 reading) Page 1 of 115 GENERAL BUSINESS 8. Report: City Manager presentation of the Proposed FY 2022 City Operating and Capital Improvement Budget 9. Report: Charlottesville City Schools FY 2022 approved Budget presentation OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC *Action Needed Page 2 of 115 CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 19, 2021 Virtual/electronic meeting via Zoom 5:30 PM CLOSED MEETING The Charlottesville City Council met in an electronic meeting on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, in accordance with local ordinance #O-20-154a, adopted December 10, 2020, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during the coronavirus pandemic. Mayor Nikuyah Walker called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, and Councilors Heather Hill, Michael Payne and Lloyd Snook. On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Councilor Snook, Council voted 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: none) to convene in closed session as authorized by Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2- 3712, specifically: - section 2.2-3711(A)(7) and (A)(8), for consultation with legal counsel regarding specific contractual claims and probable litigation. On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Councilor Snook, Council certified by the following vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: none.), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council 6:30 PM REGULAR MEETING The Charlottesville City Council met in an electronic meeting on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, in accordance with local ordinance #O-20-154a, adopted December 10, 2020, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during the coronavirus pandemic. Mayor Nikuyah Walker called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, and Councilors Heather Hill, Michael Payne and Lloyd Snook. City Council observed a moment of silence. Page 3 of 115 On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Councilor Snook, Council unanimously approved the meeting agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Mayor Magill read an announcement about Community Development Block Grant/AHIP funds available for home repairs. She shared contact information for those interested in learning more about qualifications: 434-817-2447, x26 or cory@ahipva.org. Councilor Hill highlighted the annual Harambee calendar of cultural events presented by Mr. Alex-Zan. Dr. Denise Bonds, Director for the Blue Ridge Health District (BRHD), presented a report on Covid-19 and on vaccination developments. She answered Council questions and shared contact information for the BRHD Hotline: 434-972-6261. CONSENT AGENDA* Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas read the following Consent Agenda items into the record: 1. MINUTES: November 10 Joint Council-Planning Commission Work Session; November 12 Budget Work Session; November 16 Special, Closed and Regular Meetings; November 20 Special Meeting; December 7 Regular Meeting; December 10 Budget Work Session; December 21 Special Meeting; January 6 Emergency Meeting 1; January 6 Emergency Meeting 2; January 8 Emergency Meeting; January 11 Emergency Meeting 2. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Department of Social Services One-Time Funding for Benefits Programs - $16,877.19 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Virginia Department of Social Services One-Time Funding for Benefits Programs $16,877.19 WHEREAS, The Charlottesville Department of Social Services has received Federal and State funding in the amount of $16,877.19 to be used for benefits programs staffing and operations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $16,877.19 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Page 4 of 115 Revenue – $16,877.19 Fund: 212 Cost Center: 9900000000 G/L Account: 430080 Expenditures - $16,877.19 Fund: 212 Cost Center: 3301005000 G/L Account: 510030 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $16,877.19 from the Virginia Department of Social Services. 3. APPROPRIATION: Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant - $3,498,300.00 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Program $3,498,300.00 WHEREAS, the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency has awarded a grant to the Fire Department, through the City of Charlottesville, specifically for firefighter hiring; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that a total of $3,498,300.00 be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $3,498,300 $3,498,300 Fund: 211 I/O: 3201005100 G/L Account: 431110 Expenditures - $3,498,300 $3,498,300 Fund: 211 I/O: 3201005100 G/L Account: 519999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the continual reimbursement for hours worked during the period of performance and shall be considered a continuing appropriation unless further altered by Council. Page 5 of 115 4. APPROPRIATION: COVID-19 Municipal Utility Relief Program to Assist Customers - $182,801.59 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION CARES Act Funding for Utility Customer Bill Arrearage Assistance - $182,801.59 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received award approval for $182,801.59 from the CARES Act from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department Housing and Development to use to assist utility customer bill arrearages owed between March 1, 2020 and December 30, 2020; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $182,801.59 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue-$182,801.59 Fund 208 I/O: 1900394 G/L Account: 430127 Expenditures-$182,801.59 Fund 208 I/O: 1900394 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that while these funds are being appropriated as a lump sum, the funds will be allocated to the gas, water and wastewater funds as deemed appropriate once specific accounts and assistance has been awarded. 5. APPROPRIATION: Charlottesville City Schools Budget Amendment – Grant Funding - $2,787,563 (2nd reading) APPROPRATION Charlottesville City Schools Budget Amendment – Grant Funding - $2,787,563 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Schools has received grant funds to help offset the costs associated with its COVID response during the 2020-21 school year; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the Charlottesville City Schools budget be amended by $2,787,563 as follows: Page 6 of 115 Budget General Fund Special Revenue Total Appropriated $ 74,452,362 $ 14,440,726 $ 88,893,088 Amendment ‐ 2,787,563 2,787,563 Total Amended Budget $ 74,452,362 $ 17,228,289 $ 91,680,651 6. APPROPRIATION: Interest Accrual on Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Funds - $7,000.00 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION Interest Accrued on Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Act (CARES) Funds $7,000.00 WHEREAS, the City has accrued interest income in the amount of approximately $7,000.00 on Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds allocated to the City address the COVID-19 pandemic; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following amount of accrued interest (or the actual amount earned as of December 30, 2020) is hereby appropriated in the following manner which conform with the conditions and guidance established by the Commonwealth, U.S. Treasury, and the City: Revenue $7,000.00 Fund: 208 Cost Center: 9900000000 G/L Account: 450010 Expenditures $7,000.00 Fund: 208 Order: 1900353 G/L Account: 599999 7. APPROPRIATION: Appropriation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/ HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Budget Allocations for FY 2020- 2021 and Minor Amendment for Action Plan 2020-2021 a. APPROPRIATION: Appropriation of funds for the 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant - $419,303.00 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION City of Charlottesville 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant - $419,303 Page 7 of 115 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 2020-2021 fiscal year in the total amount of $432,691 that includes the new entitlement from HUD, dated February 18, 2020, amounting to $419,367, and previous entitlement made available through reprogramming of $13,324; WHEREAS, City Council has received recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the CDBG/HOME Taskforce, the SAT; and has conducted a public hearing thereon as provided by law; WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been notified of the formula calculation error of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program stemming from HUD field offices, dated October 22, 2020, with the corrected entitlement of $419,303; 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 Funds for the respective purposes set forth; provided, however, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds between among such individual accounts as circumstances may require, to the extent permitted by applicable federal grant regulations. Priority Neighborhood Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $201,884.12 Economic Development Community Investment Collaborative Scholarships $14,997.71 Public Service Programs (15% EN) TJACH- Coordinated Entry Systems $53,346.44 Housing Projects AHIP-Homeowner Rehab $78,538.13 Administration and Planning (20% EN) Admin & Planning $83,860.60 New Entitlement Amount $419,303 Reprogramming $13,324 Grand Total $432,627.00 Page 8 of 115 Expenditures Program Amount Fund Internal G/L Account order/Cost center Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $201,884.12 218 1900361 530670 Community Investment $14,997.71 218 1900362 530670 Collaborative TJACH $53,346.44 218 1900363 530670 AHIP Homeowner Rehab $78,538.13 218 1900364 530670 Admin & Planning $83,860.60 218 3914004000 530670 Revenue Program Amount Fund WBS Element G/L Account Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $201,884.12 218 P-0001 HUD 431110 IDIS Drawdown Community Investment $14,997.71 218 P-0001 HUD 431110 Collaborative IDIS Drawdown TJACH $53,346.44 218 P-0001 HUD 431110 IDIS Drawdown AHIP Homeowner Rehab $78,538.13 218 P-0001 HUD 431110 IDIS Drawdown Admin & Planning $83,860.60 218 P-0001 HUD 431110 IDIS Drawdown BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (subrecipients) 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. b. APPROPRIATION: Appropriation of funds for the 2020-2021 HOME funds - $121,186.97 (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION City of Charlottesville 2020-2021 HOME Funds - $121,186.97 Page 9 of 115 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 2020-2021 fiscal year; WHEREAS, it is a requirement of this grant that projects funded with HOME initiatives money be matched with local funding in varying degrees; WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been notified of the formula calculation error of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) stemming from HUD field offices, dated October 22, 2020, with the corrected entitlement of $80,575.13; 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 $20,143.78. Project totals also include previous entitlement made available through program income of $20,468.06. The total of the HUD money, program income, and the local match, equals $121,186.97 and will be distributed as shown below. PROJECTS HOME EN PI MATCH TOTAL AHIP-Homeowner Rehab $33,498.40 $13,234.03 $10,071.89 $56,804.32 Habitat for Humanity-DPA $47,076.73 $7,234.03 $10,071.89 $64,382.65 Total $80,575.13 $20,468.06 $20,143.78 $121,186.97 * includes Program Income which does not require local match. Expenditures Program Amount Fund Internal G/L Account Order/Cost Center AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $56,804.32 210 1900365 530670 Habitat for Humanity - DPA $64,382.65 210 1900366 530670 Revenue Program Amount Fund Internal Order G/L Account Thomas Jefferson Planning District $33,498.40 210 1900365 432170 Thomas Jefferson Planning District $47,076.73 210 1900366 432170 City Match $20,143.78 210 CP-0084 498010 Program Income $26,468.06 210 1900280 451070 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (subrecipients) 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 Page 10 of 115 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. 8. APPROPRIATION: Appropriation of funds for the 2020-2021 CDBG 10th and Page Priority Neighborhood (2nd reading) APPROPRIATION of Funds for City of Charlottesville 2020-2021 CDBG 10th and Page Priority Neighborhood 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 2020-2021 fiscal year in the total amount of $432,303 that includes the new entitlement from HUD, dated October 22, 2020; WHEREAS, City Council has received recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the 10th and Page Priority Neighborhood Taskforce, CDBG/HOME Taskforce, the SAT; and has conducted a public hearing thereon as provided by law; WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville must carry out its program in a timely manner, as measured by the rate of expenditure of funds from the grantee’s line of credit (LOC) in accordance to 24 CFR 570.902(a); 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 Funds for the respective purposes set forth; provided, however, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds between among such individual accounts as circumstances may require, to the extent permitted by applicable federal grant regulations. Priority Neighborhood Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $85,830.95 Priority Neighborhood 10th and Page Priority Neighborhood $116,053.17 Program Income CDBG Program Income $17,952.83 Page 11 of 115 Expenditures Program Amount Fund Internal G/L Account order/Cost center Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $85,830.95 218 1900361 530670 10th and Page Priority $134,006 218 P-0001-05-19 530670 Neighborhood Revenue Program Amount Fund WBS Element G/L Account Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $85,830.95 218 P-0001 HUD 431110 IDIS Drawdown 10th and Page Priority $116,053.17 218 P-0001 HUD 431110 Neighborhood IDIS Drawdown CDBG Program Income $17,952.83 218 P-0001-05-19 451070 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (subrecipients) 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. 9. ORDINANCE: Eagle franchise agreement renewal (2nd reading) AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A 5-YEAR FRANCHISE TO EAGLE REAL ESTATE, LLC, TO USE THE STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, TO INSTALL POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS, CABLES AND FIXTURES WITHIN PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS OF WAY 10. RESOLUTION: Letter of Endorsement for House Bill (HB) 1965 regarding No/Low Emission Vehicles RESOLUTION Endorsing Correspondence Supporting HB1965 Page 12 of 115 WHEREAS, Delegate Lamont Bagby has introduced HB 1965 in the Virginia House of Delegates to increase the availability of low and zero emissions vehicles; and WHEREAS, a group of localities is endorsing a letter urging the Virginia General Assembly to enact legislation similar to HB 1965. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia hereby agrees to add its endorsement of the letter attached to this Resolution. “January 4, 2021 RE: Supporting policy which expands access to low and zero emissions vehicles Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly, As a community of Virginia municipalities, we urge lawmakers to empower our localities and businesses to usher in a clean economy, reduce air pollution, and improve public health by supporting policy which expands access to low and zero emissions vehicles. Fossil fuel based transportation threatens our air quality and significantly increases community healthcare costs. A recent study from Virginia Clinicians for Climate Action (VCCA) found that the health impacts attributable to Virginia-specific transportation emissions are valued at $750 million annually.1 Moreover, air pollution and the associated costs disproportionately impact low- income and minority communities, where respiratory illness is correlated with higher exposure to emissions from fossil fuel vehicles. The VCCA study found that Virginia could significantly reduce healthcare costs by implementing low and zero emissions vehicle standards. Climate change also poses a significant risk to the health, livelihood, and economic stability of our communities. Recognizing these risks, our communities are making ambitious commitments and taking action to improve energy efficiency, adopt clean energy, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Transportation is responsible for 48% of climate emissions statewide 2 and is a significant contributor to each of our community-wide emissions as well. Vehicle electrification is essential to our ability to reduce emissions at the community level. Despite the significant health and climate benefits of vehicle electrification, unfortunately, auto manufacturers do not provide Virginia automotive dealers with many low and zero emission vehicles, leaving our citizens with little from which to choose. Sixteen states have already passed standards requiring manufacturers to increase the availability of low-emission and zero- emission vehicles. Combining these standards with tax incentives for purchase of these vehicles will accelerate transportation electrification, improve public health, and support Virginia’s continued leadership on climate change. Page 13 of 115 We ask the General Assembly to pass legislation which increases the availability of low and zero emissions vehicles in Virginia and provides consumers financial incentives to choose them. Our localities want to ensure that all Virginians can enjoy a thriving economy, a clean environment, and healthy communities for the many generations to come. We hope that the General Assembly will partner with us to turn this vision into reality. Sincerely, 1 https://www.virginiaclinicians.org/transportation 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration [Names of Local Governments]” 11. RESOLUTION: Resolution in Recognition of Lives Lost to Covid-19 RESOLUTION OF REMEMBERANCE FOR THOSE LOST TO COVID-19 WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the first case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States on January 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 has taken the lives of 385,000 Americans since January 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 has taken the lives of over 30 Charlottesville residents since January 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, President-elect Joe Biden has asked the nation to come together on January 19, 2021 in a nationwide public moment of recognition of lives lost to COVID-19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that it hereby honors the memory of all the lives lost to the COVID-19 global pandemic and recognized January 19, 2021 as a citywide Day of Remembrance in honor of those who have perished since the pandemic began. Mayor Walker opened the floor for comment from the public. - Peter Krebs, city resident, spoke in support of Item #8. - Susan Kruse, Exec Dir of Community Climate Collaborative (C3), spoke in support of Item #10. - Emily Little, city resident, spoke in support of Item #10. Page 14 of 115 On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Vice Mayor Magill, Council by a vote of 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: none) APPROVED the Consent Agenda, with the exception of December 21, 2020 Special Meeting Minutes, and Item #7, pulled by Mayor Walker for separate votes. On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Vice Mayor Magill, Council by a vote of 4-0-1 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook; Noes: none; Abstained: Walker) APPROVED the December 21, 2020 Special Meeting Minutes. On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Vice Mayor Magill, Council by a vote of 4-1 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook; Noes: Walker) APPROVED Item #7: Appropriation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/ HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Budget Allocations for FY 2020- 2021 and Minor Amendment for Action Plan 2020-2021. CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS (FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS) Acting City Manager John Blair shared an update on the following community matters: 1. Social Services Director Diane Kuknyo and Communications Director Brian Wheeler will work on a plan to better communicate programs related to SNAP and other benefit programs. Ms. Kuknyo suggested waiting initially on federal administration changes with the Biden Administration assuming office on January 20, 2021, to see if there would be any immediate short-term changes. 