CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Members Nikuyah Walker, Mayor December 20, 2021 Sena Magill, Vice Mayor Heather D. Hill Michael K. Payne J. Lloyd Snook, III Kyna Thomas, Clerk 4:00 PM Closed session as provided by Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code (Boards and Commissions; personnel/contract discussions or negotiations) Virtual/electronic meeting. Meeting begins and ends in open session. 6:30 PM Regular Meeting Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. Virtual/electronic meeting in accordance with a local ordinance amended and re-enacted October 4, 2021, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during a declared State of Emergency. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call (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 BOARD/COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS CONSENT AGENDA* 1. Minutes: November 15 work session 2. Resolution: Appropriating funds from Progressive and National General Insurance companies for a loss associated with City of Charlottesville Traffic assets - $17,448.47 (2nd reading) 3. Resolution: Appropriating funds for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program for bicycle and pedestrian improvements at Preston Avenue and Harris Street - $245,725 (2nd reading) 4. Resolution: Appropriating funds for the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Grant – Stormwater Management Model of Moores Creek Watershed - $307,000 (2nd reading) 5. Resolution: Appropriating 2020 Local Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG) - $7,500 (2nd reading) 6. Resolution: Appropriating funds for COVID Homelessness Emergency Response Program (C.H.E.R.P.) Community Development Block Grant - $680,263 (1st of 2 readings) 7. Action Item: Approving the final disposition of the Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson statue (1 reading) CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS and to COUNCILORS 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 Page 1 of 144 electronic participation while City Hall is closed to the public. Participants can register in advance at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. ACTION ITEMS 8. Public Consideration of amendments to the City's adopted FY2021 Budget (1st of Hearing/Res.: 2 readings) 9. Ordinance*: Amending and reenacting Chapter 2 (Administration), Article XVI (Police Civilian Review Board) to reestablish the City's Police Civilian Review Board as an oversight Board pursuant to Virginia Code Section 9.1-601 (2nd reading) 10. Ordinance*: Approving the rezoning of land at 0 Nassau Street from R-2U (Two-Family Residential, University) to R-3 (Multifamily Residential) subject to preferred development conditions (2nd reading) 11. Resolution*: Approving the final disposition of the City-owned sculpture titled "Their First View of the Pacific", also known as the Lewis, Clark and Sacajawea statue (1 reading) 12. Resolution*: Consideration of the award of a contract for City Manager services (1 reading) GENERAL BUSINESS 13. Report: Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) Program Review/Redesign Update 14. Report: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-HOME Program Task Force (Tabled from 12/6/21 work session) OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC *Action Needed Page 2 of 144 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 2021 Virtual/electronic meeting via Zoom 4:00 PM WORK SESSION The Charlottesville City Council met in an electronic meeting on Monday, October 18, 2021, in accordance with a local ordinance amended and re-enacted on October 4, 2021, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during the coronavirus State of Emergency. Mayor Walker called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. and Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas called the roll, noting all members present: Mayor Nikuyah Walker, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, and Councilors Heather Hill, Michael Payne and Lloyd Snook. REPORTS 1. REPORT: Charlottesville Scholarship Project Charlottesville Scholarship Project (CSP) Chair Chris Cuthbert and CSP Program Manager Stephanie Leech made the presentation. What is the Charlottesville Scholarship Program? • Scholarship fund of the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation established by City Council in 2001 • Provides financial support to high school seniors and adults pursuing 2-year or 4-year undergraduate degrees, vocational training, or professional certifications • Volunteer Board of Directors with one part-time Program Manager • Volunteer Navigators support Scholars throughout course of study Impact of the CSP: • Council’s initial $250,000 investment has grown to more than $1.3 Million today. • 167 CSP scholarships awarded to date, totaling more than $732,000 • 73 Scholars have achieved their degree or certification goal. • 39 Scholars are currently supported. How CSP supports Scholars: • CSP typically awards 10 renewable Promise Scholarships annually. • CSP awards can fund up to $13,000 of the cost of a technical certification program, or 2- or 4-year undergraduate education. • First-year awards are typically $2,500, with renewal awards increasing by $500 each year. • Each Scholar is assigned a local adult volunteer Navigator who supports, advises, and encourages the student throughout the postsecondary course of study. Who is eligible for a CSP Promise Scholarship? Low-to Moderate-Income People seeking to further their education who fit into one of Page 3 of 144 the following categories: • Charlottesville High School Seniors residing in the City of Charlottesville • Charlottesville High School Graduates or GED recipients residing in the City of Charlottesville • City of Charlottesville Employees • Charlottesville City School System Employees Mr. Cuthbert shared information about the Preston Coiner Scholarship: • Established by the Coiner family in 2015 in honor of Preston Coiner • Administered by CSP, and funded by the Preston Coiner Endowment • One renewable award available per year, with annual payout calculated on a percentage of the Preston Coiner Endowment • Application requires an original essay on some aspect of local history • Open to Charlottesville or Albemarle public or private high school seniors or adult high school graduates residing in the City or County He gave an overview of the annual calendar for the CSP and shared a list of community partners. Councilor Snook spoke as the representative for City Council on the Board. He mentioned that a fundraising letter was just released, and that a favorable market has helped to grow the fund. 2. DISCUSSION: Conversation with Staff regarding Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) James Freas, Director of Neighborhood Development Services (NDS), shared an overview of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, advising that it is not an all-encompassing plan but a guide or framework. He expressed concern about two specific areas of the Plan: 1. The Economic Development Chapter seems underdeveloped compared to other sections of the Plan. 2. How to advance implementation of the Plan: Zoning, Capital Improvement Plan, collectively the day-to-day actions of city departments, and funding. Mr. Freas shared that he will provide regular updates on implementation as well as engage staff more fully in the process with consultants. He advised that he will engage existing staff to have a more significant role in the zoning project and over time build out a long-range planning team as part of the department. He also advised that the recent update to the Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter on Engagement and that future work will need to implement suggested strategies. Mr. Freas recommended adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Council discussed topics such as: • Population projections. (Councilor Snook asked Mr. Hamilton Lombard of the Weldon Cooper Center at UVA to provide context about the US Census. Mr. Lombard noted that the 2020 census may have underestimated the city population based on counts for Page 4 of 144 university students. The projection should have been anywhere from 49,000 - 51,000 but showed about 46,500 residents. • The amount of city staff involvement in the feedback process with consultants • Designating protected areas for commercial development • Ensuring that zoning appropriately addresses areas of value to the city in terms of housing and commercial development • Holding off on development in certain areas pending further zoning study • Creating the opportunity for housing development to happen, while not guaranteeing any specific development • Affordable housing opportunity in more areas of the city • Consideration of neighborhood context • Inclusionary zoning • Opportunity for smaller-scale development • Stabilizing extremes in the Charlottesville housing market • Anticipated slow development pace over time • Community engagement • Keeping in mind racial equity and the use of a racial equity tool • The intention and expectation of the Medium Intensity Residential designation • Built-in assurances to prevent unintended consequences such as gentrification and displacement • Tools besides zoning to address housing affordability PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Walker opened the floor for public comment and advised speakers of the upcoming public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan during the 6:30 p.m. meeting. - Phil Harway made comments on the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. CLOSED MEETING MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Magill, 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 the purpose of consultation with legal counsel pertaining to legal matters announced by the police chief at a press conference, and probable litigation related to such matters, because consultation in an open meeting would adversely affect the City’s litigating or negotiation posture. The work session adjourned at 5:44 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 5 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 6, 2021 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Mike Harlow, Traffic Supervisor Staff Contacts: Krisy Hammill, Senior Budget and Performance Analyst Mike Harlow, Traffic Supervisor Title: City Traffic Assets Insurance Reimbursement – $17,448.47 Background: The following City Traffic assets sustained damage from external accidents, which has impacted their proper function, and require repair/replacement after evaluation from the Public Works Traffic Division: • Streetlight – Located at approximately 1321 West Main Street, incident occurred on June 7th 2020 – Progressive Insurance • Traffic Control Box – Located at the corner of Wertland St and 10th St NW, incident occurred on July, 4th 2020 – National General • Pedestrian Signal – Located on Shamrock Rd., incident occurred on May 12th, 2021 – Progressive Insurance Discussion: Risk Management has secured payment in the total amount of $17,448.47, itemized amounts below: Asset Claim Number Amount Date Received Streetlight 20267 $2,856 8/30/2021 Traffic Control Box 21007 $11,908.69 9/7/2021 Pedestrian Signal 21180 $2,683.78 9/16/2021 The insurance monies will be utilized to recover repair/replacement costs for these assets. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The reimbursement of the insurance monies for the asset loss associated with the aforementioned City Traffic assets support the City’s mission - “We provide services that promote equity and an Page 6 of 144 excellent quality of life in our community” The anticipated use of the reimbursed monies also aligns with Goal 3.2 – Provide reliable and high quality infrastructure. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: There is no impact to the General Fund, as these are reimbursed funds from an insurance carrier for a loss. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of insurance monies. Alternatives: If the insurance reimbursement is not appropriated, the Public Works Department will not be able to recover this funding to repair/replace the cited Traffic assets. Attachments: Appropriation Resolution Page 7 of 144 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS for City Traffic Assets Insurance Reimbursement $17,448.47 WHEREAS, Progressive and National General Insurance companies are reimbursing the City of Charlottesville for a loss associated with City of Charlottesville Traffic assets; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that a total of $17,448.47 be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $17,448.47 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 451110 Expenditures $17,448.47 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2471001000 G/L Account: 541040 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of funds from Progressive and National General Insurance companies. Page 8 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 6, 2021 Action Required: Appropriation of Grant Funds Presenter: Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, Public Works Staff Contacts: Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, Public Works Tony Edwards, Development Services Manager, Public Works Title: VDOT BPSP Grant for bicycle and pedestrian improvements Preston Avenue and Harris Street $245,725 Background: On September 6, 2016, City Council approved a Resolution of Support to apply for Pedestrian Safety Improvements Funding under the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (BPSP). The purpose of the BPSP is to evaluate proposals addressing non-motorized crashes and risks in Virginia. Proposals target the reduction in the number and severity, or the risk of and exposure to crashes. The intent of the BPSP is to promote proposals that address a known safety or accommodation issue, are smaller in scale, and can be completed quickly. In June 2017, the City received notice that a number of intersection projects that were submitted received funding in FY22/23. The intersection of Preston Avenue and Harris Street is one of the intersections that was identified for pedestrian crossing improvements. New pedestrian curb ramps, median refuges, and revised pedestrian crossings will reduce pedestrian crossings widths, increase visibility of pedestrians, reduce pedestrian time within the roadway, and minimize out of distance pedestrian travel. VDOT has granted the city $245,725 for these improvements. Discussion: The projects that were submitted for BPSP funding in 2016 were identified based on the results of the Timmons Group ADA Pedestrian Signal study and the Streets that Work Plan recommendations. Each intersection will be reconstructed with ADA compliant curb ramps, pedestrian pushbuttons, and crosswalk and bicycle pavement marking improvements. In June 2017, staff was notified that the following intersections were awarded for FY20-23: a. Monticello/Ridge (also SIA) - $209,500 b. Monticello/2nd Street (also SIA) - $338,230 c. Cherry/Ridge - $265,230 d. Preston/Harris - $245,725 e. Grady/10th - $291,000 Page 9 of 144 The City of Charlottesville selected the intersection of Preston Avenue at Harris Street as a candidate for pedestrian improvements. Citizen issues were combined with City planner’s knowledge to identify the intersection as a candidate that would provide benefit to the community. The intersection has been in its current geometric configuration since the 1990's (20+ years). The pedestrian crossings from north to south across Preston Avenue are long (near 100 feet in length) and although they do pass through a median area, there is no pedestrian curb ramp access or surface to leave the roadway. Foliage and bridge structures within the median introduce sight distance issues that reduce the ability for vehicles to see pedestrians. High speeds on Preston Avenue increase severity of potential crashes. Commercial land uses occupies the 4 corners of the intersection. The pedestrian crossing across Preston Avenue is long and does not provide any safe haven for the pedestrian/bicyclists. Due to the commercial nature of the eastbound approach and the multiple commercial entrances near the intersection, sight distance is reduced for drivers approaching the intersection and introduces additional risk for the pedestrians/bicyclists during turning maneuvers. As such, two pedestrian accidents have occurred at the intersection during the review period. Both involved vehicles making a right turn on red maneuver and striking a pedestrian/bicyclist that was crossing the roadway and had the right-of-way. The project involves the installation of new pedestrian curb ramps on all 4 corners of the intersection in order to meet ADA compliance and align properly with pedestrian crosswalks. The existing pavement markings for pedestrians within the intersection will need to be removed/replaced. New pavement markings for relocated pedestrian crosswalks and stop bars are included. The project also involves installing pedestrian curb ramps and sidewalk within the median of Preston Avenue to provide a safe haven for crossing pedestrians/bicycles. The median sidewalk will increase visibility of pedestrians, reduce pedestrian crossing widths, and minimize out of distance pedestrian travel. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This initiative supports Council’s Vision to be a “Connected Community” (“the City of Charlottesville is part of a comprehensive, regional transportation system that enables citizens of all ages and incomes to easily navigate our community”) and “America’s Healthiest City (“we have a community-wide commitment to personal fitness and wellness, and all residents enjoy our outstanding recreational facilities, walking trails, and safe routes to schools”). In addition, the project contributes to Goals 1 and 3 of the Strategic Plan, to be an inclusive, self- sufficient community and a healthy and safe city. The initiative further implements recommendations within the ADA Transition Plan (2013), Comprehensive Plan (2013), Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2015), Streets that Work Plan (2016) and supports the City's Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Resolution. Community Engagement: The BPSP projects draw heavily from the recommendations included in the Streets that Work Plan, which had extensive community outreach. A full account of the public engagement process is available at www.charlottesville.org/streetsthatwork under the Streets That Work Community Page 10 of 144 Process tab. Community members will continue to be engaged throughout the design and construction process. Budgetary Impact: No additional City funding needs to be appropriated as the BPSP funding does not require a local match. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of VDOT grant. Alternatives: If grant funds are not appropriated, the project will not be implemented. Attachments: Appropriation Resolution Page 11 of 144 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (BPSP) Preston Ave/Harris Street $245,725 WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program (BPSP), provides Federal funding for intersection improvements that target the reduction in the number and severity, or the risk of and exposure to crashes, and has awarded the City of Charlottesville $245,725 for such improvements; WHEREAS, the BPSP program is a 100% reimbursement program requiring the City to meet all federal guidelines to qualify, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $245,725 Fund: 426 WBS: P-01069 G/L Account: 430120 Expenses $245,725 Fund: 426 WBS: P-01069 G/L Account: 519999 Page 12 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 6, 2021 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Andrea Henry, Water Resources Protection Program Administrator Staff Contacts: Jack Dawson, Department of Public Works Kristel Riddervold, Department of Public Works Krisy Hammill, Office of Budget and Performance Management Title: Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Grant – Stormwater Management Model of Moores Creek Watershed - $307,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville is one of the first 19 localities to be awarded a grant through the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF). The Governor and General Assembly established the fund in 2020 to assist communities in building resilience to the impacts of climate change, including floods. The Community Flood Preparedness Fund is allocated 45 percent of the revenue Virginia generates through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. An estimated $75 million per year will be available through the matching grant program. In October 2021, the City of Charlottesville received a Letter of Award for a CFPF grant totaling $153,500 from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for a two-dimensional (2D) stormwater management model of Moores Creek watershed. The funds are intended to support the model buildout, a report documenting methodology and results, and training and software for City staff. This is the first in an intended series of 3 grants that will fund model development in the portions of all 3 major watersheds (Rivanna River, Meadow Creek, and Moores Creek) within Charlottesville city limits. The current grant award includes: CFPF Grant #21-01-18: Flood Protection and Prevention Study - $153,500 City matching funds are required for the grant of at least 50% of the total study cost, totaling $153,500, and have been identified from two funding sources. The identified funding was established in the Gas Fund prior to the adoption of the Stormwater Utility Fund (SUF) in order to support environmental-related program development and implementation efforts, including demonstration projects and grant match requirements. The accounts to be used are: 631 - 2000095: $136,153.00 426 – P-00653: $17,347.00 Page 13 of 144 Discussion: In 2008, the City of Charlottesville, in partnership with the Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), hired URS to develop a comprehensive stormwater model representing the majority of the City's stormwater management inventory. The existing model represents the input data and best methodology available in 2008. The purpose of this grant application is to update the portion of the existing model located in the Moores Creek watershed so it can be used as initially intended. Additionally, a 2D rendering will expand the model beyond its originally identified applications. The primary function of the model is to analyze the watershed by using configurations to quantify flooding associated with both existing and future watershed conditions. Potential drainage improvement projects can be geospatially mapped in relation to areas vulnerable to flooding, so City staff can make assessments about the value of individual projects. The advantage of this approach is that the entire drainage system can be evaluated on a consistent, system-wide basis. Consistent and transparent methods of analysis when determining how and where to spend taxpayer money are essential for prioritizing improvement projects in an equitable manner. Although additional consideration factors, including other master plan objectives, location-specific funding opportunities, a history of underinvestment, etc., can also be incorporated into a system of project selection, the foundation of project prioritization should be the quantification of potential adverse impacts to community members from flooding events. An objective analysis using industry standard methodology applied over the entire City is a key element to achieving this goal. The model will also have the ability to identify future areas of vulnerability due to climate change- influenced storm events. A series of climate-informed design storms will be input into the model to begin the development of a sensitivity analysis. This analysis will determine the future conveyance and treatment needs of City drainage infrastructure and is an important component of the City's climate resiliency strategy. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan: The development of a stormwater management model directly supports several strategic initiatives in the 2013 City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan (Environment):  4.3: Assess infrastructure and prioritize solutions for the repair, upgrade, and improvement of the City's stormwater infrastructure, utilizing green infrastructure when advisable.  4.4: Identify and track stormwater hazards such as flooding and drainage problems that may threaten people and property and identify or establish funding to remedy or prevent safety hazards. Additionally, the model will be an important tool in determining the best improvement strategies to apply to specific drainage problems, so that benefits can be seen across the watershed. This supports the following strategic initiatives in the 2013 City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan (Environment):  3.6: Reduce loss of open waterways and habitats by daylighting pipes streams when possible and discouraging additional underground piping of city streams.  4.6: Examine feasibility of sustainable municipal stormwater management facilities such as Page 14 of 144 rain gardens to facilitate higher floor to area ratios (FAR) on urban lots, particularly in or adjacent to target zones such as entrance corridors. Community Engagement: The need for a comprehensive stormwater management plan was identified in the 2012 Water Resources Protection Program (WRPP) Advisory Committee Report. The proposed stormwater management model will be the most comprehensive approach to date in the development of a City- wide master plan. Additionally, the model will incorporate community-driven information in the form of drainage issue reporting. The 2D component of the model will be an important tool in future community outreach efforts because it can map areas that will be vulnerable to flooding. These visuals will be important for community flood awareness and the City's flood mitigation programs. Budgetary Impact: Grant funds will be appropriated and expended from a grants fund account. The $153,500 financial match for these grant awards will be allocated from previously appropriated funding in the Gas fund and the City's CIP fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: Council may decline the grant. Attachments:  DCR Letter of Award  DCR Grant Agreement  VRA ACH Authorization for Grant Disbursements Page 15 of 144 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATION FUNDS FOR Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Grants – Stormwater Management Model of Moores Creek Watershed $307,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been awarded $153,500 from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for the development of a two-dimensional stormwater management model; and WHEREAS, as a match of local funds in the amount of $153,500 is required and will be funded using previously appropriated funds; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that a total of $307,000 be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $307,000 $153,500 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900433 G/L Account: 430110 $153,500 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900433 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures - $307,000 $307,000 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900433 G/L Account: 599999 Transfers: $136,153 Fund: 631 I/O: 2000095 G/L Account: 561209 $ 17,347 Fund: 426 WBS Element: P-00673 G/L Account: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $153.500 from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Page 16 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 6, 2021 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Maribel Street, Emergency Management Coordinator Staff Contacts: Symia Tabron, Accountant Title: Local Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG) - $7,500 Background: The Virginia Department of Emergency Management has allocated $7,500 in 2020 Emergency Management Performance Management Grant (LEMPG) funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the City of Charlottesville. The locality share is $7,500, for a total project of $15,000. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville is the grant administrator for this grant, which will be passed to the Office of Emergency Management at the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center. The grant award period is July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. The objective of the LEMPG is to support local efforts to develop and maintain a Comprehensive Emergency Management Program. The 2020 LEMPG funds will be used by the Office of Emergency Management to enhance local capabilities in the areas of planning, training and exercises, and capabilities building for emergency personnel and the whole community. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This emergency management program supports City Council’s America’s Healthiest City vision, specifically, “Our emergency response system is among the nation’s best, ” as well as Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan, specifically sub-elements 2.1 (Provide an effective and equitable public safety system) and 2.4 (Ensure families and individuals are safe and stable). Maintaining our response and recovery capability is an on-going process that requires regular planning discussions and well as training and exercising with community response partners. Citizen preparedness, including awareness of local hazards and actions they can take to survive and recover from an emergency is a critical part of the local response system. Page 17 of 144 Community Engagement: The LEMPG engages the community through public outreach efforts led by the Office of Emergency Management. Increasing citizen awareness of hazards and promoting steps individuals can take to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergency situations is a critical priority for the Office of Emergency Management. Community outreach efforts include presenting on preparedness to community groups and designing and implementing targeted messaging through various media. This funding allows the Assistant Emergency Manager to dedicate additional time in support of this mission. Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. The funds will be expended and reimbursed to a Grants fund. The locality match of $7,500 will be covered with an in-kind match from the Office of Emergency Management budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If grants funds are not appropriated, the Office of Emergency Management will not be able to completely fund the full-time salary for the Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator. A reduction in time for this position will negatively impact the quantity and quality of public outreach on emergency preparedness to community members. Attachments: Appropriation Resolution Page 18 of 144 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS for 2020 Local Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG) $7,500 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received funds from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management in the amount of $7,500 in federal pass through funds and $7,500 in local in-kind match, provided by the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center Office of Emergency Management; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to support programs provided by the Office of Emergency Management; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $7,500 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $7,500 $7,500 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900434 G/L: 430120 State/Fed pass thru Expenditures - $7,500 $7,500 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900434 G/L: 599999 Salaries BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $7,500 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, and the matching in-kind funds from the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center Office of Emergency Management. Page 19 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 20th, 2021 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Misty Graves, Interim Director, Human Services Staff Contacts: Misty Graves, Interim Director, Human Services Title: COVID Homelessness Emergency Response Program (C.H.E.R.P.) – Community Development Block Grant Amendment ($680,263) Background: A C.O.V.I.D. Homelessness Emergency Response Program amended grant of $680,263 has been awarded to support non-congregate emergency shelter operations and administrative expenses from July 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless plans, designs and coordinates the local homelessness continuum of care and is the provider of record for data collection. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville has staff from the departments of Human Services and Social Services taking leadership roles in the governance of T.J.A.C.H. This grant supports the additional costs associated with maintaining the required data associated with the C.O.V.I.D. global pandemic. Community Engagement: This grant and plan are the product of extensive engagement of the service provider community for persons experiencing homelessness. This partnership is reflective of the new governance model for T.J.A.C.H. and the priority requests of the Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together (IMPACT). Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This grant advances the City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Plan Goal #1 of an inclusive community of self-sufficient residents. Specifically, it will facilitate the objective of increasing affordable housing options. Budgetary Impact: This grant will be entirely Federal pass-through funds. No local match is required. There is no budget impact for the City of Charlottesville. All funds will be distributed to sub-recipients for Page 20 of 144 service provision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: Council may elect to not accept the funds and the community will not have the capacity to administer the following services to persons experiencing a housing crisis:. Emergemcy low- barrier shelter, coordinated assessment, rapid rehousing, H.M.I.S., coalition coordination and administration. Attachments: Appropriation Page 21 of 144 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING funds for COVID Homelessness Emergency Response Program (C.H.E.R.P.) Community Development Block Grant - $680,263 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the C.H.E.R.P. Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $680,263. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville,Virginia that the sum of $680,263is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $680,263 Fund: 209 IO: 1900448 G/L: 430120 Federal Pass Thru Expenditures $680,263 Fund: 209 IO: 1900448 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $680,263 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Page 22 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 20, 2021 Action Required: Approval of Resolution (1 Reading) Presenter: Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager Staff Contact: Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager Title: Resolution Approving Final Disposition of the Jackson Statue Background: In July 2021 the City removed the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Court Square Park, following the process set forth within Va. Code §15.2-1812. The resolution authorizing the removal, as City Charter, and applicable state law all reserve and confer upon the City Council the sole authority to determine the final disposition of this statue. Discussion: The City publicly advertised that it was inviting proposals from persons interested in acquiring ownership of the Statue. Among those proposals was an offer from LAXART, a charitable institution or organization organized under the laws of the State of California. LAXART is engaged in a project (a joint venture with the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA)) to commemorate the historical events that occurred within the City of Charlottesville August 11- 12, 2017 and in other cities across the nation, when those cities undertook to remove monuments that had stood for a century as symbols of white supremacy. LAXART will install the Jackson Statue at MOCA, as part of an exhibit that will include other similar statuary, all of which will be exhibited alongside works of contemporary art presented in a manner that will contextualize these monuments socially, historically, and art-historically, in order to critique and confront the false narrative and ideology of the Lost Cause. LAXART has offered a monetary sum of $100,000.00 to the City for both the Lee and Jackson Statues. On December 6, 2021 City Council approved a donation of the Lee Statue to a different charitable institution/ organization. Following that meeting staff contacted LAXART, and LAXART confirmed that it will offer $50,000.00 to the City to acquire the Jackson Statue. Budgetary Impact: If approved, the monetary compensation offered by LAXART will defray a portion of the funds expended by the City to remove the Jackson Statue from Court Square Park. Alternatives: City Council could retain ownership of the Jackson Statue. Page 23 of 144 Community Engagement: yes. Over a course of months in 2016, the BRC and several working subcommittees (for public engagement; case studies; historic site inventories; and historical context/background) conducted studies, engaged with the community through public meetings and forums, and deliberated. According to the BRC’s Interim Report to City Council (September 19, 2016) over 150 people attended the BRC’s first community forum at the Jefferson School on July 27, 2016. The BRC gathered for 15 meetings (including 3 public forums), held at different locations throughout the City to make it easier for members of the public to attend and comment. From March 2017 to April 2021 the City was tied up in litigation and could not carry out its desired actions. On June 7, 2021 City Council conducted a public hearing, pursuant to the process set forth within Va. Code §15.2-1812(B). Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Yes. Attachments: • Proposed Resolution • LAXART Offer Page 24 of 144 RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE STATUE OF STONEWALL JACKSON BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE that all of the City’s right, title and interest in and to the statue of Confederate General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, including its base, is hereby conveyed to LAXART, a charitable institution/ organization organized under the laws of the state of California, in return for monetary compensation in the sum of $50,000.00. This disposition is final. I, Kyna Thomas, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, by a vote as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________, 20__. ___________________________________ Clerk of Council, City of Charlottesville Aye Nay Mayor Walker ____ ____ Vice Mayor Magill ____ ____ Councilor Hill ____ ____ Councilor Payne ____ ____ Councilor Snook ____ ____ Page 25 of 144 Page 26 of 144 Page 27 of 144 Page 28 of 144 Page 29 of 144 Page 30 of 144 Page 31 of 144 Page 32 of 144 Page 33 of 144 Page 34 of 144 Page 35 of 144 Page 36 of 144 Page 37 of 144 Page 38 of 144 Page 39 of 144 Page 40 of 144 Page 41 of 144 Page 42 of 144 Page 43 of 144 Page 44 of 144 Page 45 of 144 Page 46 of 144 Page 47 of 144 Page 48 of 144 Page 49 of 144 Page 50 of 144 Page 51 of 144 Page 52 of 144 Page 53 of 144 Page 54 of 144 Page 55 of 144 Page 56 of 144 Page 57 of 144 Page 58 of 144 Page 59 of 144 Page 60 of 144 Page 61 of 144 Page 62 of 144 Page 63 of 144 Page 64 of 144 Page 65 of 144 Page 66 of 144 Page 67 of 144 Page 68 of 144 Page 69 of 144 Page 70 of 144 Page 71 of 144 Page 72 of 144 Page 73 of 144 Page 74 of 144 Page 75 of 144 Page 76 of 144 Page 77 of 144 Page 78 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: December 21, 2021. Action Required: Public Hearing and Council Appropriation (1st of 2 readings). Presenter: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance. Staff Contacts: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance. Krisy Hammill., Senior Budget and Management Analyst. Title: Year-End Adjustments Fiscal Year 2021. Background: The audit for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 has been completed. To close the City’s financial records for the year, several year-end adjustments to various accounts require City Council action. These adjustments are to carry over unspent funds from the last fiscal year to the current fiscal year. These carry overs are the result of either previous City Council policy direction or requirements associated with the funds. Discussion: For FY2021, the General Fund ended $5.5 million in excess of its 17% fund balance policy. COVID 19 influenced the City’s finances in FY 2021 as several economically sensitive revenues (Lodging Taxes, Meals Taxes, and Personal Property Taxes) performed under budget and below FY2020 levels. Fortunately, Real Estate Taxes (the City’s largest revenue source for the General Fund) performed slightly better than expected as real estate values increased and property owners were able to make their payments in full and on time. The City’s Sales Tax receipts also performed better than expected because of greater online sales during the pandemic and consumer spending on nondiscretionary goods (such as groceries). General Fund expenditures were below budget which helped offset reduced revenue performance. Several large departments had salary and benefit savings from vacant positions. Departments also saw savings as a result of reduced levels of service and closed facilities resulting from the pandemic. The City also used received $8.2 million of CARES Act funds which were used for eligible expenses in lieu of the City using its own funds (Note: the surplus General Fund revenues do not include CARES funds as these are accounted for in a separate fund). Recommendation/Carryover Request: Staff have three recommendations for City Council’s consideration: 1 Page 79 of 144 1. Transfer $6,674,971 from the Citywide Reserve-Economic Downturn account to the CIP Contingency account. The FY2021 budget included a reserve in anticipation of COVID 19 having a negative impact on the City’s revenues. This reserve was created by not transferring funds from the General Fund to the CIP. While this strategy was in contradiction to the City’s financial management policies, it was deemed prudent in light of the extraordinary and uncertain circumstances caused by the pandemic. As the fiscal year progressed, the City did not need to use these reserves. Now that the fiscal year is complete, staff recommends City Council transfer these funds to the CIP Contingency account in acknowledgement of how the reserve was created in the first place and the need for additional capital funds. 2. Transfer $5,503,327 from the General Fund fund balance to 2213001000 for employee compensation. Per City policy, the surplus fund balance amount is recommended to be transferred to the CIP Contingency account. However, discussions with City Council and city management indicate a desire that employee compensation be the focus of utilizing surplus funds. The proposed use of these funds includes: * A $3,500 bonus for all employees who worked full time between January 1, 2021 and November 26, 2021. This is “thank you” for their service and essential work during what has been a difficult year. For employees who joined the City during the year or are seasonal/part time/temporary, they will receive a pro-rated amount of the $3,500 based on when they started and/or hours worked during the year. * A 6% pay adjustment for all employees. This is a market adjustment which recognizes the need for the City to retain and recruit qualified employees. 