2. A joint meeting with City Council and the Charlottesville City School Board scheduled for Thursday, January 28. COMMUNITY MATTERS Mayor Walker opened the floor for public comment. 1. Marta Keane, CEO of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), shared an update on services such as home delivered meals, senior helpline, counseling, adult day services, weekly calls, and efforts during the coronavirus pandemic. 2. Gloria Beard, city resident, asked about the newly appointed City Manager, affordable housing, reports of Charlottesville being a top destination for retirees, and play areas for children. 3. Tanesha Hudson spoke about Council relations, race relations and accountability. 4. Walt Heinecke, city resident, spoke about transparency with the City Manager process. He also spoke about the Human Rights Commission proposed ordinance updates and shared revision suggestions. Page 15 of 115 5. Robin Hoffman spoke about Covid-19 vaccinations and the need to improve air quality. She asked about measures being put in place for Inauguration Day. 6. Peter Krebs, Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke about a virtual book club for those interested in safer streets. He advised that more information was available at pecva.org.. He also spoke in support of the agenda item for acquisition of land at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir.. 7. Don Gathers encouraged everyone to stay safe. He shared the opinion that the City Manager appointment process was rushed. He wished Mr. Blair well in his future endeavors and wished the incoming City Manager well. He shared concern of hearing no security report for Inauguration Day. 8. Abby Guskind shared disappointment about a lack of transparency and community outreach in the City Manager appointment process. She wished Mr. Blair well as he moves forward with another locality. 9. Elizabeth Stark, city resident, spoke about the City Budget. She encouraged the funding of city priority needs such as education, hunger, mental and physical health, addressing the unhoused, and alternatives to policing. 10. Katrena Cooper, city resident, asked about cameras that were put up in the South First Street area without notification to residents. Councilor Payne responded to public comments and implored everyone to take accountability for moving the city forward to a healthier place. Mayor Walker spoke about the process for hiring the new City Manager and about work being done that often goes unrecognized. She asked that people think about the type of city that they want. The meeting recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING/APPROPRIATION: Public Hearing of the FY2020-2021 Substantial Action Plan Amendment, Budget Appropriation and Approval of the Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus 3 (CDBG-CV3) Budget Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator, presented the report. After clarifying questions from Council, Mayor Walker opened the public hearing. o Brandon Collins, organizer for PHAR, encouraged Council to approve the request To help eviction prevention. Page 16 of 115 Mayor Walker closed the public hearing. a. FY2020-2021 Substantial Action Plan Amendment On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Vice Mayor Magill, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: none). RESOLUTION Approval of FY 2020-2021 Substantial Action Plan Amendment BE IT RESOLVED, that the Charlottesville City Council hereby approves the FY 2020- 2021 Substantial Action Plan Amendment of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan as presented at the May 4, 2020 City Council Meeting. All CDBG-CV3 projects shall be included into City of Charlottesville CDBG/HOME 2020-2021 Program. b. Substantial Action Plan CDBG-CV3 Budget (carried) Council agreed to carry this item forward to the February 1 Consent Agenda. APPROPRIATION: Approval and Appropriation of CDBG and HOME Budget Allocations for FY2021-2022 Erin Atak, presented the request. She shared funding recommendations from the Task Force. Council asked clarifying questions, commended the detailed work done by the CDBG Task Force, and agreed to move both appropriations forward to the February 1 Consent Agenda. a. APPROPRIATION: CDBG 2021-2022 budget allocations (carried) b. APPROPRIATION: HOME 2021-2022 budget allocations (carried) ORDINANCE: Human Rights Commission Ordinance Recommended Amendments (carried) Mary Bauer, Human Rights Commission (HRC) Chair, presented the proposed ordinance changes. She shared that the HRC would like to provide more frequent updates, and that recent changes from the General Assembly prompted some of the amendments presented. She shared concerns about the need to hire an Executive Director for the HRC. Ms. Bauer reviewed changes to the Virginia Human Rights Act created by passage of the Page 17 of 115 Virginia Values Act. Council asked clarifying questions related to correspondence received from the public. Mayor Walker shared a concern about the residency requirement for HRC members and voiced that these seats should be held by city residents. Todd Niemeier, Office of Human Rights, helped to answer questions. Mr. Blair also shared information about enabling legislation for establishing Human Rights Commissions in localities, in response to questions regarding the possibility of an agreement with the surrounding county. Council agreed to carry this item forward to the February 1 Consent Agenda. RESOLUTION*: Acquisition of Land at Ragged Mountain Reservoir - $65,000 Chris Gensic, Parks and Trails Planner, presented the request. He shared information about community contributions and support for the acquisition. On motion by Councilor Hill, seconded by Councilor Snook, Council by the following vote APPROVED the resolution: 5-0 (Ayes: Hill, Magill, Payne, Snook, Walker; Noes: none). RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ACQUISTION OF LAND AT RAGGED MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR (5.0 ACRES – TMP 75, PARCEL 47A) WHEREAS, Stanislaw J. Makielski and Valerie Jean Conner, Trustees of the Stanislaw J. Makielski and Valerie Jean Conner Family Trust (“Owners”) are the owners of land designated on Albemarle County, Virginia Real Estate Tax Map 75 as Parcel 47A, and have indicated a willingness to convey a portion of the subject land to the City of Charlottesville for creation of parkland; and WHEREAS, the land to be conveyed, hereinafter the “Property”, is described as follows: All that certain tract or parcel of land situate in the County of Albemarle, Virginia containing approximately 5.00 acres, and described “The Makielski Property” on that certain plat entitled “Plat Showing Boundary Survey of Tax Map 75 Parcel 47A”, prepared by P. Timothy Stanley, Jr., dated June 19, 2018, attached hereto and recorded in the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office of Albemarle County, Virginia, simultaneously herewith. WHEREAS, Owner has agreed to convey to the City the Property for the purchase price of $95,000.00; and Page 18 of 115 WHEREAS, funds are available for the purchase of the Property from a grant award from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation in the amount of $65,000.00; grant award funding from USDA in the amount of $31,039.00, and approved USDA surplus grant funding to cover the remaining balance. WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation seeks the endorsement of City Council to proceed with the purchase of above-described Property at a purchase price of $95,000.00 with the funding supplied through the above-described grant funding sources; and WHEREAS, the Warranty Deed of Sale which contains Exhibit A, Notice of Grant Agreement, for the conveyance of said land has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Charlottesville that it hereby authorizes the purchase of the above-described Property for creation of parkland. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the above-referenced Exhibit A, Notice of Grant Agreement attached to the Warranty Deed of Sale, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign the Warranty Deed of Sale, both in form approved by the City Attorney or her designee. The City Attorney’s Office shall take whatever actions are necessary to effect the acquisition of the above-described Property. GENERAL BUSINESS REPORT: Update on the Climate Action Plan Development Process Susan Elliott and Kristen Riddervold presented the report. Ms. Elliott, Climate Protection Program Manager, advised that the process would need to move forward on an expedited timeline, noting key areas of focus for emissions reduction: Residential, Commercial and Transportation. She provided an update on actions taken related to direction given by Council in a 2019 resolution. Ms. Riddervold, Environmental Sustainability and Facilities Development Division Manager, shared work plan updates through March 2021 and advised of the timeline for milestone targets and City process alignment. She shared that information and documentation related to the climate plan would be accessible at: charlottesville.gov/climateplan. Council shared feedback and discussed ways to help move efforts forward. Page 19 of 115 OTHER BUSINESS There were no other business items for consideration. MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Tanesha Hudson spoke about Council's role in making Charlottesville a healthier place. Walt Heinecke, city resident, spoke of disappointment with the conversation about the Human Rights Commission ordinance earlier in the meeting. Ang Conn, city resident, spoke about the hiring of new police officers and suggested putting a hiring freeze on police and implementing a first responder team instead. Marcia Geyer thanked Council for working to the best of their abilities. She added that the public should be more supportive. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 20 of 115 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: February 16, 2021 Action Required: Appropriation and Resolution Presenter: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator Tim Motsch, Transportation Project Manager Staff Contacts: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator Title: FY2020-2021 CDBG Substantial Action Plan Amendment and Reprogramming 2019 CDBG funds for COVID-19 Public Services. Background: This agenda item includes a substantial action plan amendment, a public hearing, and corrected budget for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CARES Act modifies some CDBG program rules and authorizes the Secretary of HUD to grant waivers and alternative requirements. Accordingly, FR-6218-N-01 describes how requirements of the CDBG program are modified for CDBG-CV grants, fiscal year 2020 CDBG grants, and fiscal year 2019 CDBG grants under the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act. On January 14, 2021, the City of Charlottesville was found to be noncompliant, for the second consecutive year, with the CDBG timely expenditure requirements. Nevertheless, in accordance with the Federal Register Notice FR-6218-N-01, Section IV. B. 1., HUD suspended effective January 21, 2020 all corrective actions for timeliness in fiscal year 2020. This suspension has recently been extended through December 31, 2020, and the first three months of the 2021 fiscal year. Based on government restrictions, closures, shelter-in-place orders, and social distancing guidance related to coronavirus, HUD has determined that all entitlement grantees have factors beyond their reasonable control that, to HUD’s satisfaction, impact the carrying out of CDBG- assisted activities in a timely manner. Therefor, HUD has determined that corrective actions related to timeliness are not appropriate at this time. HUD has noted that the City of Charlottesville’s lack of timely performance as a deficiency. On January 30, 2020, it was calculated that the City had an adjusted line of credit balance of 2.06 times the annual grant. The City is now subject to the Department’s timeliness sanctions policy. HUD will conduct its final timeliness test on the City of Charlottesville on May 2, 2021. HUD and City Staff conducted a concurrent audit of the City CDBG program. HUD has recommended resources to assist the City to reach the May 2, 2021 timeliness deadline. Discussion: City staff has identified an immediate program for funding to solve the City’s timeliness concerns by May 2, 2021. The City has unexpended 2019 CDBG entitlement funds totaling $244,950.82 Page 21 of 115 from the delayed Belmont Franklin St Sidewalk activity. These funds can be reprogrammed back into the 2020-2021 CDBG program budget to fund a COVID related public service activity. Future CDBG funding sources can later repay the Belmont Franklin St. Sidewalk construction activity. To meet timeliness deadlines by May 2, 2021, reprogrammed funds must be spent down within the next three-month period. Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (CRHA) CDBG-CV3 previously partially funded application requested $320,000 CDBG-CV3 dollars to fund a COVID rental relief program for CRHA residents. Staff and HUD have identified CRHA’s covid rental relief application as an eligible activity for the City to quickly spend funds to meet timeliness requirements. CRHA’s application went through the public participation process, received recommendation for funding from the CDBG/HOME Taskforce and Planning Commission, which allows the City to save time from having to undergo a new round of request for proposals. City Staff has confirmed with CRHA staff on CDBG timeliness requirements to ensure HUD federal requirements will be met. Funds are proposed to provide immediate COVID-19 rental assistance to public housing residents to cover rental payments for a three period. Community Engagement: Members of the public were given the opportunity to voice their opinions during the HUD authorized expedited 5-day public comment period between February 1, 2021 through February 5, 2021; and at the virtual public hearing at City Council on February 16, 2021. HUD authorized an expedited 5-day public comment period on April 2, 2020 to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus with the goal to quickly appropriate funds to eligible activities. 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. There will be no impact to the City of Charlottesville budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the CDBG budgets, as well as approval of the substantial 2020- 2021 Action Plan Amendment of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan. Alternatives: No alternatives are proposed. Attachments: A. HUD’s Quick Guide to Eligible CDBG Activities to Support Coronavirus and Other Infectious Disease Response B. HUD’s Second Year Noncompliance with Timely Expenditure Requirements; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program C. Appropriation: Reprogramming 2019 CDBG Funds D. Resolution: Substantial Action Plan Amendment Page 22 of 115 E. Summary of CDBG-CV3 RFPs submitted F. CDBG-CV3 RFP Scoring Template G. Minutes from CDBG Task Force meetings Page 23 of 115 APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE’S 2020-2021 CDBG COVID RENTAL RELIEF WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville 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 in a timely manner and need to be reprogrammed as measured by the rate of expenditure of funds from the grantee’s line of credit (LOC) in accordance to 24 CFR 570.902(a); and WHEREAS, the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds between among such individual accounts as circumstances may require, to the extent permitted by applicable federal grant regulations; and 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 reapproprated to the respective accounts shown as follows: Fund Internal Program Proposed Proposed G/L Order Revised Revised Account Reduction Addition 218 1900332 Belmont 19/20 $244,950.82 530670 218 1900399 CRHA Covid Rental $244,950.82 530670 Assistance Approved by Council February 16, 2021 Kyna Thomas, CMC Clerk of Council Page 24 of 115 RESOLUTION Approval of FY 2020-2021 Substantial Action Plan Amendment BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlottesville City Council hereby approves the FY 2020 - 2021 Minor Action Plan Amendment of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan. The reprogrammed 2019 CDBG budget will be added into the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan for covid relief public service activities. No changes to the HOME budget will be made at this time. Approved by Council February 16, 2021 Kyna Thomas, CMC Clerk of Council Page 25 of 115 Quick Guide to CDBG Eligible Activities to Support Coronavirus and Other Infectious Disease Response REVISED April 6, 2020 Grantees should coordinate with local health authorities before undertaking any activity to support state or local pandemic response. Grantees may use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for a range of eligible activities that prevent and respond to the spread of infectious diseases such as the coronavirus. Examples of Eligible Activities to Support Coronavirus and Other Infectious Disease Response For more information, refer to applicable sections of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (for State CDBG Grantees) and CDBG regulations (for Entitlement CDBG grantees). Buildings and Improvements, Including Public Facilities Acquisition, construction, Construct a facility for testing, diagnosis, or treatment. reconstruction, or installation of public works, facilities, and Rehabilitate a community facility to establish an infectious disease treatment clinic. site or other improvements. Acquire and rehabilitate, or construct, a group living facility that may be used to See section 105(a)(2) (42 centralize patients undergoing treatment. U.S.C. 5305(a)(2)); 24 CFR 570.201(c). Rehabilitation of buildings and Rehabilitate a commercial building or closed school building to establish an infectious improvements (including disease treatment clinic, e.g., by replacing the HVAC system. interim assistance). See section 105(a)(4) (42 Acquire, and quickly rehabilitate (if necessary) a motel or hotel building to expand U.S.C. 5305(a)(4)); 24 CFR capacity of hospitals to accommodate isolation of patients during recovery. 570.201(f); 570.202(b). Make interim improvements to private properties to enable an individual patient to remain quarantined on a temporary basis. Assistance to Businesses, including Special Economic Development Assistance Provision of assistance to Provide grants or loans to support new businesses or business expansion to create jobs private, for-profit entities, and manufacture medical supplies necessary to respond to infectious disease. when appropriate to carry out an economic development Avoid job loss caused by business closures related to social distancing by providing project. short-term working capital assistance to small businesses to enable retention of jobs held by low- and moderate-income persons. See section 105(a)(17) (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(17)); 24 CFR 570.203(b). Provision of assistance to Provide technical assistance, grants, loans, and other financial assistance to establish, microenterprises. stabilize, and expand microenterprises that provide medical, food delivery, cleaning, See section 105(a)(22) (42 and other services to support home health and quarantine. U.S.C. 5305(a)(22)); 24 CFR 570.201(o). Page 26 of 115 Provision of New or Quantifiably Increased Public Services Following enactment of the Carry out job training to expand the pool of health care workers and technicians that CARES Act1, the public are available to treat disease within a community. services cap2 has no effect on CDBG-CV grants and no Provide testing, diagnosis or other services at a fixed or mobile location. effect on FY 2019 and 2020 Increase the capacity and availability of targeted health services for infectious disease CDBG grant funds used for response within existing health facilities. coronavirus efforts. See section 105(a)(8) (42 Provide equipment, supplies, and materials necessary to carry-out a public service. U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)); 24 CFR Deliver meals on wheels to quarantined individuals or individuals that need to 570.201(e). maintain social distancing due to medical vulnerabilities. Planning, Capacity Building, and Technical Assistance States only: planning grants Grant funds to units of general local government may be used for planning activities and planning only grants. in conjunction with an activity, they may also be used for planning only as an activity. See section 105(a)(12). These activities must meet or demonstrate that they would meet a national objective. These activities are subject to the State’s 20 percent administration, planning and technical assistance cap. States only: use a part of to Grant funds to units of general local government to hire technical assistance providers support TA and capacity to deliver CDBG training to new subrecipients and local government departments that building. are administering CDBG funds for the first time to assist with infectious disease See section 106(d)(5) (42 response. This activity is subject to the State’s 3 percent administration, planning and U.S.C. 5306(d)(5). technical assistance cap. Entitlement only: data Gather data and develop non-project specific emergency infectious disease response gathering, studies, analysis, plans. and preparation of plans and the identification of actions that will implement such plans. See 24 CFR 570.205. Planning Considerations Infectious disease response conditions rapidly evolve and may require changes to the planned use of funds:  CDBG grantees must amend their Consolidated Annual Action Plan (Con Plan) when there is a change to the allocation priorities or method of distribution of funds; an addition of an activity not described in the plan; or a change to the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity (24 CFR 91.505).  