3. Transfer $6,393 from General Fund fund balance to City Treasurer’s Office. In April of 2019, the City Treasurer’s Office opened a DMV Select Office in the lobby of City Hall. The agreement with the Commonwealth included language by which excess funds generated by the DMV transactions would be remitted to the Treasurer’s Office to compensate for additional processing costs. The amount listed above reflects the excess revenue from FY2021 due to the Treasurer’s Office in accordance with the DMV Select contract. In addition to these recommendations are several carry over appropriations needed to close the books for the fiscal year. These are detailed in the attached memo. Community Engagement: This agenda item includes a public hearing and is the first reading of this appropriation. Budgetary Impact: As noted above, the recommended transfer from the Citywide Reserve-Economic Downturn account to the CIP Contingency account is in accordance with the City’s financial policy and contributes towards a “pay as you go” (PAYGO i.e. cash) C.I.P. versus issuing bonds. The bonus recommendation is a one- 2 Page 80 of 144 time expense which is an appropriate use of a one-time revenue. The midyear market adjustment does have on-going costs. Staff’s analysis of current year revenues and future revenues indicate these pay increases are sustainable in the future. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This resolution aligns with Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan, to be a well-managed and successful organization. Recommendation: Staff recommend that Council approve the first reading of the attached resolution. Alternatives: Amend the recommendations. Attachments: 1. Memo- End of Year Adjustments. 2. FY 2021 Year End Appropriation. 3 Page 81 of 144 To: Members of City Council. From: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance. Krisy Hammill, Senior Budget and Management Analyst. Date: December 20, 2021 Subject: Fiscal Year 2021 End of Year Adjustments. In order to close the City’s financial records for Fiscal Year 2021, City Council is requested approve the attached resolution to adjust certain accounts. Provided below is a brief description of the items contained in the various sections of the appropriation: • Section I - General Fund. • Section II - Facilities Repair Fund. • Section III – Grants Fund. • Section IV – School Gainsharing. Included are names of the department or program, the amount of the adjustment and a brief discussion of the reason(s) for the appropriation. I. General Fund. (a) Departmental Appropriations – Section 1 (a). The following appropriations are carryovers of unspent funds and shall be considered continuing appropriations unless further altered by Council. • City Treasurer’s Office. $6,393. (b) Additional Transfers and Appropriations – Section 1(b). • Transfer to Employee Benefits $5,503,327. There funds will be used for employee compensation. • Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $6,674,971. These funds will be transferred to the C.I.P. Contingency Fund per the City’s financial policy. II. Facilities Repair Fund. • Courthouse Maintenance (P-00099) - $6,130 - These unspent restricted court fees will be used for future court repair work or records conversion. The amount will be carried over in the Facilities Repair Fund. 4 Page 82 of 144 • Courthouse Construction (P-00783) - $8,014 – These unspent restricted court fees will be used for future renovations or construction projects relating to the courts and will be carried over in the Facilities Repair Fund. III. Grants Fund. These funds were received from outside sources and are being appropriated to be spent by the respective grants: • $1,384 – these funds will be used for additional qualifying State Fire Grant expenditures (1900010). IV. Schools Gainsharing. In 1998, the School Board and City Council entered into a gainsharing agreement. This agreement mandates that the first $100,000 to go to facilities for School Capital Improvement Projects, the next $100,000 is retained by the Schools in the General Fund and then any amount over $200,000 will be shared equally (50/50) between the School Board and the City. For the year ending June 30, 2021, the Schools had an operating surplus of $387,250. According to the formula, $100,000 will be contributed to the City’s School Lump Sum Project Fund, $193,625 will be retained by the City Schools and $93,625 will be returned to the City. Cc: Lisa Robertson, City Attorney. 5 Page 83 of 144 FY 2020 Year End Appropriation BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the actions hereinafter set forth are herein authorized with respect to the accounts of the City listed herein, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. The memo to Council dated December 20, 2021 is hereby made part of this appropriation. I. General Fund (105). (a) Departmental Appropriations. The following amounts shall be permitted to be carried over and expended in the General Fund’s respective cost centers or internal orders in the following fiscal year and shall remain as continuing appropriations unless further altered by Council: 1901001000 City Treasurer’s Office. $6,393. Total Section I (a). $6,393. (b) Additional Transfers and Appropriations. 2213001000. Transfer to Employee Benefits. $5,503,327. 9803030000. Transfer to Capital Projects Contingency Fund. $6,674,971. Total Section I (b). $12,178,298. II. Facilities Repair Fund (107). • Courthouse Maintenance (P-00099) - $6,130 - These unspent restricted court fees will be used for future court repair work or records conversion. The amount will be carried over in the Facilities Repair Fund. • Courthouse Construction (P-00783) - $8,014 – These unspent restricted court fees will be used for future renovations or construction projects relating to the courts and will be carried over in the Facilities Repair Fund. Total Section II. $14,144. III. Grants Fund (209). These funds were received from outside sources and are being appropriated to be spent by the respective grants: 6 Page 84 of 144 • $1,384 – these funds will be used for additional qualifying State Fire Grant expenditures (1900010). Total Section III. $1,384. IV. Schools Gainsharing. In 1998, the School Board and City Council entered into a gainsharing agreement. This agreement mandates that the first $100,000 to go to facilities for School Capital Improvement Projects, the next $100,000 is retained by the Schools in the General Fund and then any amount over $200,000 will be shared equally (50/50) between the School Board and the City. For the year ending June 30, 2021, the Schools had an operating surplus of $387,250. According to the formula, $100,000 will be contributed to the City’s School Lump Sum Project Fund and $193,625 will be retained by the City Schools. 7 Page 85 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 20, 2021 Action Required: Adoption of Ordinance (2nd of 2 Readings) Presenter: J. Lloyd Snook, City Councilor Staff Contact: Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Title: Ordinance Re-enacting the PCRB as a Police Civilian Oversight Board, with expanded functions Background: In November 2019 City Council enacted the current provisions of City Code Chapter 2, Article XVI (Police Civilian Review Board). Subsequently, in 2020, the Virginia General Assembly enacted Virginia Code §9.1-601, to provide express enabling legislation for the governing bodies of localities to establish law enforcement civilian oversight bodies. The state enabling legislation confers authority for City Council to assign seven categories of specific duties, and related duties as necessary to carry out effective oversight of the local law enforcement agency. The enabling legislation also specifies that the governing body, rather than the oversight body itself, will establish the policies and procedures for the performance of any duties that are conferred upon the oversight body. As you will note in the proposed ordinance, the duties authorized within the ordinance cannot be undertaken by the board until City Council approves policies and procedures for each of the categories of duties. Once this ordinance is approved the work of preparing the policies and procedures will commence/ continue (City Council recently approved a set of hearing procedures that may be used by the board in the interim). Separately, rather than leaving it to the oversight board and chief of police to enter into “contractual” arrangements, the Ordinance requires the City Manager to prepare Standard Operating Procedures to ensure that information will be shared by the police department with the oversight board as required by the Ordinance, subject to reasonable recordkeeping protocols that will protect individuals’ “personal information”, as contemplated by the principles of information practice reflected in the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (Va. Code §§ 2.2-3800 et seq.). Currently the board authorized by Chapter 2, Article XVI of the City Code is referred to as a “Review Board” because—prior to the state enabling legislation—there was a limited range of functionality a board created within a municipality could undertake, primarily the review of Page 86 of 144 administrative/ internal investigations performed by the police department. The 2020 enabling legislation continues the existing authorization to review police administrative/internal investigations but goes further in providing for an expanded role referred to in the state legislation as “oversight”. Therefore, once the ordinance is updated by City Council, the board will be referred to going forward as the “Police Civilian Oversight Board”. The existing board appointments do not need to be reconstituted. The board will continue to consist of seven (7) voting members and one (1) nonvoting member. Since the terms of the existing board seats were staggered originally so that not all of the seats could become vacant at once, there is no need to alter the terms of any existing members. The provisions of the proposed ordinance will work together with other City Code provisions (see, e.g., City Code 2-8) that govern appointments and terms of board and commission members. In enacting the 2020 enabling legislation, the General Assembly addressed the new law’s relationship to existing statutes governing police disciplinary matters, as follows: 1. The 2020 legislation specifies that, within localities that have established a civilian oversight body, the Virginia Law Enforcement Procedural Guarantees Act shall not apply. Va. Code §9.1-507. (This does not mean that officers lose their due process rights under federal law, only that the General Assembly abolished the minimum procedural guarantees previously afforded under state law). 2. Va. Code §15.2-1507(A)(3)(8) was amended by the 2020 enabling legislation to specify that, with respect to any grievance that relates to a binding disciplinary determination made by a civilian oversight body, the officer subject to the disciplinary action are not eligible to use the normal grievance process, although they are authorized to use the City’s grievance panel to review discipline imposed by a civilian oversight body. Va. Code §9.1-601(F). As with the original PCRB, the updated oversight board will be required to comply with applicable provisions of FOIA’s public records and open public meeting requirements. Whether or not, in a given situation, the oversight body will be able to convene within a closed meeting will depend on which of the categories of functions the Board is performing and what FOIA laws say at the time the oversight body begins conducting their business. (It is anticipated that the General Assembly may within its 2022 Session consider several bills relating to police disciplinary files and other FOIA matters relating to an oversight body’s functional areas). It is recommended that any requirement to protect personnel information about identifiable individuals should be specified generally within the Ordinance--as it is within this proposed Ordinance—and then specific protocols for managing personnel information should be put into place that can be enforced regardless of whether or not closed meetings could be convened by the oversight body. Discussion: The proposed Ordinance has been reviewed by both the City Attorney and the outside legal counsel for the PCRB (the law firm of Sands Anderson, by attorneys Cynthia Hudson and Cullen Seltzer). The Ordinance represents many hours of work and collaboration between the City Page 87 of 144 Council committee and the PCRB’s working committee. This agenda memo can’t adequately convey the amount of time and effort that the Council and PCRB committee members have devoted to bringing this forward. City Council may wish to discuss the following provision, which remains a topic of some controversy, and make a motion to amend the language of the proposed ordinance, if necessary, as a result of those discussions: • Sec. 2-466(c): Within six months of appointment, and at least once a year thereafter, members shall participate in a ride-along session with the Department. Wordsmithing continued until shortly prior to the deadline for Council agenda materials. If there are any modifications or amendments agreed to by the parties which do not show up in the attached Ordinance, the omission is accidental. Budgetary Impact: A number of the functions authorized within the ordinance will have a budgetary impact upon the City (and will require additional funding to be allocated to the PCOB budget) if they are to be effectively carried out as contemplated by the ordinance. However, the adoption of this ordinance will not, in and of itself, have any budgetary impact. Alternatives: City Council could leave the existing ordinance provisions in place; Council could also repeal the existing ordinance without enacting a new ordinance. Council may, by motion, amend any provision(s) within the attached proposed Ordinance. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council should adopt the attached proposed ordinance. Community Engagement: The proposed ordinance has been discussed at several PCRB meetings, and was publicly discussed and reviewed at the December 6, 2021, City Council meeting. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: yes. Attachment(1): • Proposed Ordinance Page 88 of 144 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION), ARTICLE XVI (POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD) TO REESTABLISH THE CITY’S POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD AS AN OVERSIGHT BOARD PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 9.1-601 WHEREAS the Charlottesville City Council previously enacted an ordinance establishing a Charlottesville Police Civilian Review Board and codified the ordinance within Chapter 2, Article XVI of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended; and WHEREAS on October 28, 2020, the Virginia General Assembly enacted House Bill 5055, which expressly authorizes the governing body of a locality to establish a law enforcement civilian oversight body; and WHEREAS City Council hereby finds that it is in the public’s best interests to amend Chapter 2, Article XVI of the City Code to dissolve the City’s Police Civilian Review Board and to establish a Police Civilian Oversight Board in conformity with Virginia Code § 9.1-601 and to empower the Police Civilian Oversight Board with certain additional oversight authority and duties enabled by the statute; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, that” 1. Article XVI (Police Civilian Review Board), Sections 2-450 through 2-464 of Chapter 2 (Administration) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended, is and are hereby repealed, in their entirety, and 2. Chapter 2, Article XVI of said Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION) ARTICLE XVI. – POLICE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD Sec. 2-450 -Title This article shall be known as the Charlottesville Police Civilian Oversight Board Ordinance. Sec. 2-451 - Police Civilian Oversight Board Established Pursuant to Virginia Code §9.1-601, there is hereby established a Charlottesville Police Civilian Oversight Board, which shall be referred to as “the Board,” with powers granted as provided within this ordinance. The Board is a body established and appointed by the City Council of Charlottesville pursuant to Virginia Code §9.1-601(B) to perform functions authorized by the City Council in accordance with Virginia Code §9.1-601(C). It shall not be able to bring suit or Page 89 of 144 to be sued in its own name, except to the extent needed to request and defend subpoenas as authorized by this ordinance. Sec. 2-452.-Powers and Duties of the Police Civilian Oversight Board. (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Board is to establish and maintain trust between and among the Charlottesville Police Department, which shall be referred to as “the Department,” the City Council, the City Manager, and the public. (b) Objectivity. It is of fundamental importance that members of the Board be fair and objective in the conduct of their duties, and that they be perceived as fair and objective in the conduct of their duties. (c) Powers and Duties. The Board shall have the following powers and duties: (1) To receive, investigate, and issue findings on complaints from civilians regarding the conduct of law enforcement officers and civilian employees of the Department; (2) To investigate and issue findings on incidents, including the use of force by a law enforcement officer, death or serious injury to any individual held in custody, serious abuse of authority or misconduct as defined in this section, allegedly discriminatory stops, and other incidents regarding the conduct of law enforcement officers and civilian employees of the Department; (3) At the conclusion of any investigation conducted pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), above, if the Board has found that an employee has committed misconduct, to recommend disciplinary action to the Chief of Police; (4) To investigate policies, practices, and procedures of the Department and to make recommendations regarding changes to such policies, practices and procedures, as set forth within Sec. 2-462 of this article; (5) To review investigations conducted internally by the Department, as set forth in Sec. 2-458 of this article, and to issue findings regarding the accuracy, completeness, and impartiality of the investigations and the sufficiency of any discipline resulting from such investigations; (6) To request reports of the annual expenditures of the Department, and to make recommendations to the City Council concerning future appropriations; Page 90 of 144 (7) To make public reports on the activities of the Board, including investigations, hearings, findings, recommendations, determinations and oversight activities; (8) To hold hearings and, if, after making a good faith effort to obtain the voluntary attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and other evidence necessary to perform its duties, the Board is unable to obtain such attendance or production, to apply to the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville for a subpoena compelling the attendance of such witness or the production of such books, papers and other evidence; and (9) To undertake other duties, as reasonably necessary, for the Board to effectuate its lawful purpose as provided for in this article, to effectively oversee the Department. (d) Definition of “serious abuse of authority or misconduct.” “Serious abuse of authority or misconduct” shall include the following: (1) Verbal or other conduct regarding an individual or group that maligns or shows hostility for the individual or group because of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity and expression; (2) Harassment or discrimination based on race, color, sexual orientation, gender, religion, national origin, marital status, age, familial status, immigration status or disability; (3) Acting in a rude, careless, angry, retaliatory or threatening manner not necessary for self-defense; (4) Reckless endangerment of a citizen, detainee, or person in custody; (5) Violation of laws or ordinances; (6) Criminal or other misconduct occurring on or off the job which is related to job performance or is of such a nature that to continue the employee in the assigned position or in any City employment capacity would constitute negligence in regard to the City’s duties to the public or to other City employees; (7) In any matter within the jurisdiction of any officer, department or agency of the City: (a) the knowing falsification, concealment or cover-up of a material fact, Page 91 of 144 and/or (b) the knowing making of any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, and/or the making or using of any writing or document knowing the same to contain a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry; (8) Sexual activity, including consensual sexual activity, on the job; and (9) Other serious violations of Charlottesville or Department policies or procedures, including the Department Code of Conduct. (e) Access to Department Information. The Board is authorized to receive, and shall be provided full access to, all Department reports, files and records pertinent to Board investigations of complaints and incidents or to its review of Department Internal Affairs investigations, as authorized in this ordinance. All records, documents and materials in the possession of the Department or the City that are determined by the Board to be necessary and requested by the Board to carry out its authorized powers and responsibilities shall be provided to the Board subject to Board procedures adopted, with Council approval, for the protection of confidential information as defined in such procedures. Within 