If the changes meet the criteria for a “substantial amendment” in the grantee’s citizen participation plan, the grantee must follow its citizen participation process for amendments (24 CFR 91.105 and 91.115).  Under the CARES Act, CDBG grantees may amend citizen participation and Con Plans concurrently in order to establish and implement expedited procedures with a comment period of no less than 5-days. Resources The Department has technical assistance providers that may be available to assist grantees in their implementation of CDBG funds for activities to prevent or respond to the spread of infectious disease. Please contact your local CPD Field Office Director to request technical assistance from HUD staff or a TA provider.  Submit your questions to: CPDQuestionsAnswered@hud.gov  Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information and Resources: https://www.hud.gov/coronavirus  CPD Program Guidance and Training: https://www.hudexchange.info/program-support/ 1 On March 27, 2020, President Trump approved the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136) (CARES Act). The CARES Act makes available $5 billion in CDBG coronavirus response (CDBG-CV) funds to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. 2 Section 105(a)(8) of the HCD Act caps public service activities at 15 percent of most CDBG grants. Some grantees have a different percentage cap. Page 27 of 115 U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Richmond Field Office Community Planning & Development Division 600 E. Broad Street, 3rd Floor Richmond, VA 23219-1800 1-800-842-2610 January 14, 2021 Mr. Alexander Ikefuna Director Department of Neighborhood Planning and Development City of Charlottesville P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Ikefuna: SUBJECT: Second Year Noncompliance with Timely Expenditure Requirements; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the City of Charlottesville is not carrying out its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in a timely manner and is non- compliant, for the second consecutive year, with the CDBG timely expenditure requirements. Nevertheless, in accordance with the Federal Register Notice FR-6218-N-01, Program Rules, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements Under the CARES Act for Community Development Block Grant Program Coronavirus Response Grants, Fiscal Year 2019 and 2020 Community Development Block Grants, and for Other Formula Programs, (hereinafter, the “Notice”), Section IV. B. 1., HUD suspended, effective January 21, 2020, all corrective actions for timeliness in fiscal year 2020. This suspension has recently been extended through December 31, 2020, the first three months of the 2021 fiscal year. Based on government restrictions, closures, shelter-in-place orders, and social distancing guidance related to coronavirus, HUD has determined that all entitlement grantees have factors beyond their reasonable control that, to HUD’s satisfaction, impact the carrying out of CDBG-assisted activities in a timely manner. Therefore, HUD has determined that corrective actions related to timeliness are not appropriate at this time. The remainder of this letter will detail this condition and recommended actions for the City of Charlottesville to take to address this noncompliance. City of Charlottesville has a July 1, 2020 Program Year Start Date. When the 60-day test was conducted on December 3, 2020 it was calculated that your community had an adjusted line of credit balance of 2.50 times its annual grant. In accordance with the Notice, HUD is noting Visit our website at www.hud.gov/virginia Page 28 of 115 2 this lack of timely performance as a deficiency. HUD did, however, send a CDBG timeliness warning letter to the City of Charlottesville in fiscal year 2019. When the 60-day test was conducted on January 30, 2020, it was calculated that your community had an adjusted line of credit balance of 2.06 times its annual grant. In that February 4, 2020, HUD found the City of Charlottesville to be in non-compliance with the CDBG program timely performance requirements and stated that it was now subject to the Department’s timeliness sanctions policy. While HUD is suspending all corrective actions and sanctions pursuant to the Notice, continued noncompliance in succeeding program years may result in a sanction based on the February 4, 2020, warning letter. Before December 31, 2020, HUD will determine whether to further extend this corrective action suspension for all or additional portions of fiscal year 2021. HUD may consider regional and local conditions when determining when to begin scheduling informal consultations. As before, HUD wants to alert you to the following four resources, a technical assistance video along with three brochures located on the HUD Exchange website, that are available to assist you in your efforts to comply with HUD’s timeliness standards: • “CDBG Timeliness and Best Practices to Achieve Timely Performance,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z4wdiKJPG8&feature=youtu.be • “Developing and Implementing a CDBG Workout Plan,” https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/developing-and-implementing-a-cdbg-workout-plan.pdf • “Keeping Your CDBG Funds Moving,” and https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Keeping- Your-CDBG-Funds-Moving-Guide.pdf • “Ensuring CDBG Subrecipient Timeliness.” https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Ensuring-CDBG-Subrecipient-Timelines.pdf These resources provide guidance for keeping your CDBG program timely and will strengthen your community’s program management capacity. By way of final reminder, HUD notes, pursuant to Section III.B.7. (b) of the Notice, that CDBG-CV funds are not included in determining compliance with CDBG timely expenditure requirements. Pursuant to Section III.B.6. (a) of the Notice, however, program income generated by the use of CDBG-CV funds is treated as program income to a grantee’s annual formula CDBG program. Therefore, program income generated from CDBG-CV activities will be included in timely expenditure compliance determinations for each grantee’s annual formula CDBG program. Grantees should consider the potential effects of additional program income on compliance with timeliness requirements applicable to their annual formula CDBG grant program when they select, and design CDBG-CV assisted activities. HUD appreciates the many efforts made by our grantees to continue carrying out their programs during this challenging time. My staff and I remain available to assist you in any way possible to help you achieve the timeliness standard in the future. Should you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please contact me at 202 422-0021. Staff requiring any technical assistance should contact Carolyn Meyers, Senior CPD Representative, at (804) 822-4828. Page 29 of 115 3 Sincerely, Ronnie J. Legette Director cc: Erin Atak CDBG Grants Coordinator Page 30 of 115 CDBG-CV3 + CDBG + HOME RFP Submissions Organization, Program Title Project Contact Program Description Funding Requested 24-hr Transportation and Non-perishable Food Econ Public Service Pearl Transit Jael Watts Delivery $ 132,384.00 Habitat for Humanity Ruth Stone COVID Response Program $ 90,000.00 CDBG-CV3 Charlottesville Redevelopment Housing Kathleen Glenn- CRHA Eviction Diversion Program $ 320,000.00 Authority Matthews Community Investment Collaborative Stephen Davis $ 130,970.00 (CIC) COVID Response Microenterprise Assistance Total Amount of Request (Public Services) $ 542,384.00 Total Amount of Request (Econ) $ 130,970.00 Total Projected Budget (Public Services) $ 134,009.60 Total Projected Budget (Econ) $ 134,009.60 Request Overage (Public Services) $ (408,374.40) Request Overage (Econ) $ (3,039.60) Organization, Program Title Project Contact Program Description Funding Requested Assisted Home Performance Worforce CDBG Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) Chris Meyer Development $ 29,238.00 Econ Community Investment Collaborative (CIC) Stephen Davis Financial Management Program $ 15,000.00 Total Amount of Request $ 44,238.00 Total Projected Budget $ 61,294.28 Request Overage $ (17,056.28) Organization, Program Title Project Contact Program Description Funding Requested Public Services (15% Public Housing Association of Residents CDBG (PHAR) Brandon Collins Resident Involved Redevelopment $ 34,000.00 Literacy Volunteers Beginning Level Workforce Development Cap) Charlottesville/Albemarle Ellen Osborne Tutoring $ 25,000.00 Total Amount of Request $ 59,000.00 Total Projected Budget $ 62,905.05 Request Overage $ (3,905.05) Organization, Program Title Project Contact Program Description Funding Requested Housing CDBG Local Energy Alliance Prorgam (LEAP) Chris Meyer Cville Low-Income Assisted Home Performance $ 57,000.00 Total Amount of Request $ 57,000.00 Total Projected Budget $ 61,294.28 Request Overage $ (4,294.28) Organization, Program Title Project Contact Program Description Funding Requested Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) Chris Meyer Cville Low-Income Assisted Home Performance $ 57,000.00 HOME Habitat for Humanity Ruth Stone Affordable Housing Downpayment Assistance $ 24,000.00 Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) Cory Demchak Charlottesville Critical Rehab Program $ 80,594.00 Total Amount of Request $ 161,594.00 Total Projected Budget $ 80,594.00 Request Overage $ (81,000.00) Page 31 of 115 Applicant Score Funding request TF Recommendation 1 CDBG-CV3 CRHA 37.3 $ 320,000.00 $ 91,485.94 Habitat 37.8 $ 90,000.00 $ 45,563.26 Pearl Transit 26.75 $ 132,384.00 $ - CIC (ECON) 34.2 $ 130,970.00 $ 130,970.00 Total Amount Requested (ps) $ 542,384.00 $ 137,049.20 Total Amoutn Requested (econ) $ 130,970.00 Total projected Budget (econ) $ 134,009.60 Total projected Budget (ps) $ 134,009.60 Request Overage (ps) $ (408,374.40) Requested Overage (econ) $ 3,039.60 Applicant Score Funding request TF Recommendation 1 CDBG LEAP 29.3 $ 29,238.00 $ 29,238.00 Econ CIC 34.2 $ 15,000.00 $ 32,056.28 Total Amount Requested $ 44,238.00 $ 61,294.28 Total projected Budget $ 61,294.28 Request Overage $ 17,056.28 CDBG Applicant Score Funding request TF Recommendation 1 Public PHAR 39.33 $ 34,000.00 $ 34,000.00 Services LVCA 39.33 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Total Amount Requested $ 59,000.00 $ 59,000.00 Total projected Budget (15%) $ 62,905.05 Request Overage $ 3,905.05 CDBG Applicant Score Funding request TF Recommendation 1 Housing LEAP 36.5 $ 57,000.00 $ 65,199.32 Total Amount Requested $ 57,000.00 $ 65,199.32 Total projected Budget $ 61,294.28 Request Overage $ 4,294.28 Applicant Score Funding request TF Recommendation 1 HOME Habitat 37.67 $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 AHIP 33.67 $ 80,594.00 $ 37,352.00 LEAP 36.5 $ 57,000.00 $ 19,242.00 Total Amount Requested $ 161,594.00 $ 80,594.00 Total projected Budget $ 80,594.00 Request Overage $ (81,000.00) Page 32 of 115 SCORING RUBRIC FOR CDBG-CV3/CDBG/HOME GRANT PROPOSALS Name of Applicant: Name of Project: Exemplary Adequate Needs Missing Score Comments Improvement Information (3 Points) (2 Points) (1 Point) (0 Points) Program/Project Provides a clear Provides a description Program/project Proposal does not Description description and clearly that adequately description needs describe how it will explains how it will explains how it will improvement address a Council address a Council address a Council Priority Priority Priority Program/Project Provides a clear Provides an adequate Program/Project goal Goal is missing Goal explanation of the goal. explanation of the goal needs improvement. and/or not Identifies what will be Barely identifies what explained. provided to whom, how will be provided to Identification of many. Provides whom and how beneficiaries, demographic many. Barely number of information of the provides beneficiaries, beneficiaries and how demographic demographic they will meet the information and how information, and income guidelines the beneficiaries will information about meet the income how the guidelines beneficiaries will meet the income guidelines is missing Need Clearly describes how Adequately describes Description of need Does not describe the program will how the program will needs improvement. how the program directly address the directly address the Only state, regional, will directly address needs. needs using some local or national data the needs and/or 1 Page 33 of 115 Provides local data to data to describe the provided, data not does not provide describe the needs of needs of the specific to clients data to describe the the community and the community and the needs of the beneficiaries beneficiaries community and the beneficiaries Outcomes Clearly explains how Adequately explains Explanation of how Does not explain proposed outcomes will how proposed proposed outcomes how proposed be meaningful, client- outcomes will be will be meaningful, outcomes will be focused and related to meaningful, client- client-focused and meaningful, client- the service focused and related to related to the service focused and/or the service needs improvement related to the service Strategies Provides evidence- Adequately describes Describes how Does not identify based strategies for how strategies address strategies address how strategies how the need using researched need without directly address program/project will best practices information about need address the need strategies at a best practices or minimum research Implementation Timeline is detailed and Timeline is adequate Timeline is limited or No timeline Timeline realistic not realistic provided and information is missing Evaluation Plan Provides a rigorous Provides a solid Evaluates some Proposal does not evaluation plan which evaluation plan elements of its work, provide an informs ongoing work, but the evaluation is evaluation plan or explains metrics and not thorough the plan is why they are used insufficient Demographic Proposal clearly Proposal adequately Proposal describes Proposal does not Verification describes how the describes how the how the agency will describe how the agency will collect and agency will collect and collect and verify agency will collect verify all required verify all required some required and verify any information information information required information 2 Page 34 of 115 Financial Proposal describes how Proposal describes how Proposal describes Proposal does not Benefits the program fully the program fully how the program describe how the meets two financial meets one financial partially meets one to program will provide benefits benefit two financial benefits a financial benefit Collaboration Proposal describes how Proposal describes Proposal describes Proposal does not the program formal agreements collaboration describe collaborates with other with more than two informally with other collaboration with organizations to organizations organizations (ex. other entities achieve a common goal describing how they information sharing, using defined cooperate, but does resource sharing) deliverables and not share common metrics (ex. Clear deliverables or metrics. accountability, shared management, such as MOU’s or formal partnership agreements) Engagement/ Proposal describes Proposal describes Proposal explains Proposal does not Outreach complete outreach and some outreach and that services are provide strategies Strategy engagement strategies engagement strategies available to needy for outreach and and explains how it will and how it will serve and underserved engagement to serve needy and needy and underserved populations but needy and underserved populations program/project does underserved populations not conduct outreach populations or engagement Priority Proposal describes Proposal describes Proposal explains Proposal does not Neighborhood complete outreach some outreach and that services are provide strategies Ridge Street strategies and program/project serves available to priority for outreach to program/project serves residents in the Priority neighborhood priority residents in the Priority Neighborhood residents but neighborhood Neighborhood program/project does residents not conduct outreach 3 Page 35 of 115 Organizational Organization Organization Organization capacity The organization Capacity demonstrated demonstrated needs improvement, demonstrated a lack (STAFF ONLY – sufficient capacity and adequate capacity and did not meet of a capacity not included in fully met projected almost met projected projected outcomes scoring) outcomes in previous outcomes in previous grant year grant year Outstanding Organization expended Organization has Funding all previous grant been awarded grant (STAFF ONLY – funding or is a new funding from prior included in applicant with no prior fiscal years and has scoring) CDBG/HOME/CDBG-CV been unable to dollars unspent. spend all the funding. Organizational Proposal provides clear Proposal provides Evidence of capacity Proposal does not Capacity evidence of the adequate evidence of and ability needs provide evidence of capacity and ability to the capacity and ability improvement. Does the capacity and ensure timely to ensure timely not address the ability performance and performance and question fully reporting reporting Budget Proposal clearly Proposal provides an Proposed budget The proposal does demonstrates: adequate budget. needs improvement not demonstrate A. How requested Adequately addresses and barely addresses how the requested funds will be A, B, and C A, B, and/or C. funds will be applied applied to Proposed budget to expense line expense line needs improvement. items, how the items amount requested is B. How the reasonable, and amount does not show a requested is direct relationship reasonable with proposed C. That the overall service items program budget shows a direct 4 Page 36 of 115 relationship with proposed service items TOTAL SCORE (MAX SCORE = 45 PTS) 5 Page 37 of 115 CDBG Taskforce and SAT Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 12th, 2020 3:30-5:30 PM Virtual Meeting AGENDA 1. Introductions/Housekeeping/Minutes a. SAT Committee 3:30-4:15pm b. CDBG Taskforce: 4:15-5:30pm 2. Review Application Scores & Create proposal budget. a. CDBG-CV3 2020-2021 b. CDBG 2021-2022 c. HOME 2021-2022 3. Other Business 4. Public Comment Staff Contact: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator (atake@charlottesville.gov), (434) 970-3093 Page 38 of 115 CDBG Strategic Action Team (SAT) Minutes ATTENDANCE: Taskforce Member Present Absent Sue Moffett X Kelley Logan X Letitia Shelton X Gretchen Ellis X Diane Kuknyo X Erin Atak X SAT Minutes Grants Coordinator Erin Atak (EA) outlines the pre-application technical assistance process for the CDBG, HOME, and CDBG-CV3 grants. All applicants underwent an application workshop and a CDBG/HOME grant workshop session to review how to complete the web application, and the federal requirements for CDBG/HOME/CDBG-CV3. 