45 days of the enactment of this Article, the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief of Police and the Board, shall establish a Standard Operating Procedure setting forth how this access shall be given by the Department to the Board, how personal information shall be managed and protected by the Board in accordance with the requirements of Virginia Code §2.2-3800 et seq., and under what circumstances or conditions it may be made available to the parties. (f) Department information to which the Board may not have access. The Executive Director and the Board shall not have access to (1) juvenile records; (2) records that may reveal the identity or personal information, as defined in Virginia Code §2.2-3801, of a confidential informant; (3) investigative files for an active civil or criminal investigation by the Commonwealth Attorney, the Virginia Attorney General, the Virginia State Police, or the United States Department of Justice; (4) files related to an active EEOC claim, Human Rights Commission investigation, or civil claim involving a Department employee; (5) files containing information exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Virginia Code §§2.2-3706(B)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11); 2.2-3706(C); 2.2- 3706.1( C)(1) through ( C)(6); 2.2-3706.1(D); and 2.2-3706.1(E); or Page 92 of 144 (6) any information that the Police Department is not legally authorized to share. (g) Disputes over access. If the Executive Director and the Board seek access to information the disclosure of which the Department believes would compromise ongoing investigations, disclosure may be withheld until such time as the need for maintaining confidentiality is no longer present, or until the City Manager has determined that the matter will not be compromised by the release of the information. If the Board believes that the City Manager is unreasonably withholding such information, the Board may consider whether to seek a subpoena requiring the production of such information pursuant to §2-458(f). (h) Procedures must be adopted before the Board begins to operate. The Board shall not exercise the powers and duties set forth within paragraphs (c)(1)-(9) until City Council approves Operating Procedures, after consultation with the Board, pursuant to § 2-460(a). Sec. 2-453 - Board Membership Appointment, and Terms. (a) Appointment Process. The City Council shall appoint the members of the Board. The Council shall announce a public application process with applications available online and by hardcopy in English and Spanish for individuals interested in serving on the Board. Council will seek to appoint fair-minded and objective members with a demonstrated commitment to community service who have training and experience, including lived experience, with topics relevant to the business of the Board, including law, police practices, human resources practices and procedures, trauma-informed mental health issues, and the sociology of historically over- policed communities. (b) Board composition. The Board shall reflect the demographic diversity of the City of Charlottesville. The Board shall be composed of seven voting members and one non-voting member appointed by the City Council. The members shall be removable by the City Council for cause as specified in the Board Code of Ethics, violating the duty of confidentiality, failing to participate in required training, or other good cause. (1) Council shall appoint at least three members who are residents of public housing or who come from historically disadvantaged communities that have traditionally experienced disparate policing. (2) Council may appoint one member who represents an organization that seeks racial or social justice on behalf of historically disadvantaged communities. Page 93 of 144 (3) The non-voting member of the Board shall be an individual with policing expertise or experience. The non-voting member may be a retired law enforcement officer who prior to his or her retirement was employed in a locality similar to the City of Charlottesville. The non-voting member need not be a resident of the City of Charlottesville. (4) The seven voting members of the Board shall be residents of the City of Charlottesville, except that if Council has appointed someone who represents an organization that seeks racial or social justice on behalf of historically disadvantaged communities, that person shall either be a resident of the City of Charlottesville or the organization they represent shall perform advocacy on behalf of City of Charlottesville residents. (5) No Board member shall be a current candidate for public office, a former member of the Department, an immediate family member of a current Department employee, or a current employee of a law enforcement agency, the Fire Department, the Emergency Communications Center, or the Sheriff’s Office. If Council considers appointing a Board member who is employed by the City of Charlottesville, Council will seek to avoid potential conflicts of interest. (c) Terms. Each Board member shall be appointed for a term of three years. Appointments and terms shall be subject to the provisions of City Code §2-8. The membership of the Board, and the terms of each board member, shall be the same as for the police civilian review board that was serving as of December 20, 2021, and that membership shall continue as the police civilian oversight board established by this article, with no change in the date of appointment, or length of term, for any member. (d) Conflicts of Interest. No Board member may participate in any matter before the Board under circumstances in which the objectivity of the Board member could reasonably be questioned, including, without limitation, the consideration of a Complaint of someone who is a family member. For purposes of the Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, the Board shall be deemed a “governmental agency” and each Board member shall be an “officer”, as those terms are defined in Virginia Code §2.2-3101. All Board members shall comply with the requirements of the Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. (e) Confidentiality. Each member shall maintain the confidentiality of all confidential or privileged information, including but not limited to: (1) Materials from Police internal investigative files; Page 94 of 144 (2) Disciplinary actions, memos and reports; (3) Statements of any police officer or civilian employee who was required by the Department to give a statement; (4) Criminal investigative files; or (5) Any other information that the Board has deemed confidential. (f) Records to remain Department records. The Chief of Police, as the custodian of the original records of which copies may be provided to the Board by the Department, shall be responsible for decisions as to whether copies of such records (or information contained in such records) may be publicly disclosed, subject to the direction and control of the City Manager. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the City Manager from including with the Standard Operating Procedure required by §2-452 (e) guidelines for public disclosure of certain types of information contained with Department records. In the Standard Operating Procedure required by §2-452(e), the City Manager shall issue guidelines for what information may be included in Board reports or otherwise publicly disclosed. Sec. 2-454. Meetings. (a) Number of meetings. The Board shall hold public meetings at least once per calendar quarter. Additional meetings may be called by the Chair or any two Board members. (b) FOIA. The Board shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) pertaining to disclosure of public records and the conduct of its meetings, including the requirement that all meetings shall be open to the public except under circumstances when the topic is authorized by FOIA to be discussed in a closed meeting. (c) Quorum. A quorum of the Board shall be four (4) members. (d) Minutes. The Board shall keep minutes of its meetings, which shall include: (1) the date, time, and location of the meeting; (2) the members present and absent; (3) a summary of the discussion on matters proposed, deliberated, or decided; and Page 95 of 144 (4) a record of any votes taken. (e) Rules and Procedures. Meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order or such other procedures as the Board may adopt. Hearings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with the Operating Procedures approved by City Council for the Board. Sec. 2-455 - Executive Director (a) Appointment. The City Manager shall appoint an Executive Director with the approval of a majority vote of the City Council. (b) Interview Process. As a part of the Executive Director appointment process, the City Manager shall convene an interview panel that includes two members of the Board. If those two members recommend a candidate for appointment as Executive Director, the City Manager shall provide a written justification to the Board if a different candidate is appointed. (c) Duties. The Executive Director shall support the Board in the implementation and exercise of all of its functions authorized under this ordinance and to undertake or ensure the performance of specific oversight tasks assigned by the Board, including the oversight of investigations conducted by the Department. If authorized by the City Manager or their designee, the Executive Director may engage the services of such investigators as may be necessary to perform the Executive Director’s duties to conduct or to oversee investigations. (d) Supervision. The City Manager shall supervise the work of the Executive Director and may delegate that responsibility to a Deputy City Manager. The City Manager‘s annual evaluation of the Executive Director’s performance shall consider a written performance review submitted by the Board to the City Manager. The Board may request that the City Manager meet with the Board’s Chair to discuss the Executive Director’s performance. (e) Vacancy. If there is a vacancy in the position of Executive Director, the City Manager or their designee may designate some other City employee who is not an employee of the Department to act as Executive Director until a new Executive Director is hired. Sec. 2-456 - Board Legal Counsel. The Board may retain independent legal counsel to represent the Board in all cases, hearings, controversies, or matters involving the interests of the Board. Such independent legal counsel shall be chosen from a list of attorneys recommended by the Page 96 of 144 City Attorney. The Board’s Chair is authorized to execute a contract in the name of the Board for legal services if the contract has first been approved by the Board and endorsed by the City’s Finance Director to verify that funding is available and has been appropriated to support performance of the payment obligations of the Board under such contract. The Board’s legal counsel shall be paid only from funds that have been appropriated to the Board’s budget by City Council. The Board and the Executive Director are encouraged to consult the Office of the City Attorney for legal advice except in cases, hearings, investigations, controversies that are before the Board, or in any other matter in which the Board’s and the Department’s interests may conflict. Sec. 2-457 – Matters that the Board May Investigate. (a) Investigate Complaints. The Board and the City Manager shall jointly develop and administer a process for receiving and investigating complaints from members of the public regarding the misconduct of law enforcement employees of the Department and referring complaints to the Department for investigation. The process, to be set out in detail in a Standard Operating Procedure established by the City Manager in consultation with the Chief of Police and the Executive Director, shall permit Complainants to file Complaints online, in writing, or orally. The SOP shall permit the Complainant to choose whether the Complaint will be investigated by the Board only or by the Department with the oversight of the Executive Director. Regardless of how a Complaint is received, it shall be promptly provided to the Department and to the Executive Director. The Executive Director, in consultation with the Board, may decline to investigate a Complaint. (b) Investigate Incidents. If the Board becomes aware of an Incident, including the use of force by a law enforcement officer, death or serious injury to any individual held in custody, serious abuse of authority or misconduct as defined in this Article, an allegedly discriminatory stop, or another incident regarding the conduct of an employee of the Department, even if no Complaint has been filed, the Board may initiate its own investigation of the Incident, by notice from the Board Chair to the City Manager and the Chief of Police, who shall ensure the Department's cooperation with the investigation. Sec. 2-458 - Investigations of both Complaints and Incidents. (a) Compliance. Any investigation shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. (b) Compelled Statements. The Board may not compel a statement from any Department employee. (c) Exclusions. The Board shall not consider complaints, incidents, claims or issues involving the following: Page 97 of 144 (1) Any incident that occurred more than one year before the filing of the Complaint (unless the Board with the concurrence of the City Manager determines that there is good cause to extend the filing deadline); (2) A matter that was the subject of an investigation where more than seventy- five (75) days has elapsed since the Department sent notice to the Complainant informing the Complainant that the Department's Internal Affairs investigation is complete (unless the Board determines that there is good cause to extend the filing deadline); (3) Matters that are the subject of a pending criminal proceeding in any trial court, a pending or anticipated civil proceeding in any trial court (as evidenced by a Notice of Claim or a filed complaint), or any pending City of Charlottesville grievance proceeding; (4) Any financial management related issue; (5) Any complaint, incident, claim or issue where the Complainant requests that the Board not have access to their files; (6) Any complaint, incident, claim or issue that has previously been the subject of an investigation by the Board, unless substantial new information has come to the attention of the Board; (7) An allegation of misconduct only by employees of law enforcement agencies other than the Department. Such complaints should be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency; (8) An allegation of conduct that does not violate the Charlottesville Police Policies and Guidelines, Disciplinary Orders, or Code of Conduct; (9) Any other claim outside the scope of the Board's authority expressly set forth within this Ordinance. (d) Exceptions to time limits. The Board may review investigations beyond the time limits specified in subsections ( c)(1) and ( c)(2) if: (1) The board determines that there is good reason for doing so, or (2) As part of an audit taking place under Section 2-462(b). (e) Suspension of Investigations. If a Complaint asserts criminal conduct by an employee of the Department, or if at any point in an investigation of a Complaint or Incident the Board becomes aware that an employee may have committed a criminal offense, the Board shall: Page 98 of 144 (1) Suspend the investigation and notify the Chief of Police and Commonwealth's Attorney of the alleged conduct, ensuring that no statements obtained from the Police Department employee(s) whose actions are the subject of the matter are shared with criminal investigators or any prosecuting authority except in accordance with applicable law; and (2) Evaluate, in consultation with Board legal counsel, the City Attorney, and the Commonwealth’s Attorney, whether competing public interests and civil rights involved permit the resumption of continued, parallel investigation by the Board. (f) Subpoenas. (1) If the Board determines that there is evidence (including witnesses) not within the control of the Department that the Board is unable to obtain voluntarily, the Board by two-thirds vote may direct the Executive Director, on behalf of the Board, to apply to the Charlottesville Circuit Court for a subpoena compelling the attendance of such witness or the production of such books, papers, and other evidence, and the Court, on finding that the witness or evidence is material to the discharge of the Board's duties, may issue the requested subpoena. (2) If the Executive Director is denied access to material witnesses, records, books, papers, or other evidence within the control of the Department that the Executive Director deems necessary to perform their duties and the duties of the Board, the Executive Director may request the City Manager to require the Department to produce the requested witnesses and documents. The City Manager, or their designee, shall not unreasonably deny such a request, but may place conditions on the production of the requested witnesses and documents as necessary to preserve confidentiality for the reasons set forth in this ordinance. The City Manager, or their designee, shall issue a decision on the Executive Director’s request within 5 business days from the date of that request. (3) If the City Manager, or their designee, denies the Executive Director’s request made pursuant to subparagraph (2) above, the Board by two-thirds vote may direct the Executive Director, on behalf of the Board, to apply to the Charlottesville Circuit Court for a subpoena compelling the attendance of such witnesses or the production of such books, papers, and other evidence. The Court, on finding that the witness or evidence is material to the discharge of the Board’s duties, shall cause the subpoena to be issued with such conditions as the Court may deem necessary to protect the Department’s concerns about the need for confidentiality. The Board shall give the City Manager and the Department reasonable notice of its intent to subpoena such witness or records and shall give the City Attorney a copy of the request for subpoena. The Board shall not unreasonably Page 99 of 144 withhold its agreement to limitations on the scope of the subpoena requested by the City Manager that may be necessary to protect confidential information. The parties may request that any hearing to be held in the Circuit Court on the request for a subpoena be conducted in a closed courtroom, to the extent permitted by state law. Upon request, the court file for any such subpoena request shall be kept under seal to the extent permitted by state law. (4) If a subpoena is granted, the Board shall digitally record any interviews or depositions conducted pursuant to the subpoena and shall make copies of any documents obtained by subpoena. The Board shall provide the Department with copies of any such interview/deposition recordings and documents. The Board shall delegate its authority to subpoena and question witnesses to the Executive Director, who shall conduct any interviews, depositions, or questioning of witnesses in a non-public forum that adequately protects the privacy of the individual being subpoenaed, the confidentiality or sensitivity of information shared or sought, and the integrity of any pending or concurrent investigation. (5) In deciding whether, and under what conditions, the Circuit Court will issue any subpoena, the Court shall refer to procedures and caselaw decided under Rule 3A:12 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. (g) Conduct of Investigations Pursuant to §2-457(a). (1) If the Complainant asks that the Complaint be investigated by the Department, the Complaint will be investigated by the Department with oversight from the Executive Director. When the Department’s investigation is concluded, the Department will provide the Complainant with an Investigative Report of its findings and the resolution of the Complaint and will provide the Board a summary of the Department’s resolution of the Complaint. (2) The Executive Director may actively monitor all investigations of Complaints of employee misconduct conducted by the Department and shall have access to records and witnesses to the same extent as the Department, subject to the limitations or requirements set out in this Ordinance. Such oversight may include reviewing the investigative plan of the Department, reviewing with the Department any records within the Department’s digital evidence management system, reviewing with the Department any pertinent law enforcement records within the Department’s Records Management System, observing any and all real- time interviews of witnesses with the Department, reviewing all recorded interviews which the Executive Director chooses not to attend in real time, providing feedback during the interview to be relayed to Department staff conducting the interview, providing feedback to Department staff in Page 100 of 144 determining next steps in the investigative process, and reviewing facts gained from investigation with Department staff. For active investigations, the Executive Director shall be limited in their participation to the same extent the Department is limited in its participation in such investigations. The Executive Director may oversee the Department’s administrative investigation of employee misconduct after the close of the active investigation in the same manner as all other investigations of employee conduct handled by the Department as described in this section. When monitoring Department investigations, during the pendency of the investigations the Executive Director shall not disclose information to the Board, any Board member, or any person other than as authorized in writing by the Chief of Police or the City Manager. (3) If the Complainant asks that the Complaint be investigated only by the Board, the Executive Director shall initiate an investigation on behalf of the Board. The Executive Director will provide the Chief of Police with enough identifying information to allow the Department to give the Executive Director access to information, records and witnesses as required by §2-452(e) and (f) of this Ordinance as may be relevant to the Complaint. When the Board’s investigation is concluded, the Executive Director will provide the Board, the Complainant and the Department with an Investigative Report that includes a summary of the circumstances of the incident(s) of alleged misconduct, the evidence related to whether there was any misconduct, and any suggested findings related to each allegation. (4) Any investigation will be completed, and any Investigative Report will be submitted, within seventy-five (75) days from the date the Complaint is filed. The Board may extend the 75-day period upon request of the Police Chief or the Executive Director to protect an ongoing investigation or prosecution, or for other good cause, with notice to the Complainant and the City Manager. (h) Conduct of Investigations Pursuant to §2-457(b). If the Board is investigating an Incident under the authority of §2-457(b), the Board may request information from the Department, may seek subpoenas as authorized above, and may conduct such an investigation as is necessary to permit the Board to prepare a Preliminary Investigative Report, making findings about whether there was any employee misconduct in the Incident under investigation. The Preliminary Investigative Report shall be provided to the Department and to any employees identified as having committed employee misconduct. Sec. 2- 459 – Matters on which the Board may Conduct Hearings (a) Review Request. Within 75 business days of the issuance of any Investigative Report, the Complainant, or any member of the Board, may file a Review Request with Page 101 of 144 the Executive Director, asking that a hearing be held on the allegations in the Complaint. A Review Request shall be deemed filed when it is received by the Executive Director. In any Review Request reviewing a matter where the Complainant has not previously authorized Board involvement in the investigation, the Complainant must grant permission for the Board to have access to the Internal Affairs files and evidence if they wish to pursue a Review Request. The Board may conclude that no hearing, or a hearing only on a limited issue, is necessary on the Review Request. If so, the Board may issue a report without the need for a full hearing. (b) Hearing to be scheduled. The Board may conclude that no hearing, or a hearing on only a limited issue, is necessary on the Review Request. If so, the Board may issue a report without the need of a full hearing. If the Board does choose to have a hearing on the Review Request, that hearing shall be held promptly. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to the Operating Procedures approved by City Council pursuant to §2-460(a). (c) Report on findings on Review Request. Within 30 days of the hearing pursuant to a Review Request, the Board shall report publicly and to the City Manager, the Police Chief and the Complainant that it has made one of the following findings with respect to each allegation or issue under review: (1) That the Board finds that the investigation of the Complaint was satisfactory, and the Board concurs with the findings of the investigation; (2) That the Board finds that the investigation of the Complaint was satisfactory, but the Board does not concur with the findings of the investigation, in which case the Board may make recommendations to the City Manager concerning disposition of the Review Request; or (3) That the Board finds that the investigation is incomplete or otherwise unsatisfactory and provides a detailed written explanation of the basis for such finding. (d) Investigations in Support of Review Requests. If the Board makes a finding under (c)(3), above, the Board may initiate an independent investigation of the matter. After the additional independent investigation, the Board shall report publicly that it has made one of the following findings with respect to each allegation or issue under review: (1) That the Board now finds that the investigation of the Complaint was satisfactory, and the Board concurs with the findings of the Investigative Report; (2) That the Board now finds that the investigation of the Complaint was satisfactory, but the Board does not concur with the findings of the Investigative Report, in which case the Board may make recommendations to the City Manager concerning disposition of the Complaint; or Page 102 of 144 (3) That despite the Board’s best efforts, the evidence is insufficient to allow the Board to determine whether the findings of the Investigative Report are correct. (e) Preliminary Investigative Report. After receiving a Preliminary Investigative Report as provided in §2-458(h), the Board may hold a hearing on the allegations in the Preliminary Investigative Report. The Board shall report its findings within thirty (30) days of the hearing. The Board shall report publicly and to the City Manager and the Police Chief that it has made one of the following findings with respect to the Incident under review: (1) That the Board finds that a Department employee committed misconduct; (2) That the Board finds that no Department employee committed misconduct; or (3) That despite the Board’s best efforts, the evidence is insufficient to allow the Board to determine whether any Department employee committed misconduct. Sec. 2- 460. –Operating Procedures (a) Operating Procedures. The City Council shall approve Operating Procedures for the performance of duties by the Board. Those procedures may be amended from time to time by City Council, in consultation with the Board. The Board shall conduct all hearings in accordance with hearing procedures set forth within the Operating Procedures approved by City Council. A Hearing Examiner, chosen as set out in the Operating Procedures, shall preside over the hearing; however, the Board shall serve as the factfinding body. Parties to the hearing shall have no right to a particular set of procedures. The Hearing Examiner may make reasonable modifications to the procedures as circumstances concerning a particular Complaint may require, provided that (i) any such modifications are within the authority of the Board under this ordinance or the approved Operating Procedures; and (ii) no such modification deprives any party to a hearing of substantial justice. (b) Informal Resolution. At any time after receiving a Complaint and before issuance of the written findings required at the conclusion of a hearing, the Board and any party may propose an informal resolution within the scope of the express authority granted to the Board within this Ordinance, which informal resolution may be adopted if all parties and the Board agree to such a resolution. At any time, the parties may agree to refer the matter to mediation or other alternative dispute resolution methods, without prejudice to the right to have a hearing on the Review Request. Sec. 2-461. - Disciplinary Recommendations Page 103 of 144 (a) Prerequisite to the Board making disciplinary recommendations. The Board shall be authorized to make disciplinary recommendations in a manner that protects personnel information regarding identifiable employees against public disclosure, in accordance with the Operating Procedures established by City Council pursuant to Sec. 2-460(a) and the Standard Operating Procedures established pursuant to Sec. 2-452(e). Subject to the foregoing provisions, the following process may be used, as appropriate: (1) Upon making a finding that an employee has engaged in a serious breach of departmental and professional standards, the Board shall meet to discuss appropriate recommendations for disciplinary action. The Board shall consult with the employee’s direct supervisor or commander, complainants and witnesses when discussing the appropriate disciplinary action to be recommended. Prior to commencement of any such disciplinary deliberations, the subject employee shall be given notice of the proceedings and of the range of disciplinary actions under consideration, and the employee shall be offered an opportunity to be heard. If permitted by FOIA, some or all of the disciplinary hearing may be held in closed session. No employee, and no other City employee, shall be compelled to provide statements to the Board during its deliberations. Disciplinary action to be considered for recommendation by the Board shall include those specified within any applicable disciplinary matrix utilized by the Department. After considering these sources of information, the Board may make a disciplinary recommendation to the Department. (2) If the Board makes a disciplinary recommendation to the Department, and the Department declines to implement the Board’s disciplinary recommendations, the Chief of Police shall, within thirty (30) days of the Board’s recommendation, provide a written explanation of their reason for declining to implement the Board’s recommendation. This explanation shall be made available to the Board, the City Council, the City Manager, and the public. (b) Grievance rights. Nothing in this ordinance shall affect in any way any right of an employee to file a grievance requesting a hearing before the City’s Personnel Appeals Board, which right shall be governed by the provisions of Sections §9.01-507 and 9.1- 601(F) of the Virginia Code, or the provisions of Va. Code §15.2-1507(A)(3) and the City’s employee grievance procedures, as may be applicable. No finding by the Board, nor any recommendation of the Board, shall be admitted in any personnel appeal or grievance hearing. Page 104 of 144 Sec. 2- 462. - Board Review of Law Enforcement Policies, Practices and Procedures (a) Authority to make policy recommendations. The Board may review and make recommendations regarding policies, practices, and procedures of the Department, including written policies, procedures and standing orders. The Board shall present in writing its findings and recommendations with supporting rationale to the City Manager and Chief of Police. If the Department declines to implement any changes recommended by the Board, the Chief of Police shall explain in writing, which shall be made available for public inspection, why the Department declines to implement the Board’s recommendation, unless the Board instead withdraws the recommendation based on the rationale provided. The Board's withdrawal of any such recommendation shall be made available for public inspection. (b) Executive Director’s authority to conduct audits. The Board may direct the Executive Director on its behalf to conduct retrospective examinations and audits of patterns in Internal Affairs investigations, arrest and detention, and other public-police interactions. The Board may request information from the Department, may seek subpoenas as authorized above, and may conduct such an investigation as is necessary to permit the Board to perform the audit. Sec. 2- 463. - Request Annual Reports of Police Expenditures During the City Manager’s preparation of a proposed City budget, the Budget Office shall provide the Board with annual expenditure estimates and future year projections for the Department, itemized to the same level of detail as provided to the City Manager. The estimates shall be presented to the Board at the same time they are presented to the City Manager. The Board may review the estimates and may make budgetary recommendations to the City Manager and/or to the City Council during the annual budget process. Sec. 2-464. - Legislative Recommendations and Annual Report. (a) Legislative recommendations. The Board may make recommendations to City Council of any proposed changes in state law, for the Council’s consideration to include in its annual legislative program to present to the General Assembly. These recommendations shall be presented to the City Attorney’s Office by August 15 of each year. Page 105 of 144 (b) Annual Report. On or before April 15 of each calendar year, the Board shall provide the City Council with an annual report of activities conducted during the preceding calendar year. The report shall detail the Board’s activities in the prior calendar year, with sections related to the appointment of committees and their actions; the establishment of any community advisory panels; an overview of complaints received during the calendar year including the number of complaints, the complaints’ findings, and the number of complaints deferred due to pending proceedings; the number and outcome of any independent investigations; an overview of proposed policy recommendations and amendments to Department policies and whether the recommendations and amendments were implemented by the Department; the number, type, and attendance at community listening sessions; recommendations of the Board about policing within the City; and any other information necessary to provide an overview of the Board’s activities. Section 2-465. - Community Engagement and Community Relations (a) Community Outreach. The Board and the Executive Director shall engage in community outreach to seek the assistance and input of community members. At least twice a year, the Board shall host public community listening sessions to discuss policing matters of pressing public concern, including the impacts of local policing on historically disadvantaged communities that currently experience or traditionally have experienced disparate policing. (b) Community meetings. The Board may also host or participate in public police- community relations meetings, in which Board members, supported by the Executive Director, Department officials, designated by the Chief of Police, and community members discuss policing matters of pressing public concern, including questions about transparency, availability, legitimacy, mutual respect and trust, equitable treatment, social and racial justice, equal rights, and community safety and order. (c) Include in reports. The Board shall report on its community outreach and engagement activities, public input, and any recommendations for community-policing initiatives or for improved police-community relations at least annually as part of the annual report provided for in Section 2-464(b). Section 2-466. - Training (a) NACOLE training. At least once every two years, and within 90 days of any new Board appointments, the City, assisted by the Executive Director, shall provide Board members with at least eight hours of training, presented by the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement or a comparable professional organization. The training shall be consistent with the Board’s mission, this ordinance, and the Operating Procedures. (b) City or CPD training. At least once every two years, and within six months of any new Board appointments, the City, assisted by the Executive Director and the Chief of Police or their designees, shall provide Board members with training or information: Page 106 of 144 (1) Describing the legal and ethical obligations of members of a public board, including the need to comply with FOIA and other statutes and ordinances governing their service; (2) Explaining Police Department procedures, policies, and regulations; (3) Describing the substance of Police Department personnel record-keeping; (4) Describing such other City policies, procedures and systems relevant to the duties of the Board; and (5) Explaining the Code of Ethics for the Board. (c) Ride-alongs. Within six months of appointment, and at least once a year thereafter, members shall participate in a ride-along session with the Department. (d) Additional training. As needed, the City shall provide Board members with additional relevant training by subject matter experts on subjects that may include mental health, trauma-informed policing, civil rights and constitutional law, race and racism, community outreach, mediation, investigation, and policing practices. Section 2-467. – Commendations for Exceptional Community Service (a) Soliciting public comment. The Board may solicit comments from the public concerning incidents of exceptional performance by employees of the Department. (b) Exemplary employees. The Board may consult with the Chief of Police regarding individual employees who have made outstanding contributions exemplary of equitable, just, and professional policing. (c) Recognition of outstanding contributions. The Board may issue public citations recognizing individuals deemed to have made such contributions. Section 2-468. – Mediation The Board may propose procedures for the use of mediation or other alternative dispute resolution techniques to resolve complaints against employees of the Department. Such procedures shall not affect the ability of Complainants to pursue remedies under other sections of this ordinance. Page 107 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 6, 2021 Action Requested: Consideration of a Rezoning Application Presenter: Matt Alfele, AICP, City Planner Staff Contacts: Matt Alfele, AICP, City Planner Title: 0 Nassau Street. – ZM21-00002 Background: Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering, P.C.) and Nicole Scro representing the owner, Franklin Street Land Trust III, has submitted a Rezoning Application pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-41 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classification of Tax Map and Parcels 610079600, 610079700, and a portion of 610079000 (Subject Properties). The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Properties from the existing R-2 (Residential Two-Family) to R-3 (Residential Multifamily) with proffers and a development plan. The proposed development plan indicates 2 multifamily buildings with 5 units in each building for a total of 10 units on the Subject Properties. The proposed density will be 19.4 dwelling units per acre (DUA). The Subject Property is approximately 0.51 acres with frontage on Nassau Street. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential. See Attachment A for proffered conditions Discussion: The Planning Commission held a virtual joint Public Hearing with City Council on November 9, 2021 on this matter. Floodplain impacts, accessibility of the playground to the community, and size of the units were all discussion points from the Planning Commission and City Council. The Commission wanted to ensure the proposed development would meet all floodplain requirements and wanted clarification on who could use the playground and greenhouse. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: If City Council approves the rezoning request, the project could contribute to Goal 3: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, 3.1 Engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning and implementation, and the City Council Vision of Quality Housing Opportunities for All. 1 Page 108 of 144 Community Engagement: On September 9, 2021 the applicant held a community meeting on Zoom from 6:30pm to 7pm. No members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. On November 9, 2021 the Planning Commission held a virtual joint Public Hearing with City Council. two (2) members of the public spoke and expressed the following: • The City should not allow development within the floodplain and should do more to protect the trees. • The City needs more housing and this development would benefit the City. Any emails received by staff regarding this project have been forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council. Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. Recommendations: The Planning Commission took the following action: Rezoning Application (ZM21-00002) Ms. Russell moved to recommend approval of this application to rezone the Subject Properties from R-2, to R-3, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion Ms. Dowell, Yes Mr. Lahendro, Yes Mr. Solla-Yates, Yes Mr. Stolzenberg, Yes Mr. Habbab, Yes Mr. Mitchell, Yes Ms. Russell, Yes The motion passed 7 - 0 to recommend approval of the rezoning application to City Council. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: 2 Page 109 of 144 (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached ordinance granting the Rezoning as recommended by Planning Commission; (2) by motion, request changes to the attached ordinance and then approve the Rezoning; (3) by motion, take action to deny the Rezoning; or (4) by motion, defer action on the Rezoning. Attachments: A. Signed Proffer Statement B. Rezoning Ordinance C. Link to the Public Hearing materials. https://charlottesvilleva.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=1286&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=- 1&nov=0 (Materials start on page 5) 3 Page 110 of 144 Page 111 of 144 Page 112 of 144 Page 113 of 144 ZM21-00002 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF LAND FRONTING ON NASSAU STREET FROM R-2U (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UNIVERSITY) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL) SUBJECT TO PROFFERED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS WHEREAS, in order to facilitate a specific development project, Franklin Street Land Trust III (“Landowner”), by its representative, Justin Shimp, has submitted rezoning application ZM21-00002, proposing a change in the zoning classification (“Rezoning”) of certain land fronting on Nassau Street, identified within the City’s 2021 real estate tax assessment records by Real Estate Parcel Identification Nos. 610079600, 610079700, and a portion of 610079000, each currently addressed as 0 Nassau Street (collectively, the “Subject Property”), from “R-2U” to “R-3”, with said rezoning to be subject to several development conditions proffered by Landowner; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Rezoning is to allow a specific development project identified within the application materials for ZM21-00002, which materials describe a plan to establish multifamily residential dwellings within the Subject Property (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing on the proposed Rezoning was conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on November 9, 2021, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners, as required by law, and following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission voted on November 9, 2021 to recommend that City Council should approve the Rezoning; and WHEREAS, this City Council has considered the details of the specific Project represented within the Landowner’s application materials for ZM21-00002; and has reviewed the NDS Staff Report, public comments, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require the proposed rezoning; that both the existing zoning classification and the proposed zoning classification are reasonable; and that the proposed Rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Zoning District Map Incorporated in Section 34-1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, be and hereby is amended and reenacted as follows: Section 34-1. Zoning District Map. Rezoning all of the land identified within the City’s 2021 real estate assessment records by Real Estate Parcel Identification Numbers 610079600, 610079700, and a portion of 610079000 (“Subject Property”), containing, in the aggregate approximately 0.51 acres (approximately 22,215 square feet), from R-2 (Two Family Residential) to R-3 (Multifamily Residential), subject to proffered development conditions (“Proffers”) which were tendered by the Landowner in accordance with law and are hereby accepted by this City Council as set out below within this ordinance. 1 Page 114 of 144 ZM21-00002 Approved Proffers The use and development of the Subject Property shall be subject to and in accordance with the following development conditions voluntarily proffered by the Landowner, which conditions shall constitute zoning regulations which apply to the Subject Property in addition to the regulations otherwise provided within the City’s zoning ordinance: 1. DESIGN: The design, height, density, and other substantive characteristics of the Project shall remain essentially the same, in all material aspects, as described within the application materials for ZM21-00002 submitted to the City on July 16, 2021, including, but not limited to, the Conceptual Site Plan, dated July 10, 2021, prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. Nothing within this condition shall preclude a subsequent modification of characteristics of the Project when necessary to comply with City zoning regulations other than those set out within these proffered conditions; however, any other material change of the Project as represented within the application materials shall require an amendment of this Ordinance. 2. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: Any buildings or structures located on the Subject Property shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. Height is to be measured in accordance with City Code Section 34-1110 in effect as of the date of this Ordinance, which specifies that height, when applied to a building or structure, shall refer to the vertical distance measured perpendicularly from grade to the highest point on such building or structure. 3. Permitted Uses: The Subject Property may be used only for the uses listed below; any uses other than those listed below shall be prohibited: a. Residential and related uses. 1. By-right: residential dwellings, at a density of one (1) to twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre within area of the Subject Property, specifically: single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, townhouses, two-family dwellings, multifamily dwellings, or residential treatment facilities (1-8 residents), 2. By right: accessory buildings, structures and uses, and 3. With a provisional use permit: home occupations. b. Other Uses 1. By-right: utility lines; 2. By special use permit: utility facilities. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT the City’s Zoning Administrator shall update the Zoning District Map referenced in City Code §34-1, to reflect this rezoning of the Subject Property subject to the proffered development conditions. 2 Page 115 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 20, 2021 Action Required: Approval of Resolution (1 Reading) Presenter: Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager Staff Contacts: Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Title: Resolution Approving Final Disposition of the LCS Statue Background: In July 2021 the City removed the outdoor public sculpture titled “Their First View of the Pacific”, by sculptor Charles Keck (the “Sculpture”) from a location within the West Main Street right of way at which the Sculpture had been located since the 1920s. Since removal the Sculpture has been stored at Darden Towe Park. Darden Towe Park is owned jointly by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. A portion of the Park, at its northern end along the Rivanna River, is leased to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, Inc., for a term that runs through June 30, 3043. The lease allows the Center to use the premises as an “historical center”, and also to make improvements and place signage on the property with the agreement/ approval of the City and County. The City’s agreement/approval would be reflected in its decision to donate the Sculpture to the Center; the County’s agreement will necessarily be reflected in its decision on any site plan application required to be submitted to and approved by the County (as stated in the Center’s Proposal). On July 25 2017 the City and Albemarle County entered into an updated “Darden Towe Park Agreement” to provide a “fair and equitable allocation of responsibility between the two localities for the planning, development, operation and maintenance of the park.” The Park is administered as a county park under the Albemarle County Code. The County provides “fiscal” as well as legal services for the operation of the park, and receives from the City two percent (2%) of the park’s total operating budget, billed to the City on a quarterly basis. The Agreement provides that wo members of City Council will sit on a Park Committee, that offers advice and direction on park management, capital improvements, and long range planning. The Agreement does not mention the lease to the Center. Discussion: Earlier in 2021 the City publicly advertised that it was inviting proposals from persons interested in acquiring ownership of the Sculpture. Among those proposals was an offer from The Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, Inc., a charitable institution or organization organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the “Center”). The mission of the Center is to commemorate and educate the public about the historical event known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The Center Page 116 of 144 submitted a proposal to the City, requesting a donation of the Sculpture. One outstanding question is how City Council might make provisions within this gift to ensure that descendants of Sacajawea/members of the Lemhi Shoshone tribe, will have an ongoing, permanent voice in matters as to how Sacajawea’s role and contributions to the Expedition will be contextualized by the Center. Attached Resolution #1 addresses this issue by saying that the donation won’t become effective until the descendants/tribe confirm their satisfaction with the initial contextualization. Later, if the Sculpture is proposed to be removed from Darden Towe Park, the City would have an option to reacquire ownership and could control the context of the next site in that manner. On December 6, 2021 City Council indicated its interest in the Center’s proposal, but requested staff to consider mechanisms by which the recontextualization of the Sculpture, and more specifically, the depiction of Sacajawea, would be enforceable not only as to the Center, but to the Center’s heirs, successors and assigns. The City Attorney advised that, while it is possible to effect a donation of property to a charitable institution subject to conditions, it can be difficult to create clear conditions that can be and remain enforceable over a long period of time. One arrangement the City Attorney was requested to consider was the possibility of a lease of the Sculpture. The attached Resolution #1 has been drafted to ensure that, until the Sculpture has been placed in the location where it will remain for the long term, the Sculpture will be leased to the Center. If contextualization has not been established in accordance with the representations within the Center’s offer within a period of five years, then the City will have the ability to terminate the lease and make a different disposition of the Sculpture. The Center’s Proposal states that “Our Re-contextualization Plan will be made binding into the future, and to our heirs, successors and assigns, through the means that the City of Charlottesville City Council prefers. We can sign an agreement, such as a Resolution, accompanying the transfer of property that outlines the priorities and vision statement of the re- contextualization plan: that Sacagawea be respected as a full partner in the Expedition, that her contributions be celebrated, and that the statue be depicted within its historical context. We could make those same provisos mandatory for any future property sale. As with any nonprofit, in the case of dissolution, the Internal Revenue Service asks that property be dispersed to similar nonprofits. We could require that the sale or transfer be to a non-profit of similar mission who will agree to the provisos.” However, the Proposal outlines those things in broad-brush format, and—other than to verify the offered contextualization when initially established and later, upon a sale or removal—it is unclear to staff what additional conditions of the donation would satisfy a desire of Council to both have ongoing control of the Sculpture itself and accomplish a permanent voice in the Center’s programs between the time of installation and the time of a future sale/ removal. While it’s possible to develop a dispositional alternative along those lines, that type of disposition is different that what’s proposed within the Center’s Proposal. Budgetary Impact: None. Alternatives: (i) City Council could retain ownership of the Sculpture, (ii) City Council could enact the attached Resolution #1 (with or without amendments) Page 117 of 144 If Council wishes to amend the attached Resolution #1 to include one or more conditions as to how (other than having an option to reacquire the Sculpture before a planned relocation) the descendants of Sacajawea could be given an ongoing, permanent voice in how Sacajawea’s role and contributions to the Expedition will be contextualized, staff will need additional guidance from Council. Roseann Abrahamson has communicated some desired language for Council’s consideration, see attached. However, as a practical matter, that desired language doesn’t specify how the desired relationship and collaboration would occur. As of the time this agenda memo is written, staff does not have a clear sense of whether there is a consensus among councilors on this/these issues. Amendments can be made by motion (for example “I move to amend Resolution #1 to include a requirement that _____________”) (iii) City Council could donate the Sculpture to the Center without any conditions (Resolution #2), or (iv) City Council could decide upon some other disposition, different than proposed within the Center’s Offer/Proposal. For example: one councilor is proposing to convey group or shared ownership of the Sculpture to the Center and to the descendants of Sacajawea/ members of the Lemhi Shoshone tribe. This is a potential disposition that is legally possible, but that is not set out within any of the offers received by Council to date. Additional details would be necessary, such as the legal names of the descendants intended to share ownership and/or the legal name of the tribal entity that could hold “title” to personal property, and confirmation of whether the Center would/ could accept title under that type of arrangement. Community Engagement: yes. City Council conducted a public work session in November 2019 to discuss the Sculpture, and City Council received input regarding the Sculpture and its possible disposition from representatives of the Shoshone and Monacan tribes, including lineal descendants of Sacajawea. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Yes. Attachments: • Resolution #1 (proposed deed of gift with conditions) • Alternate Resolution #2 (donation without conditions) • Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center’s Offer/Proposal • Email dated December 12, 2021 from Roseann Abrahamson to Mayor Walker and Council Page 118 of 144 Resolution #1 for Consideration (donation subject to restrictions) RESOLUTION APPROVING A DONATION OF THE CITY-OWNED SCULPTURE TITLED “THEIR FIRST VIEW OF THE PACIFIC”, A/K/A THE LEWIS AND CLARK/ SACAJAWEA STATUE, TO THE LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA, INC. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE that a donation of the City-owned sculpture titled “Their First View of the Pacific” (also commonly referred to as the Lewis and Clark/ Sacajawea Statue) is hereby donated to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, Inc., in accordance with the provisions of Virginia Code §15.2- 953 and subject to conditions set forth within a deed of gift, as follows: DEED OF GIFT THIS DEED OF GIFT is made the ________ day of ____________, 20____, by and between the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (“Donor”) and The Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, Inc. (the “Center”), a nonprofit charitable educational organization established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, a nonstock corporation that is exempt from federal taxation as a “501(c)(3)” organization under federal Internal Revenue Service regulations. WHEREAS the Donor desires to dispose of an outdoor bronze sculpture titled “Their First View of the Pacific”, by sculptor Charles Keck, along with the original base upon which the sculpture was erected (“Sculpture”), by donating the Sculpture to the Center for use as public art; and WHEREAS the Center’s actions, including acceptance of donations and dispositions of its property, must be in furtherance of its mission, as articulated in the Center’s Articles of Incorporation (2000); and WHEREAS the Center has made certain representations to the Donor as to how certain matters depicted by the Sculpture will be contextualized, to include an authentic portrayal of Sacajawea’s leading role during the Expedition, and those representations are more specifically set forth within an “offer” presented to the Charlottesville City Council dated August 25, 2021, attached as Schedule 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS the Center has represented to the Donor that its plan for recontextualizing Sacajawea’s role and contributions to the Expedition will be made binding into the future, as to the Center and its heirs, successors and assigns, through means that the Charlottesville City Council prefers; and WHEREAS the Charlottesville City Council desires that descendants of Sacajawea, members of the Lemhi Shoshone tribe, will have an ongoing, permanent voice in matters as to how Sacajawea’s role and contributions to the Expedition will be contextualized by the Center; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, representations and warranties set forth herein: Page 119 of 144 1. The Sculpture is donated by the Donor to the Center for use as publicly displayed art (“Donation”). The Center shall install the Sculpture upon land within Darden Towe Park (“Project”), as a permanent fixture within the park jointly owned by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, Virginia where the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center has been established. 2. By its acceptance of the donation, the Center agrees that, in the event the Center is considering removal of the Sculpture from Darden Towe Park for installation at a different location (either itself, or by a possible conveyance of the Sculpture to a third party), the Charlottesville City Council shall be given sixty (60) days’ advance written notice of the possible relocation, and the City Council have the right, at its sole discretion, to reacquire ownership of the Sculpture—either (i) by sale from the Center to the City, at a monetary compensation less than or equal to the Center’s documented costs of the original installation of the Sculpture within Darden Towe Park, or (ii) by donation to the City at the Center’s option. 3. The Center, in accepting the donated Sculpture, has made no determination of the value of the Sculpture. The Donor, in making the donation, makes no representations or assurances of the value of the Sculpture, for tax purposes or otherwise. 4. The Donation shall be and become effective, and all of the Donor’s right, title and interest in and to the Sculpture shall be vested in the Center, as of the date on which all of the following have occurred: a. The Center has removed the base of the Sculpture from its present location within the West Main Street right of way and has relocated the base to the site of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center within Darden Towe Park, at the Center’s sole cost and expense; and b. The Center has received written confirmation from the Charlottesville City Council that the proposed design and plan for the initial installation, orientation, and signage that will be part of the physical contextualization of the Sculpture within Darden Towe Park incorporates Lemhi Shoshone guidance based on their knowledge and preferences and otherwise carries out the representations set forth within the Center’s August 25, 2021, Proposal to the City; and c. the County of Albemarle, Virginia has approved a final site plan for the permanent installation of the Sculpture, base and supporting concrete slab(s), and has granted any other zoning approvals required for the Project. The Center shall provide documentation of the County’s final site plan approval to the Clerk of City Council. Upon request by the Center, the Charlottesville City Manager shall provide written verification of the date as of which all of the foregoing requirements were satisfied (“Date of Conveyance”). 5. Prior to the Date of Conveyance, the Center shall have the exclusive right of possession and control of the Sculpture, and the Sculpture, together with its original base, is hereby leased to the Center for a term of one year, at an annual rent of one dollar ($1.00) per year, effective as of the date on which City Council approves this Resolution (“Lease Commencement Date”). The term of this lease shall automatically renew from year to year Page 120 of 144 thereafter but shall automatically expire on the Date of Conveyance. This lease may be terminated: (i) by the Center, at any time prior to the Date of Conveyance, after first giving sixty (60) days’ advance written notice of termination to the Donor, or (ii) by the Donor, if all of the requirements of Paragraph 4, above, are not satisfied within five (5) years of the Lease Commencement Date, after first giving ninety (90) days’ advance written notice of termination to the Center. Upon the effective date of a termination by a party pursuant to (i) or (ii), above, the Donor shall have a right to sell or otherwise dispose of the Sculpture as deemed by the City Council to be in the Donor’s best interests. Any such sale or other disposition shall be without liability, of any nature whatsoever, to the Center. During all times at which the lease is in effect, the Center shall be solely responsible for the Sculpture, and assumes all risk of loss, by casualty or otherwise. 6. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Deed of Gift but this Deed of Gift shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein and the same shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 7. The parties hereto agree to execute and deliver any additional document that may be reasonably required to complete and execute the responsibilities of the parties as set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney is authorized to prepare the above- referenced Deed of Gift in a form suitable for execution by duly authorized agents of the Donor and the Center, and by its approval of this resolution the Council of the City of Charlottesville hereby authorizes its Mayor to execute the Deed of Gift on behalf of the City. [signature blocks will be inserted here] I, Kyna Thomas, do hereby certify that the foregoing document is a true, correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, by a vote as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________, 20__. ___________________________________ Clerk of Council, City of Charlottesville Aye Nay Mayor Walker ____ ____ Vice Mayor Magill ____ ____ Councilor Hill ____ ____ Councilor Payne ____ ____ Councilor Snook ____ ____ Page 121 of 144 Resolution #2 for Consideration (no conditions) RESOLUTION APPROVING A DONATION OF THE CITY-OWNED SCULPTURE TITLED “THEIR FIRST VIEW OF THE PACIFIC”, A/K/A THE LEWIS AND CLARK/ SACAJAWEA STATUE, TO THE LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA, INC. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE that the City-owned sculpture titled “Their First View of the Pacific”, also known as the Lewis and Clark/ Sacajawea Statue, is hereby donated, and ownership transferred, to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, Inc., a charitable institution or organization, in accordance with the provisions of Virginia Code §15.2-953. I, Kyna Thomas, do hereby certify that the foregoing document is a true, correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, by a vote as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________, 20__. ___________________________________ Clerk of Council, City of Charlottesville Aye Nay Mayor Walker ____ ____ Vice Mayor Magill ____ ____ Councilor Hill ____ ____ Councilor Payne ____ ____ Councilor Snook ____ ____ Page 122 of 144 Letter of Transmittal SACAGAWEA STATUE OFFER From: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 281 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Physical Address: 1490 Darden Towe Park Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Date: August 25, 2021 Alexandria Searls Executive Director This offer is confirmed as being valid for a period of 120 days from the date of the offer. Page 123 of 144 The Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, Inc. seeks to acquire ownership of "Their First View of the Pacific,'' by sculptor Charles Keck, which depicts the 19th Century explorers, Lewis and Clark, and their Native American partner, Sacagawea. We seek to acquire both the statue and the base. We thank City Council for allowing us this opportunity to make our case for the statue, and we will detail in this offer our plan for re-contextualization of the statue, emphasizing Sacagawea's leadership, pivotal knowledge, and significant contributions, including saving the lives of Expedition members through her wayfinding and her reunion and discussions with her brother, rescuing journals and scientific projects, and serving as a messenger of peace. We offer the following detailed terms for our acquisition and removal/relocation of the statue. With the help of many local donors, showing community support for the statue remaining in Charlottesville, and also with the support of national foundations and out-of-town donors, including indigenous donors and donors with indigenous family members, we have raised the full amount necessary for the removal of the base and its associated costs. We have received an estimate from Theresa Matyiko of Expert House Movers of $45,000 to $65,000 to move the base to Darden Towe Park, with the understanding that complications at the Main Street/Ridge-Mcintire intersection might increase that amount. We currently have $90,000 at our disposal in signed pledges. Upon selection, we would initiate a public campaign for additional funds for interpretive signage and other costs of re-contextualization. Expert House Movers is fully bonded and is a 70-year-old business with extensive historical preservation/transport experience. They visited the site and the base and they also visited Darden Towe Park to assess the distance and requirements. The time frame would be at the City of Charlottesville's request. There is a site plan requirement for the permanent installation of the statue, base, and a supporting concrete slab at Darden Towe Park, but the base could be moved for storage on site and the site plan process begun afterwards, if that is your decision and the decision of the County of Albemarle, the other co-owner of Darden Towe Park. It is the hope of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center to display that base and the statue separately, though next to each other, for reasons we'll outline. To that end, we have received a quote for a modest base for the statue from the stone manufacturer of UVA's Memorial to Enslaved Laborers. The base is important for historical interpretation, however, especially in its depiction of a wilderness without people, a concept of "empty land" that furthered colonization and was outlined in Thomas Jefferson's letter to Congress asking for funds for an Expedition (prior to Lewis's and Clark's selection). The size and style of the 1919 base also reflects a hero-worshipping stance that we do not ascribe to, and by displaying the base separate from the statue, we can examine the attitudes of that time period while also dismantling the aura of white supremacy. In addition, without the elevation, the frieze at the bottom of the bronze becomes visible in detail for the first time. On this frieze are many portraits of the Agaidika (Lemhi) Shoshone, the Expedition, and Sacagawea, including scenes of dancing, buffalo hunting, and gatherings of adults and children. Though there are no extant notes by the sculptor that we are aware of, and we have been in contact with his grandchildren for oral history and collection purposes, searching for additional documents, the iconography of a young indigenous woman standing next to the two figures of Lewis and Clark in three Page 124 of 144 2 different relief scenes, is clear. Sacagawea is portrayed as standing within the Expedition group, not to the side. In another section, she is shown hugging and greeting a member of her lost family. Also on the frieze is the first depiction of York known in art, a depiction that is of particular interest to our Charlottesville partner, York Place. Chuck Lewis and now his son Charley Lewis have both preserved York's legacy and memory as the member of the Expedition who was enslaved by William Clark and who was given a promise of freedom on return that was not kept. Chuck Lewis was one of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center's founding donors. Displaying the statue separate from the base will allow for greater and more accurate study of the statue. It becomes less of a monument and more of a work-of-art, and by being diminished actually increases in its educational value. That said, if it would be City Council's wish for the statue to be on the base, or if that is required by law, then we would examine other options for display, including an inset into the ground or a separate viewing platform for the frieze. We could also petition for an exemption if there is a law prohibiting the separation of a monument from its base. The only other impediment to displaying them separately would be an unforeseen issue of safety, for viewers or for the statue. We would install the statue and base on flat land where there is already a thin concrete slab that could be redone, concrete that was part of our original site plan. The statue would be positioned to face West, which was its original positioning. Our site is closed to any automobile traffic that is not part of our ticketed operations; interpretation and re-contextualization of the statue would be part of the ticketed experience, unlike the drive-by situation that existed on Main Street, with the interpretive Sacagawea plaque added by the City of Charlottesville unable to be read except by people willing to stand on the island surrounded by traffic. If chosen, we would also like the Sacagawea plaque included as an important part of the statue's history, when Rozina George, Rose Ann Abrahamson, and their family first came to Charlottesville as representatives of Sacagawea's family and the Lemhi Shoshone (we use the City's spelling of her name here, while recognizing that the Abrahamson's use "Sacajawea"), and when the Monacan Nation danced as part of the installation of the plaque. We were present at this event and would like to include photographs, films, and the plaque as part of the interpretation of the statue, an interpretation that would exist in various locations on site. The history of the removal activism at that time, including that of Jennifer Hoyt Tidwell, Guy Lopez, and others, would be included. An acknowledgement of the Monacan Nation would be placed at the statue. The Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, Inc. is an entity eligible to receive donations of property under the provisions of Virginia Code §15.2-953. We are a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization. Before offering our re-contextualization plan that relates directly to the statue, we will describe our current programs that are a tribute to Sacagawea. First, every group that comes to the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center for a history tour participates in a group challenge called "Overboard," which teaches about how Sacagawea rescued important journals and scientific items when the White Pirogue capsized. Page 125 of 144 3 Though others were aboard the White Pirogue, she was the only person who took initiative. In our challenge, the group must decide what to save and what to keep out of 33 items; they must discard 11. In the same way that Sacagawea couldn't rescue everything, the group must decide their priorities. At the end, their decisions and their group decision-making process are discussed. They have the experience of coming to a consensus and working out conflicting opinions. We are named the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center because the Lewis and Clark families lived in Albemarle County and we were founded to examine their local legacy and the origin of the Expedition here as a concept. York or his father never lived here, nor did William Clark. Darden Towe Park was once owned by Jonathan Clark, William Clark's grandfather. In addition to the local story, we tell the national one, especially how it relates to rivers, since we are located next to the Rivanna River. As a result, the accomplishments of Sacagawea and York, as well as Druillard, are highlighted. We have been visited by the descendants of Sacagawea's family, Druillard, Clark (William), Lewis, Sheheke (the Mandan chief), and Clark (Jonathan), among others. We were founded in 2000 when City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle officials and others decided that the local Lewis and Clark story was one left untold by the current historical sites. In advance of the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial (2003-2006), which was to kick-off in Charlottesville, the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center was planned and incorporated, with boat building programs for children and families already taking place. At the time of the Bicentennial, the City of Charlottesville held a yearly Lewis & Clark Festival in its parks, and it sent members of its festival program to visit indigenous nations along the Lewis and Clark Trail to acquire replica artifacts of the highest quality, made by native artists. When the festival ended, those artifacts were given to the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center, and they are proudly displayed today. We have added to that collection through purchase and donation, including purchasing contemporary native art. We have bronzes of Druillard, the Shawnee member of the Expedition, Sacagawea, Sacagawea's baby, Jean-Baptiste, and others, as well as representations of Sacagawea on coins and stamps, and photographs of statues of her found throughout the United States. We discuss representation with visitors and examine the varying ways she is depicted. Even the Sacagawea dollar, a recent tribute to her, is not without controversy; we discuss concerns related to the depictions. Because there were no depictions of York or Sacagawea made during their time, their portrayals are even more liable to reveal preconceptions. Our tours at the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center are all guided, and we tell the story of the Expedition using our artifacts, artwork, maps, boat replicas, and also commemoration memorabilia from the Centennial and Bicentennial. The contributions of Sacagawea are discussed at great length on our signature tour. We also have a library containing books about Sacagawea, for adults and for children. We have the support of renowned historical scholars who review our interpretations, including Gary Moulton, who has been working with us on how the Expedition was viewed within the early 1900's, and what books the sculptor would have had available for consultation. In addition to "Overboard," we have an activity called "A Vote for Democracy," which is a participatory reading and decision-making activity for visitors that examines Sacajawea's and York's inclusion in Page 126 of 144 4 decision-making on the Expedition. We also have a language game, "languages of the Expedition," that asks visitors to sort words into the categories as a group, including words from the Sioux and Shoshone languages, French, Latin, Spanish, and English. Sign language is also discussed and taught in this component, both the sign language used on the Expedition and modern sign languages. Sacagawea, who is mentioned several times within the Lewis and Clark journals as being an "interpretess," is honored in these activities. As we touched on before, her interpretation of the Shoshone language saved the Expedition from likely death in the Bitterroot Mountains; without her communication with her family, the Expedition would have been without horses to make the crossing. Now that we have described some of our current programs relating to Sacagawea's contributions as a partner, we will turn to our intended use of the statue, and to how the statue would be re- contextualized. The statue would be used to study the changing depictions involving race, gender, land, and history within American art through multiple generations. The statue would be part of some of our adult historical tours, and it would also be available for scholars. In particular, the frieze, with its depiction of York and of indigenous dance, hunting, ceremonies, and social interactions with the Expedition, would offer more insight into cultural ideas and biases in the year 1919. The ways that the women's suffrage movement claimed Sacagawea as an emblem, and the various implications of that claim, both positive and negative, would also be discussed. We would include this re-contextualization in our oral guided tours, and in interpretive signs at the statue and inside the building, and in on-line programs. One of our programs concerning the statue, "An Interactive look," was presented at a national conference in 2020; this year, we won a national award for our digital work at that conference, in part because of our Zoom program of the lewis, Clark, and Sacagawea statue. For the interpretive signs, we would seek scholarly support and editing from indigenous scholars and others, including our Board member, Elizabeth Chew, who is Chief Curator at Montpelier, and Jeffrey l. Hantman, author of Monacan Millennium, who has worked with us previously on lectures and programs. The lewis & Clark Exploratory Center studies the way that the Expedition has been remembered throughout the decades, with the reputation of lewis and Clark themselves rising and falling, and with a variety of interpretations. Around 1900, the history books discuss Sacagawea in terms of slavery; as the century progressed, she was less and less described as enslaved. Currently, the Shoshone and the Hidatsa differ greatly on what her kidnapping and later marriage signified. All of these issues, and issues of her depictions, are complicated and worthy of more study as we seek to understand the pulls of racism and the pulls of multi-culturalism, diversity, and mutual respect. These conflicting forces are represented in the Keck statue, as they are also encapsulated by the Expedition itself. Sacagawea played a pivotal role in reconciling inter-tribal and racial hostilities, particularly with the Nez Perce. Sacagawea began a conversation with Watkuweis, a Nez Perce woman who, like Sacagawea, had once been kidnapped, but unlike Sacagawea she had been able to return home. Though the Nez Perce considered the Shoshone enemies, common ground was achieved in this conversation and the Nez Perce helped the Expedition survive. In one film I will mention below, aired in 2003, indigenous leaders and other scholars speak on Sacagawea and offer valuable interpretation. It is worth noting, however, that though the film gives Page 127 of 144 5 deep insights, it is also dated in the way it discusses gender. Today the words might be accused of cis- gender bias and the film would receive criticism. If twenty years can bring about significant changes in these discussions and in depictions, how much more the almost hundred years since the Keck statue was erected. It is those changes that we seek to study through the physicality of the historical artifact, the statue, and the associated climate of that age, including other artwork and publications. We perhaps should also recognize that we don't know how much of the current language and ways of thinking will be considered antiquated and detrimental twenty years from now. In the same way that Keck wished to honor Sacagawea, and yet for many people failed to do so, we don't know how the legacies of the current generation will be assessed. The important factor in terms of how we re-contextualize the statue is that we remain open to new conversations and criticisms, and that the overall goal be to respect the memory of Sacajawea and to move forward from gender and racial biases by understanding the forms they have taken. One of our priorities is to listen to native voices concerning Sacagawea, especially to the Lemhi Shoshone, who have guided this process here in Charlottesville. The Lemhi Shoshone, the Mandan/Hidatsa, the Nez Perce, and the Wind River Shoshone all have oral histories concerning Sacagawea, as well as different ways of saying her name. The Abrahamson's described these differences at their presentation at the University of Virginia when they were last here. The Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center would present these differences while making sure to follow Lemhi Shoshone guidance concerning their own knowledge and preferences. Two sources we have studied include Rozina George's essay on Sacajawea, https://trailtribes.org/lemhi/agaidika-perspective-on-sacajawea.htm and the PBS film we mentioned earlier, "The Journey of Sacagawea," PBS 2003 https://www.pbs.org/video/scout-people-culture-journey-of-sacagawea/ Quotes from Rose Ann Abrahamson in the film offer new avenues for making educational connections. About Sacagawea, she says, "I think in a child's life when the sunshine and the waters flow, when you hear the sounds of the birds, and mom and dad is near, life couldn't be any better. And I believe that even through hard times, through good times, that she experienced the joys of childhood." "I think, and I will assert at this time, that Sacajawea's culture carried her through, carried her through this expedition, carried her through all the challenges and obstacles that they had to face, the hardships that she had to face. In our culture we're taught about how to deal with fear, how to deal with situations or crises. We're taught that. And when the young girls would go up in the mountains to sleep they called it doyahovie. They'd go with either their mother or their grandmother or both their grandmother and mother and the mother and the grandmother would teach them this is what you do. This is what you do in a marriage. This is what you do when you are bearing a child. This is what you do when you're afraid. This is how you pray." Rozina George writes, "Sacajawea is unique among Native American heroes. She is not only unique because she is a woman, but she acted as ambassador and diplomat, bridging the relation between the Indian and non-Indian worlds. As we enter into the millennium, the nation and world have accepted Page 128 of 144 6 Sacajawea as the symbol of unity and harmony because she was an individual who was willing to share her culture and knowledge to perpetuate peace." She also emphasizes Sacajawea's knowledge of herbs, roots, and berries, knowledge that would keep the Expedition and her baby from starvation. Sacajawea's knowledge of geography, of mountains and rivers, would allow her to find her people once again and also to guide the Expedition at crucial junctures. In re-contextualizing the statue, we will link Sacagawea to our many programs that give children the joy of exploring nature, "when the sun shines and the waters flow," to our teaching of geography that involves visitors naming areas, sometimes after animals that the rocks might resemble, in the same way that Beaverhead Rock was named by the Lemhi Shoshone and recognized by Sacagawea on the Expedition. We will talk about her curiosity and her insistence on seeing the whale and the ocean. We will talk about her strength, and how she took action she saw as needed. If we receive the statue, we will also initiate art programs to make new sculptures and artworks related to Sacajawea and indigenous peoples, some figurative and some non-figurative. At the suggestion of Dustina Abrahamson, we will use the statue to bring attention to the missing and murdered indigenous women of today. Because from certain angles Sacagawea seems to be disappear within the statue, we can use her figure to discuss native visibility and disappearances. We will invite indigenous artists and students to be part of this recognition and creation of art. We have experience participating with film and sculptural projects with UVA and PVCC, including the Let There Be Light exhibitions, and we would use this experience in our future work. We have also cast small bronzes and done environmental sculpture, and we have installed a found object sculpture in honor of York that is a starting point for children to make their own tributes to York. (2.4) We have mentioned our artifact and historic statue experience earlier (we have valuable bronzes within the building), and we also have training in cleaning and maintaining patina. We are consulting with Paul DiPasquale about installation and maintenance, should we be selected. Paul DiPasquale is the sculptor of the Arthur Ashe monument in Richmond and was a part of Team Henry, advising on statue removal in Richmond and Charlottesville. We have the financial ability to carry out this re-contextualization and proposed use. The fund raising for the statue has gone extremely well in a short amount of time, and promises to bring more funding in the future, if we are chosen. In terms of our overall financial stability, we have low operating costs, and we are self-sufficient from local government in terms of operational funding, receiving no money from the City of Charlottesville's annual budget or the County's. While