12 applicants were met with during the mandatory technical assistance pre-application submittal phase, 8 applications were submitted for review. EA states that one change was made to the coring rubric for all applications. This was to address the HUD timeliness requirement, (24CFR 570.902(a)). Applicants were told during the technical assistance meetings that applicants with outstanding CDBG and HOME funds may not be receiving as strong of a consideration in this review process. This change helps the City and subrecipients stay in compliance with HUD timeliness requirements and promote new applicants to join the CDBG and HOME application process. EA states to the SAT members that they have the option to fully fund the CDBG econ applications, partially fund the applications, fund one application or not the other, or fund none of the applications. Gretchen Ellis (GE) asks if the committee can fund an applicant more than what was requested. EA: Yes – the Taskforce can check with Community Investment Collaborative and Local Energy Alliance Program staff in the audience to see whether they would be able to manage additional funds. GE: Poses the question of whether the grants being awarded to microenterprises through CIC’s application could be increased as we have been in this COVID state for an expended period of time – increasing the grant among would benefit businesses more. Page 39 of 115 CIC Staff member Anna speaks with the Taskforce and states that CIC would be able administer larger grants and could manage extra funding and could also help more businesses at the same small grant threshold depending on how the Taskforce decided. GE makes a recommendation to move some of the CDBG econ overage funding into the CIC econ funding recommendation. Sue Moffett (SM) states that she had difficulty with the LEAP application as there was an absence of data making it hard to measure effectiveness of the project aside from reviewing the purpose of the project. GE: Poses a question for LEAP about whether that have previous experience with working with previously incarcerated individuals transition to the workforce. GE also mentions that LEAP’s application is more focused in the target neighborhood. Chris Meyer from LEAP addresses GE’s questions, states they have experience with working with Home to Hope individuals. States that this is one strategy to build a workforce. Diane Kuknyo (DK) asks Chris Meyer about whether the homes benefiting from the program will be rental properties with wealthy homeowners or low-income homeowners. Chris Meyer from LEAP addresses DK’s concern and states that this program will benefit low- income homeowners. GE moves to fully funding LEAP and to funding CIC at the full amount along with adding the $17,000 overage to CIC so that CIC could increase the number of microloans to the proposed businesses. Kelly Logan (KL) seconds. Moving to CDBG-CV3 Econ category EA explains that the SAT members only review the economic development applications while the CDBG/HOME Taskforce review the public service and housing applications in accordance to the CDBG Citizen Participation Plan. GE moves to fund CIC CDBG-CV3 application at the full $130,970.00 SM seconds. SAT recommends the final budget: CDBG Econ LEAP $29,238 Page 40 of 115 CIC $32,056.28 CDBG-CV3 CIC $130,970 SAT Committee is Adjourned. CDBG/HOME Taskforce Minutes ATTENDANCE: Taskforce Member Present Absent James Bryant X Taneia Dowell X Howard Evergreen X Belmont Rep: VACANT X Nancy Carpenter X Emily Cone-Miller X Matthew Gillikin X Kem Lea Spaulding X Helen Kimble X Erin Atak X CDBG Minutes Grants Coordinator Erin Atak (EA) outlines the pre-application technical assistance process for the CDBG, HOME, and CDBG-CV3 grants. All applicants underwent an application workshop and a CDBG/HOME grant workshop session to review how to complete the web application, and the federal requirements for CDBG/HOME/CDBG-CV3. 12 applicants were met with during the mandatory technical assistance pre-application submittal phase, 8 applications were submitted for review. EA states that one change was made to the coring rubric for all applications. This was to address the HUD timeliness requirement, (24CFR 570.902(a)). Applicants were told during the technical assistance meetings that applicants with outstanding CDBG and HOME funds may not be receiving as strong of a consideration in this review process. This change helps the City and subrecipients stay in compliance with HUD timeliness requirements and promote new applicants to join the CDBG and HOME application process. EA states that the SAT committee members made the funding recommendations for the econ applications. Page 41 of 115 CDBG Taskforce begins to review the CDBG public services applications Howard Evergreen (HE) asks about how the taskforce can allocate the overage in public services EA states that the overage can be directed toward another application in housing that may need it or be directed toward the Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood budgeted at $150,000. Kem Lea Spaulding (KLS) asks what is needed of the taskforce today. EA explains that the Taskforce has the option to either fully fund, partially fund, or not fund the applicants, funds can also be moved to the Ridge Street priority neighborhood taskforce and to housing as needed. Matthew Gillikin (MG) makes a funding recommendation to fully fund PHAR ($34,000) and LVCA ($25,000). MG states both applicants received the same score and fit within the 15% funding cap. Taneia Dowell (TD) seconds. HE, KLS, and James Bryant (JB) also agreed. KLS asks whether all the applications presented today are providing services only for the Ridge Street priority neighborhood. EA explains that the grant is not exclusive to the Ridge street priority neighborhood. Some applicants are providing services within the target neighborhood, and others are providing services to City residents. The Ridge Street Priority neighborhood portion of the CDBG grant focuses solely in Ridge Street. Emily Cone Miller (ECM) and MG make a funding recommendation to fully fund LEAP ($57,000). JB, TD, and HE second. KLS asks whether LEAP is hiring Ridge Street residents for the job training program. Chris Meyer from LEAP addresses this question, staff members come through the Home to Hope program. LEAP is asking for various funds from the CDBG econ and CDBG housing and HOME to service homes with energy efficiency improvements. MG asks whether funds from the CDBG-CV3 could be moved to different funding categories. EA answers that CDBG-CV3 is a separate grant and that those funds would need to remain separate from the CDBG and HOME. Page 42 of 115 HE and MG discuss briefly that Habitat for Humanity submitted two different applications for CDBG-CV3 and HOME, unlike LEAP who submitted the same application for multiple sources of funding. HE explains that Habitat applied for down payment assistance through the HOME grant and applied for a COVID relief rent/mortgage relief program through CDBG-CV3. TD states a concern that she believes Habitat recruited only members through the Homeownership program. Ruth Stone from Habitat addresses TD’s question and states that the pathways to housing program through Habitat produces an applicant pool that needs financial empowerment that can be aided with CDBG and HOME. MG makes one funding recommendation to fully fund Habitat ($24,000) and give the remainder of the budget to AHIP. HE ask if Habitat has outstanding funds. EA states that a reasoning would need to be given to HUD as to why the City continues to re- award organizations with outstanding funds dating back to 2018. EA states that Habitat has outstanding down payment funds totaling $14,813.52. HE states that AHIP’s proposal is to complete one home. Partially funding this application might make this hard to accomplish. He adds that LEAP’s application aims to help more people with the funding requested. TD agrees with HE’s comments, and states that Habitat has not spent all the prior funding and is leveraging to complete said projects with some of the other projects that were funded earlier. Cory Demchak from AHIP typically helps 10-20 homes with federal funds and assisting 1 home eliminates a lot of the admin work. HE asks LEAP how partially funding their HOME application would affect their program. Chris Meyer from LEAP states that a partial funding would reduce the number of homes that would get addressed. The Taskforce moves to vote fully funding Habitat for Humanity ($24,000). HE asks EA whether this will work with the unspent funds. EA states that if the Taskforce moves to recommend fully funding an application, an explanation will be given to HUD. The main concern is addressing the unspent funds with HUD and avoiding having subrecipients having to pay back HUD. Page 43 of 115 TD asks whether COVID-19 has affected projects. EA states yes. Emily Cone Miller (ECM) asks whether HOME funds could get moved to another funding category. EA states that HOME funds need to remain in HOME (No). MG makes a funding recommendation to fully fund Habitat ($24,000) again. MG points out that the AHIP total rehab costs was over $200,000 and that funding the proposal regardless of the amount would only assist partially. ECM proposes funding LEAP the remaining 1/3 of the funds, and AHIP with the remaining 2/3 funds. HE asks if AHIP received partial funding, would this affect the project? Cory Demchak from AHIP states that receiving partial funding could affect this project specifically, but AHIP could switch to providing homeowner rehabs within the Ridge Street Neighborhood if that was the case. Helen Kimble (HK) makes a funding recommendation to fund AHIP at 2/3 of the remaining HOME funds and fund LEAP with 1/3 of the remaining funds. HE adds that the taskforce move to take the overage from the public services and housing category and place it into the LEAP application as they are not receiving full funding in the HOME category. Taskforce approves: AHIP ($37,352), LEAP (19,242) for HOME. Taskforce begins to review CDBG-CV3 MG states that based on the scoring the fund should be divided between CRHA and Habitat. Pearl Transit’s application scored significantly lower than the other two. Members of the Taskforce state that the lack of clarity within the application poses concern. MG asks if CRHA would be able to accomplish their activity on partial funding. Kathleen Glen Matthews from CRHA states that the organization can scale back the scope of work offered within the application and pursue other sources of funding. MG states that the rental assistance portion of the CRHA application was the most appealing given the current health crisis. Page 44 of 115 John Sales from CRHA speaks with the Taskforce about the eviction diversion program. JB asks John about the role of the Housing Stabilization Coordinator. John states that this role would work directly with families to work on repayment agreements and affordability. JB states that homeowner eviction education during this time is a priority. The Taskforce discusses on the CRHA application and the Habitat for Humanity covid application. EA reminds the Taskforce that splitting up funds between organizations means less of the scope of work for both organizations would get accomplished, regarding CRHA and Habitat’s application. HE proposes splitting the funds between the two organizations (CRHA and Habitat). The funding recommendation is made that Habitat and CRHA both receive $67,004.80. ME mentions that he does not mind splitting the funds between the organizations and suggests that CRHA prioritize emergency rental relief. Taskforce members discuss whether the funding recommendation should change. TD proposes of funding CRHA with 2/3 of the public services covid funding, and the remaining 1/3 of the funding would be recommended to Habitat. TD explains that Habitat received funds in the HOME category. TD also proposes to move the overage of econ funds to CRHA CDBG-CV3 application as there are no outstanding grant funds unspent with this applicant. HE agrees. Taskforce discusses on whether to split the public services funding evenly between CRHA and Habitat, or to divide it into thirds. EA reminds the Taskforce that HUD needs justification from the Taskforce as to why the committee is recommending awarding an organization with outstanding grant funds. Taskforce members move to fund CRHA with $91,485.94 and fund Habitat $45,563.26. CRHA was recommended to receive the funding overage. Meeting Adjourned. Page 45 of 115 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: March 1, 2021 Action Required: Approve appropriation Presenter: Sue Moffett, Assistant Director of Social Services Staff Contacts: Jenny Jones, Chief of Family Services Laura Morris, Chief of Administration Title: Additional State Funding for Adoption Assistance - $600,000 Background: The Charlottesville Department of Social Services (CDSS) has received $600,000 in additional funding from the Virginia Department of Social Services to provide assistance to adoptive families. Discussion: The purpose of adoption assistance is to facilitate adoptive placements and ensure permanency for children. Maintenance payments provide support and services for the child and to strengthen the adoptive family. The department has seen a steady increase in adoptive placements. In Fiscal year 2019, the department served 149 adoptive children and finalized 37 adoptions. In FY2020, the department served 176 children and finalized 32 adoptions. 167 adoptive children have received assistance in FY21 through February 12th. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns with the City’s mission to provide services that promote equity and an excellent quality of life in our community. It is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City, Objective 2.2, Meet the safety needs of victims and reduce the risk of re-occurrence/re-victimization. Community Engagement: Adoption staff work directly with families and providers to provide needed services and serve as resources to other department staff and community partners. Page 46 of 115 Budgetary Impact: No additional City funds are required or being requested for this program in FY 2021. The additional funding for this program is entirely State dollars and does not require a local match. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of these funds. Alternatives: If the appropriation is not approved, CDSS will require general funds to cover the May and June maintenance payments to adoptive families. These payments are negotiated as part of the adoption agreement and are legally binding. Attachments: Appropriation Page 47 of 115 APPROPRATION Additional Funding for Adoption Assistance $600,000 WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Department of Social Services has received $600,000 from the Virginia Department of Social Services to provide assistance to adoptive families. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $600,000 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue-$600,000 Fund 212 Cost Center: 9900000000 G/L Account: 430080 $600,000 Expenditures-$600,000 Fund 212 Cost Center: 3311007000 G/L Account: 540060 $600,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $600,000 from the Virginia Department of Social Services. Page 48 of 115 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: March 1, 2021 Action Required: Appropriation of Grant Funds Presenter: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Staff Contacts: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Title: Virginia Transit Association (V.T.A.) Free Transit Fare for Working Families Grant – $180,750 Background: In August 2020, the City of Charlottesville, through the Office of Economic Development (O.E.D.), received an award from the Virginia Transit Association (V.T.A.) in the amount of $180,750 for the Free Transit Fare for Working Families Grant Program. The funding will be used to provide transportation for employment purposes to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (T.A.N.F.) eligible persons and/or individuals with a dependent child whose income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty level from July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. Transportation will be provided in the form of bus rides through Charlottesville Area Transit (C.A.T.) and/or on-demand transportation provided by Jaunt, Inc. (Please note that C.A.T. is currently not charging for bus passes, so it is anticipated that most of the funding will go towards on- demand transportation.) Transportation for employment purposes include, but are not limited to: interviews, job search, employment, training, and childcare for dependent children. The entire Charlottesville region is covered by the grant, including: the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson counties. The Downtown Job Center, which will administer the program, will document and verify T.A.N.F. and income eligibility with the assistance of C.D.S.S. Quarterly status reports will be submitted to V.T.A. and Virginia’s Department of Social Services, and full and accurate project records will be maintained for the duration of the grant program. This grant will be executed in partnership with the Charlottesville Department of Social Services (C.D.S.S.), Network2Work @ Piedmont Virginia Community College, and Jaunt, Inc. There have also been letters of support from multiple employer partners outside of existing City bus lines, including the Walmart Distribution Center, Crutchfield Corporation, and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello and the Distribution Center at Ivy). The V.T.A. grant does not require a local match. All funding is designated for direct transportation services for clients. Discussion: In July 2013, the City’s Strategic Action Team on Workforce Development (SAT) issued a report to City Council entitled, Growing Opportunity: A Path to Self-Sufficiency. The report, which was Page 49 of 115 subsequently endorsed by Council, examines the barriers to employment for low-income City residents and makes recommendations on how to address these barriers. One of these barriers includes transportation and the impact it has on residents being able to get to and from work and mid-skilled jobs that pay a self-sufficient wage. The O.E.D. has attempted to mitigate the increasing inaccessibility to appropriate employment opportunities by developing and executing programs through partnerships with other public and private sector agencies. One such initiative is the GO Ride program wherein individuals in an active job search or starting at a new job are eligible for short term free bussing through C.A.T. Bus passes are available for City residents who can provide proof of residence and actively work with Downtown Job Center staff to meet their employment needs. The program is for those who rely on public transportation to commute and cannot afford to purchase passes or have had circumstances that make commuting to work difficult. Those who are in an active job search and work with staff to submit applications, prepare resumes and other employment-centric tasks are eligible for a 7-day pass, with the idea that it will help with getting people to and from appointments, interviews, and in dropping off completed applications. Anyone who has recently found employment is eligible for one 30-day pass, with the idea being acute transportation needs can be addressed during that period as the person starts earning income. In support of a new on-demand transportation service and an expansion of OED's existing GO Ride program, the V.T.A. grant funding will allow City residents without reliable transportation the opportunity to obtain employment with employers located beyond the City bus lines in outlying counties. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This effort supports City Council’s “Economic Sustainability” vision and aligns directly with the SAT’s Growing Opportunity report that was approved by City Council in 2013. It also contributes to the following goals and objectives in the City’s Strategic Plan: Goal 4: A Strong, Creative and Diversified Economy • Objective 4.1: Develop a quality workforce Goal 1: An Inclusive Community of Self-sufficient Residents • Objective 1.2: Prepare residents for the workforce It aligns with Chapter 3 on Economic Sustainability in the Comprehensive Plan, and more specifically Goal 6, which focuses on workforce development and being an effective partner in creating a well‐prepared and successful workforce. Community Engagement: Like practically all of the City’s workforce development efforts, the GO Ride on-demand transportation program is supported by numerous community agencies and organizations. This includes: the City of Charlottesville Department of Social Services (C.D.S.S.), Network2Work @ Piedmont Virginia Community College, and Jaunt, Inc. There have also been letters of support from multiple employer partners outside of existing City bus lines, including the Walmart Distribution Center, Crutchfield Corporation, and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello and the Distribution Center at Ivy). Page 50 of 115 Budgetary Impact: There is no budget impact for the City of Charlottesville as no local match is required. This grant will be entirely State, and Federal pass-through funds. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If grant funds are not appropriated, City residents without access to reliable transportation will not have access to potential job opportunities beyond City bus lines. Attachments: • V.T.A. Free Fare Grant Proposal • V.T.A. Free Fare Grant Agreement – Fully Executed Page 51 of 115 APPROPRIATION Virginia Transit Association (V.T.A) Free Transit Fare for Working Families Grant $180,750 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received grant funds from the Virginia Transit Association in the amount of $180,750; and WHEREAS, the funds will be administered by the Office of Economic Development through the Downtown Job Center and used to support transportation for program participants for employment purposes; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $180,750 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $180,750 $180,750 Fund: 210 IO: 1900392 G/L: 430120 State/Fed pass thru Expenditures - $180,750 $180,750 Fund: 210 IO: 1900392 G/L: 599999 Lump Sum BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $180,750 from the Virginia Transit Association. Page 52 of 115 Free Transit Fare for Working Families Program Grant Application Form Application Instructions Applications for the Free Transit Fare for Working Families (Free Transit Fare) grant program will be accepted from June 22 to July 10, 2020. To apply, please complete the following application form in its entirety and enclose the following supplemental supporting documents: a) Cover letter on organizational letterhead certifying the proposed project and outcome reporting can commence in September 2020. b) Letter of support from the identified transit service provider(s) acknowledging the proposed project and certifying that ridership data can be provided as described. c) Project budget form completed utilizing the template provided. The application narrative is limited to the space provided in Section C. Application Form A. Sub-Recipient Information Sub-Recipient Name: City of Charlottesville Office of Economic Development Entity Type: Municipality ✔ Other If “other”, please describe: Nonprofit Transit Provider Point of Contact: Name: Hollie Lee Title: Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Phone: 434-970-3117 E-mail: leeh@charlottesville.gov Address: 610 E. Market St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Page 1 of 8 Page 53 of 115 TANF Free Transit Fare Program B. Project Information Project Title: GO Ride Expansion and Regional On-Demand Transit Coalition Total Project Cost: Transit Passes: $ 30,000 (based on completed On Demand Bus Trips: $ 150,750 project budget form) Public Vanpools: $0 Ridership Tracking (if applicable): $0 Miscellaneous Program Expenses: $0 Administrative Expenses $0 Total Project Cost: $ 180,750 (This is your grant request) Number of TANF Persons to be Served Monthly from September 2020-June 2021: 97 Number of TANF Persons to be Served from September 2020-June 2021: (unduplicated) 149 Description of Primary Charlottesville City, Albemarle County, Fluvanna County, Louisa County Service Area: (counties/cities of TANF eligible persons) Transit Agency(ies): Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) and JAUNT, Inc. Proposed Transit Service to be Provided: Fixed Route Bus: ✔ (check all that apply) On Demand Bus: ✔ Public Vanpool: Other: Anticipated Primary From the urban ring of the City of Charlottesville to employer partner locations in Albemarle, Fluvanna and Louisa Counties and returning to the Destinations: Charlottesville urban ring. Page 2 of 8 Page 54 of 115 TANF Free Transit Fare Program C. Project Narrative 1. Project Description Please provide an overview of the proposed project and the transit services to be funded with Free Transit Fare program funds. Please detail the project overview, purpose and need, and project approach. The City of Charlottesville Office of Economic Development (OED) plans to utilize grant funds in two phases. The first is to expand the existing GO Ride program to further benefit job seekers and those recently employed. While the current program allows for one 30-day pass per client, transportation needs are often more complicated and farther-reaching. Participants will now be eligible for up to three, 30-days passes while currently employed and working with the OED's Downtown Job Center (DJC) or Home to Hope staff to address those more persistent barriers. Extrapolating from current usage of bus passes, the City has invested $8,382 since the beginning of FY2019. An expansion of this program through OED and Network2Work @ PVCC would result in program expenditures of $30,000 over the ten-month grant period from September 2020 through June 2021. The second initiative undertaken with grant funding will be a new offering of on-demand transportation service through City partner JAUNT, Inc. This service will be made available to workers and employer partners to facilitate rides to and from employment locations beyond the existing limits of City transit. This will positively impact the ability of job seekers to find appropriate employment based on their skill level and drive more applicants to fill open positions with employers who struggle with recruitment and retention. At this time, JAUNT provides paratransit service to City residents with disabilities who are unable to use the local fixed route system through a sub-recipient arrangement with CAT and the City of Charlottesville. Due to this arrangement, JAUNT can only provide ADA services within the City of Charlottesville and not on-demand services. City residents who are not disabled are not currently eligible for on-demand services. These individuals must rely on CAT’s fixed routes (limited geographic locations and route frequencies) and private transportation (e.g., taxi cabs, Uber, Lyft, etc.), which is often too costly for low-income City residents. With this grant funding however, JAUNT will be able to offer on-demand service to anyone (including non-disabled City residents) who need it, thus opening up the opportunity for more direct route transportation to employment. In support of a new on-demand transportation service and an expansion of OED's existing GO Ride program, grant funding will also be utilized to support TANF and TANF-eligible families in transporting dependents to and from childcare. Access to affordable childcare is a significant barrier for working families. According to the 2017 Childcare Aware of America Report, more than 60% of children under age 6 have two parents in the workforce. Working parents need safe and affordable child care options to earn a steady income and increase future earning potential. Childcare deficiencies lead to absenteeism and decreased productivity in the workplace, costing companies and ultimately the consumer money. In the Charlottesville region today, over 12,000 families (19%), do not earn enough income to meet their basic needs, including costs associated with working like childcare and transportation. These families are disproportionately minority, with 39% of black families making less than $35,000, compared to just 16% of white families. There is a substantial disconnect in Charlottesville between low-income residents receiving or eligible to receive TANF and accessibility to employment opportunities. The economy of the City itself revolves around the service industry (restaurants, retail and hospitality) and the City’s anchor institutions – the University of Virginia and the University of Virginia Health System. This has led to a dearth of manufacturing and production jobs in areas serviced by local transit. In their treatise on causes of inner-city poverty, Teitz and Chapple identify “structural economic shifts that have eroded the competitive position of the central cities in the industrial sectors that historically provided employment Page 3 of for the 8 working poor, especially minorities.” (1998) This hypothesis reaches the conclusion that modern urban communities emphasize a more educated labor force over blue-collar and entry level workers, a phenomenon borne out in Charlottesville. The end result is a concentrated workforce with less access to consistently reliable forms of transportation in a community where the most appropriate career Page 55 of 115 opportunities lie beyond the reach of this workforce. TANF Free Transit Fare Program 2. Accessibility and Mobility Benefits Please discuss the existing mobility challenges that the TANF eligible persons to be served by this project have and discuss how the proposed project will improve access to employment and/or job training. For the purpose of this proposal, the OED conducted a survey of stakeholders to gauge attitudes regarding the capacity of fixed route public transportation in Charlottesville to access employment and assess interest in alternatives such as on-demand service. A total of 80 surveys were returned with the following statistics: • 54% indicate Charlottesville Area Transit meets their current transportation needs • 66% say the frequency of buses is either inconvenient or somewhat inconvenient • 30% specify that CAT does not go to their place of employment or if buses do reach their employer, it is not often enough to be convenient • 33% say they don't apply for jobs outside of transit range • 34% have turned down jobs outside transit borders • 88% would be interested in on-demand services Polling of Charlottesville and Albemarle County residents in regard to attitudes toward existing transportation options revealed that 42% of job seekers do not look for work outside of existing transit service and one in three have turned down jobs because it was not on the bus line. Given these percentages, and the percentage of job seekers served at the Downtown Job Center and Network2Work who have expressed similar barriers, it is estimated that roughly half of all job seekers serviced would benefit from having the option to seek work beyond current transit limits. Frequent employer partners often face critical staff shortages stemming in part from inaccessibility of available workforce. Examples of such employers include: Walmart Distribution Center, AG Dillard, Crutchfield Corporation, Farmington Country Club, Boar's Head Resort, and Monticello. Attached to this application are letters of support from multiple employer partners, as well as the Directors of Charlottesville Area Transit and JAUNT, Inc. and Louisa County's Economic Development Director. In fact, Louisa County has approached the City over the past five years for assistance with solving recruitment issues experienced by its largest area employer, Walmart Distribution Center, that are caused by a lack of transportation to and from the area. With greater accessibility to employers beyond current transportation limits, the OED would seek to expand its GO programs in partnership with other regional employers, similar to GO Tech. New potential GO programs exist within the production sector with Tri-Dim Filter Corp, Klockner-Pentaplast, and Walmart Distribution Center (Louisa County), construction with A.G. Dillard (Fluvanna County), and within the service industry at Boar's Head Resort and Farmington Country Club (Albemarle County). Given funding, four new GO programs could be offered with between six and eight students in each class. Based on historical data, approximately 75% of those participants would benefit from on-demand transit service to these employer partners. In addition to targeted workforce training, more accessibility would allow for specific recruitment events for employer partners now within OED's scope of service. An example would be Monticello's gift shop distribution center. They have expressed a need for 10 or more employees to work through the 2020 holiday season. On-demand transit would allow OED to fill this need for Monticello and the need for workers to get back and forth to the job site. Barbara Hutchinson, vice president of community impact with Charlottesville’s United Way, estimates childcare for infants at $13,500 annually and $11,000 for toddlers and preschoolers. For TANF recipients, this represents a considerable challenge to self-sufficiency. Many families rely on relatives or friends to overcome this obstacle. Any pressure relieved by assisting in child transportation will greatly benefit this constituency. JAUNT estimates for on-demand service are $13 per day to employers in and around Charlottesville and $17.50 per day for outer areas such as Louisa and Fluvanna Counties. It is anticipated that approximately half of the recipients of this on-demand service will utilize Page 4 of 8childcare transportation. Page 56 of 115 TANF Free Transit Fare Program 3. TANF Eligibility Reporting Please describe the subrecipient’s existing programming for TANF eligible persons and the ability to identify, assist, and track TANF eligible persons for purposes of this grant. As an agency of the City of Charlottesville, the Office of Economic Development works closely with the Charlottesville Department of Social Services to provide workforce development/employment services to TANF participants and many other active clients who are TANF eligible. Attached to this application is a letter of support from CDSS for this initiative. Additionally, the OED is the subrecipient of three TANF employment grants from the Virginia Department of Social Services totaling approximately $260,000. Our partner in this grant submission, Network2Work @ Piedmont Virginia Community College, brings together three key networks: employers, social service organizations, and a creative system of job seeker recruitment. Its Job Seeker Network uses a political style ground game of over 250 well-connected individuals in low-income neighborhoods to recruit jobseekers, many of whom would not otherwise find family-sustaining employment. These connectors use a custom built, award-winning software on their smartphones to inject job and resource information directly into struggling neighborhoods. Network2Work then collaborates with the over 34 service providers in its Resource Network to make sure job seekers have the training and supports they need (e.g., childcare and transportation), to secure and excel in the jobs they seek. Network2Work will use its technology platform to recruit TANF-eligible job-seekers, and then will match those job-seekers to the bus passes and on-demand transit services they need in order to get to training and work. 4. 2014, In Outcome the OEDReporting began an innovative program to address directed training for the workforce needs of Charlottesville Estimate projectemployers. area outcomes as The Growing defined Opportunities in Section 3-C of (GO) programguidelines the program has established a pattern and describe the of success in a variety of economic and workforce development programs implemented since its subrecipient’s inception, proposedprogram with the flagship approach to track being GO and report Driver project (which trainsoutcomes. low-income City residents to become Required bus drivers for CAT). Over the past six years, the OED has conducted 29 GO training programs using Housing and and The number Urban Development amount of transit(HUD) federal income fare provided thresholds (e.g., number as a mainvalue); and monetary criteria for participation in the programs. To date, there have been 202 graduates from GO programs, with a  The number of persons served; and better than 90% employment placement rate upon successful completion of the program. Those enrolled in GO programs The typealso of service provided have access (e.g.,Ride to GO fixed route bus vs onduring passes demand). the training process and during theDesired initial phase of their employment post-graduation.  Ridership data to include boardings and qualitative information regarding Through the many successes of GO workforce development training, there have also been challenges. One of the more destinations; and ambitious programs was in partnership with Crutchfield to train individuals to work in their call center as Whether technicalindividuals are using the support specialists. provided This program transit service to travel was christened to employment GO Tech. The training aspect of GO Tech was a considerable success, but locations, job training programs, or both. issues arose when graduates began to be placed into employment. The Crutchfield Corporate office is located north of Charlottesville near the Regional If there Airport, is a strategic approximately 10partnership miles north with of theone or more farthest bustransit organizations, line. Of please describe. the five graduates, only one was able Subrecipients are encouraged to be specific with how outcome data and to consistently make it to work based on their transportation issues. One dedicated participantridership will be tracked. worked with the DJC to take the bus line to its terminus and then take a cab from that point to get to work. Unfortunately, this arrangement did not work out long term and the individual had to leave the job. This The drove Free the Transit point homeFarethat for Working Families Charlottesville Granttowill needed have staff seriously dedicated reimagine to tracking processes and reporting to help employees on all data to be related to the successfully execution placed of grant in positions programming. outside City limitsThis and will include employer to expand total numbers served for partnerships to both the GO place reliably Ride and on-demand job seekers whotransit initiatives. As can consistently these attend workprograms on time.are strictly employment based, we will be able to continue the OED's practice of capturing jobs obtained for the GO Ride program and account In Novemberfor total numbers 2019, the DJC of trips used via integrated on-demand an intensive peertransit. support program for individuals returning to Charlottesville after release from incarceration. The Home to Hope program provides intensive case The estimatesservices management for the required and assistsreporting parameters participants are as follows: in overcoming those barriers that are consistent with effective reentry. To this end, Home to Hope also utilizes the GO Ride bus pass system so that Each 30-day navigating bus pass services, through Charlottesville appointments and employmentArea Transit needs are hasmitigated a $22 value. The OED and as obstacles. All of the Network2Work participants in the anticipate Home to serving 93 total clients Hope program through this are low-income program (well below based 50% Areaoff ofMedian historical usage Income with (AMI).290 bus passes in total distributed. On-demand estimates include 30 monthly clients for Page 5 of 8 Network2Work's service to and from Louisa County, with 10 children transported to childcare. The OED's estimates are 6 job seekers and 2 children monthly to and from Louisa County. Further, the OED will serve clients to Fluvanna and outer Albemarle Counties at estimates of 6 adults and 2 children for the Fluvanna market and 15 adults and 6 children for Albemarle, respectively. In total, our Page 57 of 115 partnership expects to serve 97 TANF or TANF eligible clients per month for the duration of the grant, TANF Free Transit Fare Program Page 6 of 8 Page 58 of 115 TANF Free Transit Fare Program 5. Start-up Capacity Given the compressed performance period for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 program, describe how quickly the project can begin after the anticipated September 15, 2020 notice to proceed. The blueprint for initiatives to offer on-demand transportation service and expand existing support service for those inside transit limits has existed for years. This grant opportunity allows for OED and its partner network to fully realize and execute this blueprint for the benefit of the entire economic community in Central Virginia. Given funding, these two programs will be deliverable in full by the date of the notice to proceed with full backing from community infrastructure, governmental and employer partners. Processes are already in place to offer the services. The bus pass program is an expansion of the GO Ride program, so it’s a matter of purchasing more bus passes than usual. Jaunt is already offering on-demand service for City residents with disabilities and individuals in other counties. They already have the vehicles, equipment, scheduling software, and staff in place. For this project, the City of Charlottesville will just be expanding the services to provide on-demand transportation to all City residents beyond the bus line and expanding beyond Jaunt’s typical boundaries (mainly to Louisa County). 6. Project Cost Please describe the grant request and the estimated project costs as outline in the budget form once completed. The OED is seeking $30,000 to expand its existing GO Ride bus pass program in conjunction with partner Network2Work. 30-day bus passes cost $22 each from CAT. Since the beginning of FY2019 the Downtown Job Center has averaged serving 18 job seekers per month with 30-day bus passes. Maintaining that number for the grant period would mean 180 TANF or TANF-eligible job seekers served. Expanding from one 30-day pass to three for each client would result in an expenditure of $11,880. A similar expansion of Network2Work's bus pass program results in expenses of $8,000. We would use further funding toward marketing the program. The OED is seeking $150,750 to initiate an on-demand transit service with partner JAUNT, Inc. This number is derived from the proposed number of TANF and TANF-eligible clients served multiplied by $17.50 fare per hour to Louisa and Fluvanna Counties and $13.00 per hour for Albemarle County. Trips to daycare for children are factored at a slightly lower rate on average due to facilities being closer to in-town. In addition to job seekers, childcare transportation costs are added to the estimate, bringing the final totals to: Network2Work On-Demand service to Louisa County: $58,800 OED On-Demand service to Louisa County: $32,000 OED On-Demand service to Fluvanna County: $32,000 OED On-Demand service to Outer Albemarle County: $27,950 _______________________________________________ Total: $150,750 Page 7 of 8 Page 59 of 115 TANF Free Transit Fare Program Submission Completed applications must be submitted by email to VTA by 4:00 PM on Friday, July 10, 2020. This application form, along with the required supplemental documents, should be emailed to: Lisa Guthrie, Executive Director Virginia Transit Association Email: TANFgrant@vatransit.com Page 8 of 8 Page 60 of 115 Page 61 of 115 Page 62 of 115 Page 63 of 115 Page 64 of 115 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: March 1, 2021 Action Required: Council Endorsement of the Affordable Housing Plan Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Director, Neighborhood Development Services Phillip Kash, Partner, HR&A Advisors Sarah Kirk, Director, HR&A Advisors Jennifer Koch, Associate Principal, Rhodeside-Harwell Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, Director, Neighborhood Development Services Missy Creasy, Assistant Director, Neighborhood Development Services Title: Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan – Endorsement Request Background: In October 2019, the City of Charlottesville contracted the services of Rhodeside and Harwell, Incorporated, to undertake the update of the Comprehensive Plan (including a Housing Strategy) and Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. This process – called Cville Plans Together – is being tracked on a project website, https://cvilleplanstogether.com/. There are three related outcomes for this process: • An updated Comprehensive Plan, which will build on the 2017-2018 Planning Commission process to include updated information based on community input. • An Affordable Housing Plan, as part of the Comprehensive Plan, to create a unified strategy for housing Charlottesville’s residents. • A zoning ordinance that reflects the updated community land use vision and addresses other needed updates (state requirements, consistency, etc.). The Affordable Housing Plan contains immediate, short-term, and longer-term recommendations to advance affordable housing. The Plan is ultimately a living document to be used by City staff, housing policy advisors, and elected leadership to guide affordable housing policies and investments over the coming years. In the near term, in winter and spring 2021, the recommendations in this plan will be incorporated in revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and inform the City’s zoning code rewrite. The item is on the agenda today in order to seek Council’s endorsement of the Affordable Housing Plan as a checkpoint prior to fully incorporating the strategies within this Plan into the Comprehensive Plan and other City planning efforts. Page 65 of 115 Discussion: Process to Develop the Plan • The development of the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan was a year-long effort conducted in four phases: review of existing conditions, existing programs, and previously- completed plans; discussion of community goals and priorities; development of strategies and tools; and the completion of a final plan. • In the development of strategies and tools, various best practices and comparisons to other jurisdictions were considered. Several references to these items can be found throughout the final Affordable Housing Plan. Community and Stakeholder Engagement (Note: more details regarding community engagement are provided in the Community Engagement section of this Memorandum.) • A Steering Committee of local stakeholders representing City-related entities, regional organizations, and community members is providing input throughout the Cville Plans Together planning effort. • The Cville Plans Together team met periodically with Council, the Planning Commission, the Housing Advisory Committee, and city staff, as well as various community organizations including the Charlottesville Low-Income Housing Coalition, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Affordable Housing Coalition, Habitat for Humanity, and the Legal Aid Justice Center. • Two community-wide public engagement periods provided larger community insight into the planning process. Summaries of activities and input received for both engagement periods are available at https://cvilleplanstogether.com/document-media-center/. o From mid-May through June 2020, Cville Plans Together encouraged the community to actively participate in updating the future vision for the city. The process focused on sharing information about the project, making connections and developing partnerships with community individuals and organizations, and gathering input about priorities for the future. Community input opportunities included a community survey available in Spanish and English, a series of webinars to provide a project overview and answer questions, small group discussions that were held via Zoom and telephone, and a toll-free phoneline. o From November 3 through December 2, 2020, Cville Plans Together sought community feedback on the draft Affordable Housing Plan as well as draft initial revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Community input opportunities included four interactive webinars, an online survey in both English and Spanish, drop-in “office hours,” a toll-free phone line, and the opportunity to submit written comments via email and the project website. • There will be several future public engagement periods related to Cville Plans Together. These will be focused on gathering input related to the larger Comprehensive Plan update and the subsequent zoning rewrite, both of which will include incorporation of relevant Affordable Housing Plan recommendations. There will not be additional community engagement focused on gathering input related to the Affordable Housing Plan document itself. Page 66 of 115 Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The Affordable Housing Plan supports the City Council Vision to provide “Quality Housing Opportunities for All.” It also contributes to Goal 1 (“An inclusive community of self- sufficient residents”), Objective 1.3, of the Strategic Plan, to increase affordable housing options. The Affordable Housing Plan contains specific Action Steps and Timeframes for implementation. These will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant City planning efforts, which can include specific measurable outcomes. For example, in the Comprehensive Plan, the Implementation Chapter is intended to include measurable outcomes for all chapters of the plan. Community Engagement: • A Steering Committee of local stakeholders representing City, regional organizations, and community members is providing input throughout the Cville Plans Together planning effort. The consulting team held a series of conversations with the Steering Committee to develop the Affordable Housing Plan. The Steering Committee provided feedback in the form of surveys, discussions during meetings, and interviews. This feedback informed the guiding principles, preliminary goals, and recommendations of the Affordable Housing Plan. • The Cville Plans Together team has also met periodically with Council, the Planning Commission, the Housing Advisory Committee, and city staff, as well as various community organizations including the Charlottesville Low-Income Housing Coalition, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Affordable Housing Coalition, Habitat for Humanity, and the Legal Aid Justice Center. • Two community-wide public engagement periods provided larger community insight into the planning process. These opportunities were shared in a variety of ways, including email notices, press releases, flyering, utility mailings, social media, and more. Summaries of activities and input received for both engagement periods are available at https://cvilleplanstogether.com/document-media-center/. o From mid-May through June 2020, Cville Plans Together encouraged the community to actively participate in updating the future vision for the city. The process focused on sharing information about the project, making connections and developing partnerships with community individuals and organizations, and gathering input about priorities for the future. Community input opportunities included a community survey available in Spanish and English, a series of webinars to provide a project overview and answer questions, small group discussions that were held via Zoom and telephone, and a toll-free phoneline. The survey asked respondents to identify key issues related to housing affordability in Charlottesville, as well as their ideal outcomes for the Plan. Overall, survey respondents strongly supported centering racial equity and rental affordability in the Affordable Housing Plan. Though Homeownership received less support, it is important to note that renters who responded to the survey strongly supported homeownership as an area of critical concern. The prioritization of housing issues differed drastically by race. These differences are explored further in the Affordable Housing Plan. o From November 3 through December 2, 2020, Cville Plans Together sought community feedback on the draft Affordable Housing Plan as well as draft initial revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Community input opportunities included four interactive webinars, an online survey in both English and Spanish, drop-in “office hours,” a toll-free phone line, and the opportunity to submit written comments via email and the project website. There were many types of issues considered by the Page 67 of 115 community in the review. Comment themes included: general support for the direction of the Affordable Housing Plan, a desire to see more emphasis on homeownership, questions and comments about funding, and concerns about the potential impacts of land use recommendations. Budgetary Impact: Summary A central recommendation of the Affordable Housing Plan is that the City of Charlottesville should provide funding for housing that is transparently and competitively allocated; consistent and predictable; shaped by clear priorities and bold commitments; and regularly monitored and reported. To this end, the plan recommends that the City dedicate $10 Million per year to invest in housing affordability over the next ten years. With $10 Million in average annual spending over ten years, Charlottesville could grow its existing stock of subsidized homes by nearly 70 percent, preserve nearly 40 percent of existing subsidized housing at risk of becoming unaffordable or obsolete, and provide direct assistance annually to up to 2,000 households facing housing instability. The recommendation suggests the following breakdown for the $10 Million annual commitment: • Direct Subsidy: $7 Million • Tax Relief: $2 Million • Administrative Costs and Capacity Building: $1 Million Much of the first five years of direct subsidy has already been allocated through the City’s budget processes. Funding Details • This proposed figure of $10M represents total—not additional—spending, and it represents local spending, not including additional funding provided through state or federal sources. While the City Council cannot commit funds on behalf of a future City Council, Charlottesville is being asked to make a policy commitment to affordable housing and develop a funding approach, such that community partners can plan around an approach that future City Councils will reliably adopt. In addition, all programs should continue to seek to leverage as much private financing and additional public funding as possible, relative to Charlottesville’s contributions. • Charlottesville currently funds its housing programs through general fund and capital fund contributions. Charlottesville already uses these and other revenue sources to fund a variety of programs. To sustain a $10M annual commitment over time, the City will need to evaluate potential new revenue sources as well as its other policy and funding priorities to balance available resources with the City’s goals. This evaluation of opportunity and need should consider the near-term fiscal impacts of COVID-19, which has impacted some City revenues and intensified funding needs across a spectrum of priorities. • The Plan also recommends that the City and regional stakeholders should consider the potential for a regional affordable housing funding agreement to jointly provide funding from Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and potentially other jurisdictions to support Page 68 of 115 affordable housing development and programming, particularly within the Urban Ring. A regional funding agreement would allow for greater efficiency in housing production, as it would facilitate the streamlining of programs that serve the region, create flexibility to pursue the most cost-effective projects within the region, and reduce administrative overhead. Allocation Details • The Plan recommends that the majority of the $10M should be allocated to direct subsidy. These expenditures include both “capital” subsidies used to build and preserve affordable homes, such as financing for public housing redevelopment and single-family infill development, and “operating” subsidies provided on an ongoing basis, such as emergency rental assistance and property tax relief. This funding includes the City’s current commitments to affordable housing programs including CSRAP and planned new subsidized housing developments. As appropriate, the allocation of these funds should be made through the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) with input from the CAHF committee, for which the Plan also provides recommendations related to structural changes. • The Plan also recommends that as part of the $10M annual commitment, the City should set aside $1M in funding each year for administrative costs and capacity building. These funds would pay for the personnel required for a variety of tasks: to run a competitive process to award funds; monitor and evaluate impact; enforce compliance; design and develop new housing policies; provide technical assistance for funding recipients to improve their expertise and effectiveness; and provide training for new board members of the Housing Advisory Committee, especially those who are community representatives and might not work on housing professionally. Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council endorsement of the Affordable Housing Plan and the recommendations within. Alternatives: Council may decide not to endorse the Affordable Housing Plan or may decide to endorse with changes or additions, both of which may impact the schedule for moving forward to the next steps of completing the Comprehensive Plan update and Zoning Re-write. Attachments: The Affordable Housing Plan can be found in this folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_QjRUUtlJ0Qcb9JW-S-KLH4BoJ_wLZ-b Page 69 of 115 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN FOR THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville engaged the planning firm Rhodeside and Harwell to assist the City as necessary with an update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and to revise the City’s zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, Rhodeside and Harwell, at the City’s request, have studied existing housing conditions in Charlottesville, have reviewed studies and information previously assembled by City staff, conducted community engagement through a steering committee of local stakeholders, and met with the Planning Commission and City Council, all to prepare a robust strategy to promote the development of affordable housing within the City; and WHEREAS, this City Council is asked to endorse the Affordable Housing Plan strategy presented to Council at its March 1, 2021 regular meeting, so that the strategies and recommendations set forth within the plan can be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Update; now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlottesville City Council hereby endorses the Affordable Housing Plan presented at Council’s March 1, 2021 regular meeting. Page 70 of 115 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: March 1, 2021 Action Required: Resolution Presenter: Matt Alfele, NDS City Planner/ Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Consultant Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director, Missy Creasy, NDS Assistant Director, and Matt Alfele, NDS City Planner Title: Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Background: The City’s 2013 Comprehensive plan calls for identifying specific areas of the city where planning and design issues or investment opportunities may warrant additional study through the development of small area plans. The small area planning process is intended to examine these areas anew and holistically, with the full engagement of the public, elected and appointed officials and planning professionals. The resulting small area plan will provide the basis for future planning, urban design, investment decisions, and possible changes to zoning and the future land use plan. The small area plan will be appended to the Comprehensive Plan and reviewed for possible changes every five years. The Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan is a policy document for the City of Charlottesville, intended to guide the actions of local decision-makers and City staff. The plan should serve as a to-do list, helping to determine changes to local land use codes, capital investments, development of recurring programs, and adoption of one-time initiatives. The Small Area Plan is also intended to serve as a guide for neighborhood residents, businesses and Fifeville stakeholders. Many of the plan recommendations are neighborhood-driven efforts that will require new partnerships with nonprofits and other community groups. In 2015, the Fifeville Neighborhood Association assembled a committee to conduct a visioning exercise for the Cherry Avenue corridor. In 2016, Fifeville’s community-driven effort convinced the City’s Planning Commission to invest in a small area planning process for the corridor. In the spring of 2017, Charlottesville’s Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) Department started talks with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), defining them as the outside agency to develop the plan and manage public engagement with the official kick off to the planning process beginning in the fall of 2017. The purpose of this plan is to determine what should be done in the future, in order to achieve the stated vision. As it is important to be thoughtful in determining those actions, the Cherry Avenue planning process was inclusive and intentional. The Fifeville Neighborhood Association assembled a Think Tank of residents that helped to engage the community and provide general Page 71 of 115 input. With the help of those neighbors, the TJPDC held two open house events; convened various focus groups; conducted front porch discussions with Fifeville residents; attended community events with informational displays; and, presented the final product at an open community event. In addition, there were several interviews and discussions with neighborhood residents, stakeholders and businesses. TJPDC staff collected hundreds of community comments and cataloged each into a searchable database. Many of those comments were consistent with previous planning efforts, dating back to the 1980s. Staff created a narrative of those comments, developing an index of statements and recommendations, found in Chapter 2. Throughout the planning process, staff collected and analyzed data, which resulted in additional recommendations. That research is described in Chapters 3 through 7. Staff also looked to other communities that face similar challenges, to develop a list of best practices, also added to the list of plan recommendations. Through technical and public vetting, the plan finally came into focus with a list of clear actions that will help to bring positive change to the Cherry Avenue corridor and Fifeville Neighborhood. Adoption of this plan does not mark the completion of the Cherry Avenue process. The community-driven effort, which resulted in the Visioning Report, essentially served as Phase I, with initial outreach and identification of community issues. The Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan functions as a Phase II, with additional outreach, data analysis and recommendations for next steps. Implementation, which will include additional studies and outreach, and progression to funding of capital improvements and programming will be the third phase for achieving the community’s vision. Discussion: The Planning Commission held a virtual joint Public Hearing with City Council on January 12, 2021 on this matter. During the discussion, the Planning Commission gave a favorable impression of the Small Area Plan, but did have concerns with the following: 1. The document should reflect the need to address affordable housing and prevent displacement. 2. A refinement of the existing conditions analyses to better reflect the existing housing type. 3. A data appendix added to the document. 4. Additional data and data analyses related to renovations and teardowns in the study areas between 2010 and 2020. *Due to staffing changes at the City and the PDC, staff believes this additional analyses can be addressed more robustly after the document is incorporated into the City Comprehensive Plan with additional guidance from City Council and the Neighborhood. After the Public Hearing the consultant incorporated the Planning Commission’s changes as outlined above, with the exception of #4, and they are reflected in the document before you tonight. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this item aligns with the City Council Vision Statements of: A great Place to Live for All of Our Citizens, A Connected Community, A Green City, and Quality Housing Opportunities for All. The Plan also supports several goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan: Goal 3: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, Goal 4.2: Attract and cultivate a variety of businesses; and Goal 4.3: Grow and retain viable businesses. Community Engagement: In addition to the expansive community engagement the consultant and City did during the planning process (see the Public Input and other Comments Received section of the Public hearing Staff Report), Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on January 12, 2021. Seven Page 72 of 115 members of the community spoke in support of the document and incorporating it into the City Comprehensive Plan. Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. Recommendation: The Planning Commission took the following action: Mr. Solla-Yates moved to approve the attached resolution with amendments to amend the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan to include the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan, dated December 2020. 1. Page 67 should be updated to reflect the need to address affordable housing and prevent displacement in rezoning, 2. Correct data analyses of existing conditions on page 60, as well as textual references on page 34, 41, 60. Bring any references up to date as best as possible. 3. Add in data information for renovations and teardown generally between 2010 and 2020. Mr. Lahendro seconded the motion Mr. Lahendro, Yes Mr. Solla-Yates, Yes Ms. Dowell, Yes Mr. Mitchell, Yes Mr. Stolzenberg, Yes Ms. Russell, Yes Mr. Heaton, Yes The motion passed 7 – 0 to recommend to amend the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan to include the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan dated December 2020 with amendments. Alternatives: The City Council has the following alternative actions: 1. by motion, vote to approve the attached resolution; 2. by motion, request changes to the attached resolution, and then approve it in accordance with the amended resolution; 3. by motion, defer action, or 4. by motion, deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments: 1. Proposed City Council Resolution 2. Certified Planning Commission Resolution 3. Link to Planning Commission/Council Public Hearing Documents: https://charlottesvilleva.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=413&key=-1&mod=- 1&mk=-1&nov=0 4. Direct Link to the Project Website: https://tjpdc.org/reports-archive/cherry-avenue-small- area-plan/ Page 73 of 115 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (2013) TO INCLUDE THE CHERRY AVENUE SMALL AREA PLAN WHEREAS, on January 12, 2021, after notice was given as required by law, the Charlottesville Planning Commission and Charlottesville City Council conducted a joint public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Charlottesville (“Comprehensive Plan”), to include the contents of the proposed Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval by the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and certifying a copy of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Council for its consideration; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlottesville City Council hereby approves and adopts the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan certified to this Council by the Charlottesville Planning Commission (February 2021) as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Page 74 of 115 Page 75 of 115 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: March 1, 2021 Action Required: Resolutions Presenter: City Council (Councilor Hill, liaison to Historic Resources Committee) Staff Contacts: Jeff Werner, Historic Preservation & Design Planner Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Title: Honorary Street Designations Policy and Consideration of Requests Background: On September 21, 2020, City Council passed a motion to request from the Historic Resources Committee (HRC) a review of and recommendations on the policy and process for the Honorary Street Designation program and input on the applications submitted for consideration. The mission of the HRC is to advocate for historic preservation; to promote an appreciation of local historic resources, both tangible and intangible; and to encourage and coordinate, with appropriate municipal agencies, civic organizations, institutions and individual scholars, the documentation and interpretation of local history. On February 16, 2021, City Council heard a follow-up presentation from the HRC. Discussion: See agenda memo from February 16, 2021 (attached). By motion Council approved the following honorary street designations on February 16, 2021: 1. 4th Street N.W. (between West Main Street and Preston Avenue) shall be given the honorary name “Black History Pathway”, and 2. 10th Street N.W. (between Preston Avenue and Henry Avenue) shall be given the honorary name “Byers-Snookie Way”. Council will consider additional honorary street designations and discuss policy. Attachments: Resolution February 16, 2021 agenda memo and supporting documents. Page 76 of 115 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE HONORARY STREET NAME DESIGNATIONS WHEREAS, City Council adopted a policy to establish procedures by which requests may be submitted and considered for approval of honorary street name designations; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Code Section 28-4 reserves to City Council the authority to modify the names of City streets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia THAT: 1. 10th Street N.W. (between West Street and Grady Avenue) shall be given the honorary name “Henry Martin Way”, and 2. 3rd Street N.E. (between East High Street and East Main Street) shall temporarily be given the honorary name “Gregory Swanson Way” until such time as the Commonwealth of Virginia can mark the location of this historically significant court case with a permanent state marker. Page 77 of 115 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: February 16, 2021 Action Required: Information only. No action is required. Presenter: Jeff Werner, Historic Preservation & Design Planner Rachel Lloyd, chair, Historic Resources Committee Staff Contacts: Jeff Werner, Historic Preservation & Design Planner Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Title: Historic Resources Committee review of Honorary Street Background: On September 21, 2020, City Council passed a motion to request from the Historic Resources Committee (HRC) a review of and recommendations on the policy and process for the Honorary Street Designation program and input on the applications submitted for consideration. The mission of the HRC is to advocate for historic preservation; to promote an appreciation of local historic resources, both tangible and intangible; and to encourage and coordinate, with appropriate municipal agencies, civic organizations, institutions and individual scholars, the documentation and interpretation of local history. Discussion: The HRC discussed this matter during its regular meetings on October 9, 2020, November 13, 2020, and December 11, 2020. The attached letter summarizes the committee’s comments and recommendations, as requested by Council. Additionally, subsequent to the HRC’s review, the City’s Department of Public Works (PW), who manages this program, has suggested modification to the size and placement of the honorary signs. In lieu of multiple signs attached to already crowded poles, install honorary signs separately and place one at each end of the designated street segment. This would allow signs to be appropriately sized and installed for the location and placed in a manner that, for navigation and 911 purposes, mitigated confusion related to street names. HRC review of Honorary Streets – memo to CC (February 4, 2021) 1 Page 78 of 115 For example, the image on the left is the City’s current practice. The image on the right is illustrative only of a single sign, installed separately from other signage. This is conceptual only and the HRC has not reviewed or commented on the suggestion; however, staff felt it would be helpful to include it here and incorporate it into Council’s discussion. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: From the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Historic Preservation & Urban Design. Education Programming. Goal 2.3: Continue to interpret historic resources to the community through markers, publications, events and other means. Strive to include the narratives and resources of under-represented groups and areas significant in our local history. Coordinate this interpretation of historic resources with City improvement projects and other city initiatives. From the City Council Vision Statement. Our community has world-class performing, visual, and literary arts reflective of the unique character, culture, and diversity of Charlottesville. Charlottesville cherishes and builds programming around the evolving research and interpretation of our historic heritage and resources. Through City partnerships and promotion of festivals, venues, and events, all have an opportunity to be a part of this thriving arts, cultural, and entertainment scene. From the City’s Strategic Plan. Goal 3.5 Protect historic and cultural resources. The historic and cultural resources in the city are economic development and tourism assets. They also represent a testament to the community’s past. The preservation of these resources is critical to protect the character of the city. The strategies and policies to preserve and sustain these resources include education, urban design, resource inventory, neighborhood conservation, resource protection, entrance corridor and other regulatory review, and technical assistance to property owners. Community Engagement: The HRC is a diverse group representing a broad spectrum of the community. Regarding the current requests for Honorary Streets, the HRC received comments from the public at its HRC review of Honorary Streets – memo to CC (February 4, 2021) 2 Page 79 of 115 meetings and via email. (See the attached notes.) Budgetary Impact: The program is funded through the Public Works maintenance fund. Should Council consider revisions to the policy and/or program, staff will coordinate with PW to evaluate—and advise on--any related cost impacts. Recommendation: Council should discuss the committee’s recommendations. If needed, Council may request additional input and/or clarification from the HRC. Alternatives: N/A Attachments: • HRC letter to Council dated December 16, 2020, with additional notes dated February 2, 2021. • HRC meeting notes (excerpts related to this discussion) from October 9, 2020, November 13, 2020, and December 11, 2020. • Location exhibits for streets. HRC review of Honorary Streets – memo to CC (February 4, 2021) 3 Page 80 of 115 610 East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 December 16, 2020 Ms. Nikuyah Walker, Mayor City of Charlottesville 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Honorary Street Designations, Policy and Applications Dear Mayor Walker: City Council voted at its September 21 meeting to refer the Honorary Street Designation process to the Historic Resources Committee for further review. Council directed the Historic Resources Committee to review both the policy and the remaining applications. This task is consistent with the committee’s purpose: to promote an appreciation and interpretation of local historic resources, both tangible and intangible. The Historic Resources Committee undertook the review process during its November 13 and December 11 meetings. The following attached notes provide the results of the review process and the related supporting background material. 1. Policy review recommendations 2. Application review recommendations 3. Other related recommendations 4. Links to meeting records Representatives of the Historic Resources Commission are available to City Council to provide additional clarification if desired. If you have any questions, please contact me at (434) 284-0136 or rwelloyd@gmail.com. Sincerely yours, Rachel Lloyd Chair Historic Resources Committee / Honorary Street Designation Letter and Attachments 1 of 5 Page 81 of 115 Attachment 1 / Policy Review Recommendations The Historic Resources Committee advises City Council to consider the following updates for the Honorary Street Names policy: In general The Historic Resources Committee recommends that City Council retain broad purview in the review and approval process for honorary street naming. In addition 1. Encourage nominations for a wide range of street name honorees, ideally associated with specific local historic resources on or near the street chosen for honorary naming 2. Provide options for temporary (perhaps 1-5 years) or permanent honorary street names, as specified by the applicant 3. Provide a flexible approach to the named street segment length—to be requested by the applicant but biased somewhat towards shorter street segments (for example: one block rather than a long multi-block street) 4. Create a mechanism to encourage greater geographical distribution of the honorary street names 5. Encourage applicants to consult with the nominee’s family members/descendants before applying 6. Request 2-3 letters of support for each nomination; supporting letters may be from residents of the street or other interested parties 7. Consider limiting the honorary street names to numbered streets 8. Consider limiting the number of designees per application cycle, perhaps every two years 9. Provide information about the signs so applicants understand their technical design constraints and future appearance (for example, they will be the standard brown street sign with a limited number of text characters) 10. Improve the application to make it easier to fill out, substituting a set of simple short questions for the longer nomination essay 11. Do not require an application fee 12. Consider undertaking an annual review of honorary street names Historic Resources Committee / Honorary Street Designation Letter and Attachments 2 of 5 Page 82 of 115 Attachment 2 / Application Review Recommendations The Historic Resources Committee reviewed the applications based on the information provided in each document; their conformance to the intent of the policy and the application requirements; and further guidance described in the preceding attachment. The Historic Resources Committee recommends City Council approve the following naming requests: 1. Black History Pathway on 4th Street NW between West Main Street and Preston Avenue 2. Henry Martin Way on 10th Street NW between West Street and Grady Avenue 3. Gregory Swanson Way on 3rd Street NE between East High Street and East Main Street (please note: the Historic Resources Committee suggests that this designation be temporary until such time as the state can mark the location of this historically significant court case with a permanent state marker; please see Attachment 3 for additional information) 4. Via Poggio a Caiano (please note: the Historic Resources Committee suggests that the applicant/city identify a different street for the honorary name than the ones listed in the application, perhaps closer to the streets named for other sister cities) 5. Byers Snookie Way on 10th Street NW between Preston Avenue and Henry Avenue Applications for the following were not recommended for approval:  The proposed Vinegar Hill Way conflicted with the proposed location of Black History Way, which had significant community support  The proposed Tony Bennett Way and Tony Bennett Drive were not recommended due to the previous substantial national and community recognition of the individual and the committee’s understanding that at least one of the streets noted for honorary naming is only partially located within the city limits  The proposed honorary names for Wilfred Franklin “88 Keys” Wilson, Jr. and Theodore Gilbert, both musicians, were not recommended because no streets were identified in the applications and because the committee suggests that places associated with music, such as school music rooms or auditoriums, may be more appropriate locations for honoring these individuals  The proposed Waneeshee Way (for indigenous people) was not recommended due to the apparent lack of engagement with the Monacan Nation and due to the apparent discrepancy between the language of the proposed term and the local language traditionally and historically spoken by Monacan people Historic Resources Committee / Honorary Street Designation Letter and Attachments 3 of 5 Page 83 of 115 Attachment 3 / Other Related Recommendations The Historic Resources Committee advises City Council to consider the following additional policies or actions related to honorary naming, in support of the guidance provided by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces regarding place names: 1. Create a special naming commission (permanent or ad hoc), composed of representatives from related committees such as the Human Rights Commission, the Historic Resources Committee, and others as appropriate 2. Provide additional interpretation for honorees on a website or in other material to retain a public record of their historical significance and achievement 3. Identify other naming opportunities associated with a wide range of themes and places: music rooms, libraries, gyms, auditoriums, athletic fields, playgrounds, and others 4. Consider pursuing state historic designation for the location of Gregory Swanson’s 1950 civil rights case in the United States District Court in Charlottesville against the UVA Board of Visitors 5. Consider consulting with the Monacan Nation as appropriate for naming opportunities related to indigenous culture, history, and related topics Historic Resources Committee / Honorary Street Designation Letter and Attachments 4 of 5 Page 84 of 115 Attachment 4 / Links to meeting records November 13 Link to Committee Packet https://charlottesvilleva.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=873&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=-1&nov=0 December 11 Link to Committee Packet https://charlottesvilleva.civicclerk.com/Web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=831 Link to meeting videos https://boxcast.tv/channel/arevwckqrofmm9t57myy Historic Resources Committee / Honorary Street Designation Letter and Attachments 5 of 5 Page 85 of 115 Honorary Street Designations, Policy and Applications / Additional Comments 02.02.21 HRC member Jordy Yager offers the following commentary on the Henry Martin honorary street name application:  The historic naming proposal was for a residential street, and the applicant, who does not live in the neighborhood, had shown no signs of communicating with residents of 10th & Page.  The historic naming proposal was for a street in a predominantly Black neighborhood that is currently undergoing a massive white-led gentrification and displacement process, and the applicant had secured only the endorsement of Preservation Piedmont, a white-led non-profit organization that, again, had shown no signs of communicating with Black 10th & Page residents about the naming proposal.  Neither the applicant nor the endorsing party had shown any signs of trying to communicate with Mr. Martin's descendants. HRC member Phil Varner offers the following commentary on the Henry Martin honorary street name application: In my opinion, the process by which historic memorializations happen is more important than the outcomes. To my knowledge, not a single person or group with significant ties to the 10th and Page neighborhood has come out in support of this proposal, even after numerous times before Council. This points to a fundamental flaw in the way this proposal was initiated and the apparent lack of support. I assume Ms. Craig has good intentions with wanting to memorialize Henry Martin. However, I find it problematic that a white woman who is not a City resident and does not have a specific connection to 10th and Page neighborhood (and even more so because it is a historically Black neighborhood) would initiate a process to honorarily name a street there. While this might have good intentions, the process does the opposite, by having yet another instance of something being imposed upon a minoritized community, without that community either initiating it or being the most integral part of it. Additionally, Preservation Piedmont, which does little work in 10th and Page, has formally supported this without getting input and support from residents of the neighborhood or Mr. Martin's descendants who live in the area. Because of these factors, I believe this proposal should not go forward now, until significant community engagement can be done. Historic Resources Committee / Honorary Street Designation Letter and Attachments Additional Comments Page 86 of 115 Historic Resources Committee meeting notes from October 9, 2020, November 13, 2020, and December 11, 2020. Excerpts related to discussion of the City Honorary Streets Designation program. October 9, 2020 1. Call to order 11:00 AM: Genevieve Keller calls the meeting to order. Both returning and new committee members introduce themselves. Keller opens the floor up for public comment: Jim Hingeley, Commonwealth Attorney for Albemarle County, speaks in support of application for honorary name designation of 3rd Street NE for Gregory Swanson. Kristin Szakos also speaks in support of application for honorary name designation to recognize Gregory Swanson. 3. Resuming committee activities Regarding honorary street names: Varner points out that not all street name proposals are related to historic resources. He raises the question of the policy HRC revise will limit itself just to historic-related names or all proposed names. Duncan reviews the research she had done on other cities policies and circlated to committee. Keller suggests that conversation about names should encompass other venues, like parks, rooms, schools. Smith points out that color of honorary street name signs is used elsewhere ± might be confusing. Varner recommends that Sister Cities and Tony Bennett street name proposals be sent back to Council. 6. Wrap up and review items for next meeting agenda Committee further discusses honorary street naming policy and agrees to work on revising the policy at the following meeting. November 13, 2020 Honorary Street Names Policy Work Session Committee discusses existing street name policy and different ways the process might be amended. Committee develops following list of proposed recommendations for process: a) honorary names may either be temporary (5 years?) or permanent, as specified by applicant in the applicants’ proposal b) there should be an annual review of existing street names c) the city should encourage a wide range of honorees, ideally associated with specific local resources d) improve the application to make it easier to fill out, substituting a set of simple short questions for the longer nomination essay Historic Resources Committee meeting notes re: Honorary Streets 1 Page 87 of 115 e) create some supporting interpretation for the honorees in a website or other material to retain a record of their achievements/significance f) have a flexible approach to the named street segment length, to be requested by the applicant but biased somewhat towards shorter street segments—for example: a block rather than a full multi-block street g) signs will be the standard historic brown sign h) no application fee required i) consider limiting the number of designees per application cycle, perhaps every two years Yager proposes forming a new 12-person naming committee, to be comprised of 3 members from our HRC, 3 members of the Human Rights Commission, 3 members of the public, and 3 of city staff/council/etc. Hill clarifies that Council was interested in hearing HRC’s perspectives on street names applications presented, in addition to recommendations on policy. Keller speaks in support of reviewing received applications and making recommendations for approval to Council. Committee reaches consensus to review submitted applications at December HRC meeting. December 11, 2020 1. Call to order: Lloyd opens the floor up for public comment: James Hingeley speaks in support of Gregory Swanson Way designation. 4. Continuation of Honorary Street Names Policy Work Session: Committee resumes street names policy review from November meeting. Varner suggests additional street names policy recommendation that Council shouldn’t be limited by a specific set of criteria, and should be free to designate street names even if they don’t fit a person or event criterion exactly. Genevieve Keller acknowledges limitations in terms of numbers of characters on street signs. Keller asks that numbered streets be preferenced for naming. Jordy Yager clarifies naming committee proposal, which would mainly be tasked with honorary street names. Clay proposes a mechanism on the number of street names in specific parts of town. Keller recommends that review of applications be biannual, and that the City consider other naming opportunities beyond streets. Committee moves on to review received applications. After discussion, the HRC determined the following recommendations to be sent to Council: Historic Resources Committee meeting notes re: Honorary Streets 2 Page 88 of 115 The Historic Resources Committee recommends City Council approve the following naming requests: • Black History Pathway on 4th Street NW between West Main Street and Preston Avenue. • Henry Martin Way on 10th Street NW between West Street and Grady Avenue. • Gregory Swanson Way on 3rd Street NE between East High Street and East Main Street. (Please note: the Historic Resources Committee suggests that this designation be temporary until such time as the state can mark the location of this historically significant court case with a permanent state marker.) • Via Poggio a Caiano. (Please note: the Historic Resources Committee suggests that the applicant/city identify a different street for the honorary name than the ones listed in the application, perhaps closer to the streets named for other sister cities.) • Byers Snookie Way on 10th Street NW between Preston Avenue and Henry Avenue. Applications for the following were not recommended for approval: • The proposed Vinegar Hill Way conflicted with the proposed location of Black History Way, which had significant community support. • The proposed Tony Bennet Way and Tony Bennett Drive were not recommended due to the previous substantial national and community recognition of the individual and the committee’s understanding that at least one of the streets noted for honorary naming is only partially located within the city limits. • The proposed honorary names for Wilfred Franklin “88 Keys” Wilson, Jr. and Theodore Gilbert, both musicians, were not recommended because no streets were identified in the applications and because the committee suggests that places associated with music, such as school music rooms or auditoriums, may be more appropriate locations for honoring these individuals. • The proposed Waneeshee Way (for indigenous people) was not recommended due to the apparent lack of engagement with the Monacan Nation and due to the apparent discrepancy between the language of the proposed term and the local language traditionally and historically spoken by Monacan people. Emails received by HRC staff Preservation Piedmont expressed support for honoring Henry Martin Way. Edwina St. James and Melanie Miller expressed concern that any naming of 2nd St. NE between East High and East Main not eliminate the section honoring Preston Coiner. Charles Alexander expressed support for Black History Pathway. David Norris and Evans Hopkins (of Richmond) expressed support for Gregory Swanson Way. Historic Resources Committee meeting notes re: Honorary Streets 3 Page 89 of 115 Legend City Limits *UHHQPDUNHUVLQGLFDWH DSSUR[LPDWHVLJQORFDWLRQ 6LJQVL]HWREH:[+ 6LJQWREHPRXQWHGRQDQHZVLQJOH SRVWQRWDWWDFKHGWRH[LVWLQJVWUHHW QDPHVLJQV 6LJQVWREHSODFHGVRWKDWWKH\IDFH RQFRPLQJWUDIILF ([DFWORFDWLRQRIVLJQWREH GHWHUPLQHGLQWKHILHOGEDVHGRQ H[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVDQGVLWH FRQVWUDLQWV Title: Honorary Street - Black History Pathway Date: 2/4/2021 DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Page 90 of 115 Legend City Limits *UHHQPDUNHUVLQGLFDWH DSSUR[LPDWHVLJQORFDWLRQ 6LJQVL]HWREH:[+ 6LJQWREHPRXQWHGRQDQHZVLQJOH SRVWQRWDWWDFKHGWRH[LVWLQJVWUHHW QDPHVLJQV 6LJQVWREHSODFHGVRWKDWWKH\IDFH RQFRPLQJWUDIILF ([DFWORFDWLRQRIVLJQWREH GHWHUPLQHGLQWKHILHOGEDVHGRQ H[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVDQGVLWH FRQVWUDLQWV Title: Honorary Street - Byers Snookie Way Date: 2/8/2021 DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Page 91 of 115 Legend City Limits *UHHQPDUNHUVLQGLFDWH DSSUR[LPDWHVLJQORFDWLRQ 6LJQVL]HWREH:[+ 6LJQWREHPRXQWHGRQDQHZVLQJOH SRVWQRWDWWDFKHGWRH[LVWLQJVWUHHW QDPHVLJQV 6LJQVWREHSODFHGVRWKDWWKH\IDFH RQFRPLQJWUDIILF ([DFWORFDWLRQRIVLJQWREH GHWHUPLQHGLQWKHILHOGEDVHGRQ H[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVDQGVLWH FRQVWUDLQWV Title: Honorary Street - Gregory Swanson Way Date: 2/4/2021 DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Page 92 of 115 Legend City Limits *UHHQPDUNHUVLQGLFDWH DSSUR[LPDWHVLJQORFDWLRQ 6LJQVL]HWREH:[+ 6LJQWREHPRXQWHGRQDQHZVLQJOH SRVWQRWDWWDFKHGWRH[LVWLQJVWUHHW QDPHVLJQV 6LJQVWREHSODFHGVRWKDWWKH\IDFH RQFRPLQJWUDIILF ([DFWORFDWLRQRIVLJQWREH GHWHUPLQHGLQWKHILHOGEDVHGRQ H[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVDQGVLWH FRQVWUDLQWV Title: Honorary Street - Henry Martin Way Date: 2/4/2021 DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Page 93 of 115 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 1, 2021 City Manager Presentation of the FY2022 Charlottesville City Operating and Capital Improvement Budget The Budget document can be found online at: https://www.charlottesville.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5135/ FY-2022-Proposed-Budget-PDF?bidId= Page 94 of 115 FY 2021 – 2022 Budget Development City Council Meeting ‐ March 1, 2021 Page 95 of 115 Agenda • Accomplishments • Priorities • Budget Changes for FY 2022 from FY 2021 • Revenue Outlook • Summary Page 96 of 115 Niche Ratings 2021 *Photos taken before COVID‐19 School Closure Page 97 of 115 CCS Results – Graduation Rates CCS tops the State’s 2020 averages overall and in several categories, including black students and students with disabilities. CHS 2020 drop‐out rate stayed low at 2.6 percent, compared to the State average of 5.1 percent. 96.7% 95.6% 94.5% 92.3% 91.3% 90.4% Page 98 of 115 CCS Results – SAT Scores  SAT Scores Continue to Surpass State & National Averages o For the combined score, CHS students’ average rose from 2019 to 1156, which surpassed the state by 40 points and the nation by 105 points. In reading/writing, CHS’s average of 595 surpassed the state by 28 and the nation by 67. In math, CHS’s average of 561 surpassed Virginia by 12 and the US by 38. Page 99 of 115 Meeting Essential Needs o 231,786 meals served since March using a combination of bus routes & fixed locations (average of 6,439/week) o Two Response to Essential Needs (REN) events distributed 7000+ hygiene products, 500+ coats and hundreds of books, food bags & resources info to families THANK YOU to our REN & Meal Partners This Year! Page 100 of 115 Virtual Learning Shift  Providing Access  Deployed ~4,000 Chromebooks to students  Providing internet access to 300+ families for online learning  99.9% of student families have access  CCS is not aware of any CCS family without access  Using New Tools  Remind app has delivered over 1 million messages to students & families  Thousands of students using Zoom & Google Meet daily  IXL Math for Walker, Buford and Algebra 1 at CHS  Newsela (Literacy) grades 5‐12  Creative Curriculum PreK  Lexia for foundational literacy skills Page 101 of 115 Current Budget Alignment to Equity & The Strategic Plan Current FY 2021 Budget Safe and Supportive Schools, $12,444,768 Academic Excellence, 14% $64,042,423 Growing Relationships Diverse, Inclusive, 72% and Rigorous Learning Experiences Supported / Supportive Staff Organizational Supports, $12,405,897 14% Page 102 of 115 Priorities for FY22 Budget Development  Recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and staff Lens of Equity  Maintain the continuity of high quality instructional programs Recruit & Retain  Apply a lens of equity in all funding Maintain Instructional Programs considerations to provide educational opportunities for all students Page 103 of 115 Governor Recommends 5% Salary Action for Teachers • The Conference Budget adopted the 5% increase • Salary Action of 5% is necessary to be eligible for associated State funding (assuming Conference Budget is adopted) • Net increase in State funding will be known when final “calc tool” is released from the VDOE Budget Office • Additional State funding will reduce dependency on CARES funding Page 104 of 115 Changes for FY 2022 from FY 2021 Budget Strategic Plan SALARY ACTIONS AMOUNT FTE OS7 Teachers one step plus 3.75% - average increase 5% 1,901,268 Updated OS7 Support Staff one step plus 1% - average increase 5% 321,041 for 5% OS7 Administrative Staff one step plus 3.75% - average increase 5% 545,393 AE-3, OS-7 Nurse Pay Scale: Alignment with Regional Market 177,537 Salary OS-7, SS-5,6 Head Custodian Pay Scale: Adjustment 49,963 Action Total Salary Actions 2,995,202 NON-DISCRETIONARY CONTRACTS Insurance: General Liability/Property 10,000 Insurance: Workers Compensation 10,000 City Contract: Pupil Transportation 140,265 City Contract: Maintenance 226,404 Total Non-Discretionary 386,669 Page 105 of 115 Changes for FY 2022 from FY 2021 Budget SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAM SUPPORTS& IMPROVEMENTS AE-1, AE-3, SS-4Internet Access for Students: Remote Learning 91,200 AE-1, AE-3, SS-4Zoom: Remote Learning Instruction Tool 25,000 AE-1, AE-3, SS-4Remind: Communication Tool Platform 13,772 AE-1, AE-3, OS-1Newsela: Literacy Content Platform Grades 7-12 17,900 AE-3, OS-9, SS-4Social Workers: PreK - 4 & LMA 542,399 6.5 AE-3, OS7 Instructional Assistants: 2nd Grade 234,528 6.0 AE-3, OS-7, 8, SSAssistant Principal: CHS 106,663 1.0 AE-1, AE-3, OS-7Reading Specialist: Greenbrier 83,446 1.0 AE-3, SS-4 Teacher: STAR(Structured Teaching Autism Resource) Buford & Walker 166,892 2.0 AE-2, AE-3 Math Specialist: CHS 83,446 1.0 AE-1, AE-3 Teacher: Fine Arts Buford 83,446 1.0 AE-1, AE-3, OS-7Teacher: Virginia State University Students Training to be Teachers and Reaching Success CHS 35,889 0.5 AE-3, OS-7, 8, SSLiteracy Specialist: LMA 35,889 0.5 AE-3, OS-7,8, SSLead Teacher Stipend: Grade Levels K - 6 57,000 38.0 AE-3, OS-7,8, SSLead Teacher Stipends: PreK 9,000 6.0 AE-3, OS-7,8, SSLead Teacher Stipends: ESL 7,500 5.0 AE-3, OS-7,8, SSLead Teacher Stipends: Special Education 10,500 7.0 AE-3, OS-7, 8 Math Specialist: Additional 10 Contract Days 31,000 7.0 AE-3, OS-7, 8 Reading Specialist: Additional 10 Contract Days 39,544 7.0 AE-1, AE-3 Content Squads: Stipend 56,000 40.0 AE-3, OS7 Substitute: Teacher Honorarium 25,000 AE-1, AE-3, SS-4Books: K-12 Bookrooms 60,000 AE-1, AE-3 Materials & Supplies: K-12 Science 6,000 AE-1, AE-3, SS-4Musicial Instruments: Maintenance & Repair 20,000 SS-5, 6 Athletic Trainer Services: Contract Increase 12,105 Total School-Based Program Supports & Improvements 1,854,119 Page 106 of 115 Changes for FY 2022 from FY 2021 Budget SCHOOL OPERATIONS COVID Mitigation: Supplies 100,000 Total School Operations 100,000 REDUCTIONS FTEReductions Based on Enrollment: Professional Staff (333,785) (4.0) FTEReductions Based on Enrollment: Support Staff (39,089) (1.0) Total Reductions (372,874) GENERAL FUND TOTAL NET EXPENSES 4,963,116 Increased REVENUES use of State 32,781 current CARESI & II 4,930,335 CARES City (Estimated Request) 0 funds for GENERAL FUND TOTAL NET REVENUES 4,963,116 FY 2022 Page 107 of 115 Expenditure Allocations FY 2022 Expenditures Adopted by School Board on 2/22/2021 Page 108 of 115 Revenue Allocations FY 2022 Revenue Adopted by School Board on 2/22/2021 GFOA recommends no less than 2 months of fund balance to cover regular operating expense. For CCS this would be a minimum fund balance of $12,111,046 (current fund balance is ~6% of recommended). Page 109 of 115 Summary of CARES Funding Total CARES Funding FY 2022 $ 5,324,459 FY 2022 Budgeted CARES Funds 4,930,335 FY 2023 CARES Fund Carry Forward $ 394,124 Projected City Request for FY 2023 $ 4,536,211 • *State revenue expected to increase if the 5% salary action holds; however, final net state funding impact cannot be known at this time • **Additional state and/or federal/CARES funds for FY22 increase projected carryforward to FY23 Page 110 of 115 City Revenue The City is experiencing revenue shortfalls and uncertainty. Any increase in property tax revenues is expected to be off‐set by losses in meals & lodging taxes. Recommendation: Leverage CARES funding to maintain valued programs & address pressing student needs in a way that also allows time for the City to recover & stabilize revenues Page 111 of 115 Summary of All Budgeted Funds Adopted Budget Proposed Budget Changes From 2021 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 to 2022 Budgets General (Operating) Fund $ 74,452,362 $ 79,809,602 $ 5,357,240 Special Revenue Funds $ 14,440,726 $ 14,440,726 $ - Total Funds $ 88,893,088 $ 94,250,328 $ 5,357,240  Technical adjustments will be made to the allocation of the CARES funds between general and special revenue funds after the Governor approves the State budget. Planed CARES carry‐forward will be held in Special Revenues.  A budget amendment will be needed if additional CARES funding is awarded. Page 112 of 115 Funding Request School Board Adopted Adopted FY 2020 ‐ 2021 FY 2021 ‐ 2022 Dollar Percentage Budget Budget Change Change City of Appropriation $ 58,709,623 $ 58,709,623 0 0.00% Fund Balance 720,649 720,649 0 0.00% Local 3,167,089 3,167,089 0 0.00% State 21,014,925 21,047,706 32,781 0.16% Federal 5,280,802 10,605,261 5,324,459 100.83% Total Revenues $ 88,893,088 $ 94,250,328 $ 5,357,240 6.03% The School Board is Requesting Level Funding for FY 2022 ($58,709,623) Page 113 of 115 City Support for Schools City funding is the foundation & key for CCS programming & services. COVID‐19 has had significant and far reaching impacts on CCS Students emotionally, academically and economically. Staff have been working harder than ever to address student needs in the midst of ever changing challenges. CAUTION: The proposed budget leverages one‐time/non‐recurring CARES funds to address the most pressing needs and allows time for City revenues to cover. It will be essential for the City to start providing additional allocations starting in FY 2023 to off‐set these proposed uses of CARES funds or future cuts to services will be required. Any additional appropriation from the City for FY 2022 would start the process of reducing dependency on one‐time (non‐recurring) funds. Page 114 of 115 Page 115 of 115