many other organizations have larger budgets, they are also receiving more governmental funds. We have a diversity of income sources, including renting the building to related non-profits, such as the Nature Conservancy, the AIA (who awarded our building Best New Building in Virginia), and others. There is also a consistent need within the schools to study the Lewis and Clark Expedition and Virginia history, which are both in the state SO Ls. Our hands-on approach is popular with educators. We have served a diversity of audiences over the years, developing English as a Second Language programs, and helping to introduce refugee children to the history of their new county. We attend conference events hosted by native tribes. We have worked closely with City and County services and schools, offering free and reduced fee programs Page 129 of 144 7 supplemented by grants and donations. Our Art and History workshops have been taught in afterschool programs. We have an advantage in interpreting the statue in that we are small, approximately the same size as the Kluge-Ruhe Museum, and we have direct conversations with each visitor. We answer questions personally, and we stress oral communication, in part as a tribute to native cultures, preferring to conduct a tour as a give and take of questions and responses, rather than relying too much on printed words. We have covered much of the historical narrative of the positive role Sacagawea provided, but we'd like to add that the statue, at the level of the frieze, has "the guide-Sacagawea" written on it by the sculptor's hand, not incised, and that there are many instances of her being a guide, including at the Three Forks of the Missouri. We would highlight her knowledge of geography, which is an important part of what we teach at the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center, particularly to children, who might not know how to spell where they live, or understand where they are in relationship to other cities. Sacagawea was a child under the age of twelve when she learned the topography of where her tribe lived. We understand the concerns that the statue may be interpreted to depict a lesser, more subservient role provided by Sacagawea, and we will emphasize her significant contributions in text and oral recounting, and make clear the limitations of the statue. We will also point out the other depictions of her within the frieze. Our Re-contextualization Plan will be made binding into the future, and to our heirs, successors and assigns, through the means that the City of Charlottesville City Council prefers. We can sign an agreement, such as a Resolution, accompanying the transfer of property that outlines the priorities and vision statement of the re-contextualization plan: that Sacagawea be respected as a full partner in the Expedition, that her contributions be celebrated, and that the statue be depicted within its historical context. We could make those same provisos mandatory for any future property sale. As with any nonprofit, in the case of dissolution, the Internal Revenue Service asks that property be dispersed to similar nonprofits. We could require that the sale or transfer be to a non-profit of similar mission who will agree to the provisos. We confirm that we will be solely responsible for all costs, and that the City will not be liable for any costs associated with removal, relocation or re-erection of the Statue. We will be solely responsible for all such costs, including transportation. Once the Statue is conveyed, we will be solely responsible as to the means and methods, and any contractual services required, for moving, transporting and re-erecting the Statue. 2.7 Alexandria Searls, the Executive Director of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center, is authorized to negotiate with the Offeror and bind the Offerer to the terms of the Offer. Her phone number is 434-996- 7282, and her email is alexandriasearls@gmail.com or lcecvirginia@gmail.com We feel that we can live up to the Vision Statement of the City of Charlottesville, by examining issues of social and economic justice, and healthy race relations, to quote the vision statement, and by being a place of cultural and creative capital in Central Virginia, one that contributes to a united community that Page 130 of 144 8 treasures diversity. One way we can contribute to a united community is to be a place where people can explore and discuss ideas-ideas of the past, and current ideas and ideals. If selected, we can be accountable after the agreement by virtue of being in the same community and working with the public schools here. We would welcome input from the Historic Resources Committee and others, while recognizing that within the demands of the pandemic, a housing crisis, and other priorities you may wish to move on from this issue after your decision. This is to say that we are open to your vision and to your guidance, in whatever form you might want that to take. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Alexandria Searls Executive Director Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Page 131 of 144 012032104ÿ6789ÿ ÿÿ4ÿÿÿ *+,+-+./+01ÿ3/1,/45+461ÿ74896ÿ:ÿ;/<+=ÿ3>,9?/46+6@>4ÿ@4ÿ*6>A+Bÿ*6+69/ CDEFGHHÿJKLGMGNEDHÿOLDEFGKLGMGNEDHPQGMDDRSDNT UDHÿVWXVYXWZWVÿ[\]Zÿ^U _>`ÿaGbcFLdÿefcgQGMÿOHhGbcFLPSMGLbDiiFEjfbbFRkDjTlÿm>94,@=ÿnm>94,@=o,p+A=>66/1q@==/r<>qs ttÿvwxyzy{|ÿ~€ÿ‚ƒ„€ÿ„ÿ†‡€ˆ€‰„Š‚‹ÿŒ‡†ƒÿŽ‘’“ÿ”ÿ•“ÿ–—˜™‘š˜›™œÿ†ÿ‰†Šÿž€žŸÿ€‰Ÿÿ†‡ÿ†‚‰ÿ„¡„žƒ‚‰Šÿ¢‰‚ÿ£†¢ ‡‚ž†ˆ‰€¤‚ÿŠ‚ÿ‚‰‹‚‡ÿ„‰‹ÿŸ‰†¥ÿŠ‚ÿž†‰Š‚‰Šÿ€ÿ„Œ‚œtt ¦§¨©ª«ÿ­®¯°ÿ­±§©²®³´ µ¶ÿª·¶ÿ¸³¶ª¹¶ºÿ»®¯«ÿ¯«¶ÿº¶²®¹®±©ÿ¼ªº¶ÿ±©ÿ¯«¶ÿ¹¯ª¯§¶ÿ»®¯«ÿ±§· ª©²¶¹¯±·¨¹ÿ®¼ª½¶ÿ¯±ÿ¾¶ÿ¹¯±·¶ºÿª¯ÿ¯«¶ÿ¿¶»®¹ÿÀÿ­³ª·ÁÿÂø³±·ª¯±·°ÿ­¶©¯¶·Ä ª¹ÿª©ÿª½·¶¶ºÿ§¸±©ÿ¹®¯¶ÿªÅ¯¶·ÿ¯«¶ÿ·¶¼±Æª³ÿ¸¶·ÿ·¶¹±³§¯®±©ÿ®©ÿDZƶ¼¾¶· ÈÉÊËÄÿª©ºÿÅ®©ª³³°ÿ·¶¹±³Æ¶ºÿª©ºÿÅ®©ª³®Ì¶ºÿ±©ÿDZƶ¼¾¶·ÿÍÄÿÈÉÈÊÎÿÏÿ«ªÆ¶ ¾¶¶©ÿ®©ÿ²±©¯ª²¯ÿ»®¯«ÿг¶Ãª©º·®ªÿѶª·³¹Äÿ¯«¶ÿ­¶©¯¶·¨¹ÿº®·¶²¯±·Äÿª©º Ò·ª²¶ÿѱůº¶¶·ÄÿÏ©º®½¶©±§¹ÿªºÆ±²ª¯¶Ó¹¸±Á¶¹¸¶·¹±©Äÿª©ºÿ®©Å±·¼¶ºÿ¯«¶¼ÿ±Å ¼°ÿ®©¯¶©¯ÿ¯±ÿ²±¼¼§©®²ª¯¶ÿª¯ÿ¯«®¹ÿ¯®¼¶Î µ¶Äÿ¯«¶ÿº¶¹²¶©ºª©¯¹Äÿ»±§³ºÿ³®Á¶ÿ¯±ÿ·¶ªºÿ¯«¶ÿ¸·±¸±¹¶ºÿ³¶½ª³ÿ¸³ª©ÿª¹ º·ªÅ¯¶ºÿ¾°ÿ°±§·ÿ³¶½ª³ÿ²±§©¹¶³Äÿ¾¶Å±·¶ÿ®¯ÿ®¹ÿ¹®½©¶ºÎÿÿЩºÿ«¶·¶ÿª·¶ÿ¹±¼¶ ª¹¸¶²¯¹ÿ»¶ÿ»±§³ºÿ³®Á¶ÿ¹¶¶ÿ®©²±·¸±·ª¯¶ºÿ¯±ÿ¶©¹§·¶ÿ¯«ª¯ÿ¹¯ª¯§¶ÿ»«®²« ¹«±»¹ÿªÿ²±»¶·®©½Äÿ²·®©½®©½Äÿ¼®¹³¶ªº®©½ÿª©ºÿº®¹¯±·¯¶ºÿ®¼ª½¶ÿ±Å м¶·®²ª¨¹ÿ«¶·±®©¶ÄÿѪ²ªÕª»¶ªÎ ÖÿÿÿÿÿÿÿØ«¶ÿ¯¶·¼®©±³±½°ÿ¯«ª¯ÿ²ª©ÿ¾¶ÿ§¹¶ºÿ¯±ÿ¹§ÅÅ®²¶ÿ¯«¶ÿ­®¯°ÿ­±§©²®³ÿª©º ±§·ÿ²±©²¶·©¹ÿ®©ÿ·¶½ª·º¹ÿ¯±ÿ¯«¶ÿ¹¯ª¯§¶Äÿ¯«¶ÿ¿¶»®¹ÿÀÿ­³ª·ÁÿÂø³±·ª¯±·° ­¶©¯¶·ÿ²±§³ºÿ¾¶ÿ®º¶©¯®Å®¶ºÿª¹ÿªÿ¹«ª·¶ºÿ¹¯¶»ª·º¹«®¸ÎÿÿØ«®¹ÿ®¹ ¯·ª©¹³ª¯¶ºÿª¹ÿ¹«ª·®©½ÿª§¯«±·®¯°Äÿ¶Ã¸¶·¯®¹¶Äÿª©ºÿ·¶¹¸±©¹®¾®³®¯°ÿű·ÿ¯«¶ ÙÚÛÜÝÛÞßàáâãÿª¯¯·®¾§¯®±©Äÿº±²§¼¶©¯ª¯®±©Äÿ®©¯¶·¸·¶¯ª¯®±©Äÿº®¹¸³ª°Ä ²ª·¶Äÿ¹¯±·ª½¶Äÿ¸§¾³®²ÿª²²¶¹¹ÿ±Åÿª©ºÿ¯±ÿ¯«¶ÿ¹¯ª¯§¶ÎÿÿØ«¶ÿ¹¯¶»ª·º¹«®¸ »±§³ºÿŧ©²¯®±©ÿ®©ÿªºÆ®²¶ÿ»®¯«ÿ¯«¶ÿŪ¼®³®ª³ÿº¶¹²¶©ºª©¯¹Äÿª©ºÿ¯«¶ ­«ª·³±¯¯¶¹Æ®³³¶ÿ­®¯°ÿ­±§©²®³Îÿÿϯÿ¼§¹¯ÿ¾¶ÿ¶¼¸«ª¹®Ì¶ºÿ¯«ª¯ÿ¹«ª·¶º ¹¯¶»ª·º¹«®¸ÿ¼§¹¯ÿ¾¶ÿ±©¶ÿ±Åÿ²±³³ª¾±·ª¯®±©ÿª©ºÿ²±©¹§³¯ª¯®±©ÎÿÿØ«®¹ÿ»®³³ ª³¹±ÿ¾®©ºÿªÿ²±¼¼®¯¼¶©¯ÿÅ·±¼ÿ§¹ÿ¯±ÿª¹¹®¹¯ÿª©ºÿ¹«ª·¶ÿª§¯«±·®¯°ÿ®©ÿ¯«¶ ŧ¯§·¶Î Ï©ÿªºº®¯®±©Äÿ®©ÿ·¶²±½©®Ì®©½ÿ¯«¶¹¶ÿª¹¸¶²¯¹´ ÖÿÿÿÿÿÿÿØ«¶ÿ²®¯°ÿ¼§¹¯ÿ·¶²±½©®Ì¶ÿ¯«¶ÿ¹®½©®Å®²ª©²¶Äÿ·¶³¶Æª©²¶ÿª©ºÿƪ³§¶ÿ±Å ®©¯¶½·ª¯®©½ÿ¾±¯«ÿ¯«¶ÿŪ¼®³®ª³ÿª©ºÿ¯«¶ÿ­¶©¯¶·¨¹ÿÁ©±»³¶º½¶ÿ®©ÿ¸·±Æ®º®©½ ¹±³§¯®±©¹ÿ¯±ÿ¹¯±·¶Äÿ¸·¶¹¶©¯Äÿª©ºÿ²±©¯¶Ã¯§ª³®Ì¶ÿ¯«¶ÿ¹¯ª¯§¶ÎÿÿÏ© ªºº®¯®±©Äÿ»¶ÿ©¶¶ºÿ¯±ÿªºº·¶¹¹ÿ¯«¶ÿ²±©¯¶¼¸±·ª·°ÿ®¹¹§¶¹ÿ¹§··±§©º®©½ÿ¯«¶ ¹¯ª¯§¶Äÿª©ºÿ¶©²±§·ª½¶¹ÿ®¯¹ÿ§¹¶ÿ®©ÿ¸·±Õ¶²¯ÿ¸³ª©©®©½ÿª©ºÿ®¼¸³¶¼¶©¯ª¯®±©Î Öÿÿÿÿÿÿÿϯÿ¹«±§³ºÿ¹¯ª¯¶ÿ¯«ª¯ÿ»¶ÿ¼§¹¯ÿ¸·±¯¶²¯ÿ¯«¶ÿŪ¼®³®ª³ÿÁ©±»³¶º½¶ÿª©º ¯·®¾ª³ÿ¯·ªº®¯®±©ª³ÿÁ©±»³¶º½¶ÿű·ÿ¯«¶ÿ¾¶©¶Å®¯ÿ±Åÿª³³ÿ®©º®½¶©±§¹ÿ¸¶±¸³¶¹ ª©ºÿ°±§·ÿ²®¯®Ì¶©¹ÿª©ºÿ²±¼¼§©®¯®¶¹Äÿª©ºÿÆ®¹®¯±·¹ÿÅ·±¼ÿ¯«·±§½«±§¯ÿ¯«¶ »±·³ºÎÿÿØ«¶ÿ¹¯ª¯§¶ÿ®¹ÿƧ³©¶·ª¾³¶ÿ¾±¯«ÿ¾¶²ª§¹¶ÿ®¯ÿ®¹ÿ¶Ã¸³±®¯ª¾³¶ÿª©º «ª¹ÿ¾¶¶©ÿ¶Ã¸³±®¯¶ºÎÿÿйÿ°¶ª·¹ÿ¸ª¹¹Äÿ»¶ÿª³¹±ÿ©¶¶ºÿ¯±ÿ·¶²±½©®Ì¶ÿ¯«¶ ¹®½©®Å®²ª©¯ÿ²«ª©½¶ÿ±·ÿº¶²³®©¶ÿ®©ÿ³¶ªº¶·¹«®¸ÿ±Åÿ¯«±¹¶ÿ¸¶·¹±©¹Äÿ»«± ªºº·¶¹¹¶ºÿ®¯¹ÿ®¹¹§¶¹Äÿű§½«¯ÿű·ÿ¯«¶ÿ¹¯ª¯§¶¨¹ÿ·¶¼±Æª³Äÿű·ÿ®¯¹ ¹¯±·ª½¶Äÿª©ºÿ¯«¶ÿ¯·ª©¹¼®¹¹®±©ÿ±Åÿ¯«®¹ÿÁ©±»³¶º½¶ÿ®©ÿ°¶ª·¹ÿ¯±ÿ²±¼¶Î Öÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ宩ª³³°Äÿ»¶ÿ¼§¹¯ÿ¹¯ª¯¶ÿ¯«ª¯ÿ¯«¶ÿŪ¼®³®ª³ÿº¶¹²¶©ºª©¯¹ÿ¹«±§³ºÿ«ªÆ¶ ¯«¶ÿ·®½«¯ÿ¯±ÿ¼ª®©¯ª®©Äÿ²±©¯·±³Äÿª©ºÿ¸·±¯¶²¯ÿ¯«¶®·ÿ²§³¯§·ª³ÿ«¶·®¯ª½¶Ä 722!"#$2$ 2%&'1(0)'(1810018"8108" 021 Page 132 of 144 012032104ÿ6789ÿ ÿÿ4ÿÿÿ *+,-.*./0,1ÿ30/415-657ÿ,0-ÿ*+,-.*./0,1ÿ891*9+,1ÿ5:;+5<<./0<ÿ,=/9* *>5.+ÿ,085<*/+?<ÿ.@,65AÿÿC*ÿ@9<*ÿ05D5+ÿ=5ÿ5ÿ8.*E @9<*ÿ*,35ÿ@5,<9+5<ÿ*/ÿ;+/*58*ÿ*>.<ÿ0/4ÿ,0-ÿ.0ÿ*>5ÿG9*9+5A F>,03ÿE/97ÿ,0-ÿ,6,.0ÿ.GÿE/9ÿ>,D5ÿ,0EÿG9+*>5+ÿH95<*./0<7ÿ@Eÿ8511ÿ;>/05 09@=5+ÿ.<ÿIJKLMMNLOJIPÿ,0-ÿ@Eÿ5@,.1ÿ.<ÿ+/<5,=+,>,@//A8/@A 722!"#$2$ 2%&'1(0)'(1810018"8108" 121 Page 133 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 20, 2021 Action Required: Award of Contract by Adoption of Resolution, (1 Reading) Presenter: Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Staff Contacts: Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager; Sam Sanders, Deputy City Manager; Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Title: Consideration of the Award of a Contract for City Manager Services Background: With City Council’s permission, staff recently issued a procurement solicitation, seeking proposals from firms interested in contracting with the City to perform the functions of a City Manager. Proposals received in response to the RFP will be reviewed by City Council and staff within a closed meeting of City Council on December 20, 2021. Although the more common method of engaging a City Manager is to hire an individual as an employee, with a payroll-processed salary and benefits, on occasion local governing bodies in Virginia have elected to engage a chief executive/ administrative officer (aka “city manager” or “county administrator”) by hiring a firm/ business entity to provide those services as an independent contractor. The City of Petersburg used that method some years ago, and in the Summer of 2021 Matthews County, Virginia engaged a firm to provide interim county administrator services. In Virginia, municipalities are prima facie regarded as being the sole judges of the necessity and reasonableness of the method by which a particular governmental function will be carried out. In October, City Council’s plan was to engage an Interim City Manager for a period of five to six months, and to begin an executive search process for a permanent City Manager in the second quarter of 2022. It is staff’s understanding and experience that a search process that would include robust community engagement would take from two to six months from start to finish (i.e., a start-work date for a permanent city manager). Any contract with a firm can be structured in a manner that accommodates that same time table. Discussion: In February 2021 City Council appointed a City Manager as a City employee, with the intention that, once the City government could be stabilized, a competitive selection would be undertaken with a process that would include public engagement. That individual was the fifth individual employed as City Manager, or “Interim” City Manager, since 2017. That individual resigned in October 2021, and City Council then appointed an Interim City Manager and arranged for the individual to commence employment on December 1, 2021. Shortly prior to December 1, 2021 that individual withdrew, and the City currently remains without a City Manager. The functions of a City Manager include the activities listed in Virginia Code §15.2-1451. All of these activities can be undertaken by personnel of an independent contractor, pursuant to provisions set forth within a contract for services authorized by City Council. So long as the functions set forth in Virginia Code §15.2-1451 are carried out, the services for performing those functions may be provided Page 134 of 144 either by an employee or by personnel of an independent contractor firm. A contract with a firm will allow City Council to continue the process of stabilizing the City government in the short term, with the assistance of experienced professionals who might not otherwise be interested in becoming a City employee, and with the continued work and support of the Deputy City Managers who are currently covering activities listed in Virginia Code §15.2-1541. A contract will also allow City Council to attract experienced professionals on a short-term basis, without the financial commitments associated with establishing an employment relationship with an individual, and an opportunity to demonstrate a stabilized organization prior to commencing an executive recruitment for a permanent city manager with all of the education, skills and experience necessary to lead the City organization. Budgetary Impact: the RFP instructs offerors to include information about the price at which their services would be offered, as part of their proposals. In advance of the City’s execution of any contract, the City’s Finance Director would be required to verify that funding is available within the amounts appropriated for spending with the FY 22 budget. Alternatives: (1) City Council may award a contract, by adopting the attached Resolution, or (2) City Council may cancel the RFP, or reject any or all proposals received in response to the RFP. Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council should select the offeror which, in its opinion, has made the best proposal and provides the best overall combination of quality, price, and various elements of city manager services that in total are optimal relative to the City’s needs for an Interim City Manager. Alternatively, City Council could cancel the RFP and/or reject any or all proposals received, and hire an individual recruited directly by councilors as a temporary, short-term employee. Attachment(1): • Form Resolution Page 135 of 144 RESOLUTION TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR CITY MANAGER SERVICES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA that a contract is hereby awarded to the firm of ___________________________ (“Successful Offeror”) to provide City Manager services, this City Council having determined that the firm made the best proposal and offers the best overall combination of quality, price, and various elements of the required services that, in total, are optimal to the City’s needs for an interim city manager. Notice of award shall be posted in accordance with procurement requirements. The City Attorney shall prepare a contract for execution by the Mayor and the Successful Offeror. Page 136 of 144 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: December 20, 2021 Action Required: Update Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Interim Director, Office of Community Solutions Staff Contacts: Sam Sanders, Deputy City Manager, Operations, Alex Ikefuna, Interim Director Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager Title: Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) Program Review/Redesign Update Background: On July 19, 2021, the City Council approved funding to Charlottesville Affordable Housing FUND (CAHF) Program Performance Review and Redesign, and Inclusionary Zoning Design. The CAHF program review would include evaluation of the past performance of the housing programs, past program agreements, selection and contracting processes, development of new approaches as needed, grant terms, program criteria, and evaluation metrics the City can use in the future. Discussion: The Scope of Work includes two tasks. Task 1: Program review; and Task 2) Program Redesign – Equitable and Affordable Development Standards. Methodology and Interview Process HR&A has completed substantial review of task 1 and the discussion today is to provide the City Council interim updates, and next steps. During Task 1, HR&A examined past performance of the City’s affordable housing programs. This work included collecting and reviewing available records from the City and funding recipients which focused on affordable housing units created and households served. HR&A is in the process of creating an up-to-date inventory of City-funding awards since 2010, drafting findings and preparing recommendations. To accomplish this, HR & A has reviewed past funding agreements and performance for City-funded projects and programs over a 10-year period (2010-2021) and interviewed agencies that received City funds for operations, programming, and development of affordable housing units. The primary purpose is to compare the level of impact projected during the application period with the impact achieved by the program or project. Following the initial data review, HR&A contacted project sponsors, proposers, and recipients of CAHF funding to schedule interviews to discuss individual records of CAHF funding allocations from the City since 2010 and to solicit additional information for each CAHF funding allocation. Page 137 of 144 The following agencies were interviewed: • Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Inc. (AHIP) • Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries (CALM) • Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) • Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville • Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) • Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) • Piedmont Community Land Trust (PCLT), formerly Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust (TJCLT) • Piedmont Housing Association (PHA) • Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH) Highlights of the Review 1. Since 2010, the City of Charlottesville has administered a total of $46.7 million in funding to support a variety of affordable housing initiatives across the City, drawing from the City’s General Fund, Capital Budget (CIP) and Housing Trust Fund (CAHF), and federal HOME and CDBG funds. This breaks down as follows: Housing Trust Fund and Capital Budget ($38,623,967), General fund ($5,185,260, and CDBG/HOME ($2,920,628). 2. Funding levels have averaged $3.6 million per year, with a large outlier in 2021 which totaled $10.4 million. 3. The funding is spread across a variety of uses. The largest share of funding (47%) went towards development (new construction of multifamily and single-family homes, and significant rehabilitation of multifamily buildings). Program (owner-occupied single- family rehabilitation and energy retrofits, homelessness services, rental subsidy, and homeownership subsidies) grants made up the next highest share, 4(0 %) of funding. Operating subsidies for nonprofits made up (11%) of expenditures. The remaining 2% were used for internal City administration, such as housing-related staff and consulting fees. 4. The spending yielded a total of about 2,300 households served, and 1,600 units created or preserved. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Since this request is associated with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Affordable Housing Plan, it supports all aspects of City Council Vision in one way or another. It contributes to the following 2018-2020 Strategic Plan Goals: Goal 1.3 to increase affordable housing options, 1.5 to intentionally address issues of race and equity, Goal 2: a healthy and safe city, Goal 3: a beautiful and sustainable natural and build environment, Goal 5: a strong, creative and diversify economy, and Goal 5.4 to foster effective community engagement. Community Engagement: There have been several community engagement meetings and activities conducted as part of the comprehensive plan update and affordable housing planning process. Page 138 of 144 Budgetary Impact: This is an update of already funded project. Recommendation: Next Steps • Summarize the Task 1 findings and host a discussion with the project team to discuss the findings and potential implications for the redesign of City processes. • Produce a final memorandum summarizing the past performance of the City’s affordable housing procurement, selection, and contracting processes, and making preliminary recommendations for ways to improve these processes. • Clearly define City’s affordable housing policy goals at each step of the solicitation and procurement process. • Initiate and complete Task 2. The following represents components of Task 2: Task 2. Program Redesign: Equitable and Affordable Development Standards (6-8 weeks) Task 2.1 Throughout Task 2, HR&A will hold weekly meetings with program staff to coordinate our work and discuss any questions that may arise. Task 2.2 Based on the findings of Task 1, and the guiding principles and recommendations in the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan, HR&A will work with City staff to develop detailed recommendations for the redesign of the City’s RFP and NOFA processes, with a focus on aligning the City’s funding with the priorities established in the housing plan. Task 2.3 HR&A will work closely with City staff to develop a set of recommended changes to the City’s selection and contracting processes that align with revised RFP and NOFA processes and the goals of the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan, with a focus on structuring grant and loan agreements to ensure that City funding has the intended impacts. Task 2.4 HR&A will develop a set of recommendations for the ongoing monitoring and reporting of city-funded affordable housing programs, including criteria and benchmarks for program evaluation and provider selection to guide future policy and decision- making. These criteria will likely quantify performance measures such as: • Program impact and cost, to track the efficient use of City funds toward providing affordable housing, supporting homeownership, and serving the income levels most in need of assistance. (e.g. number of homes, cost per unit, local subsidy per unit, total subsidy per unit, tenure type, length of affordability, affordability level) • Beneficiary data, to understand the populations served by the City’s affordable housing programs and to ensure racially equitable access to and distribution of affordable housing. (e.g. race, location, income, household size) • Alignment with the guiding principles and recommendations of the affordable housing plan, such as inclusive governance and regional collaboration. (e.g. Page 139 of 144 involvement of regional partners, inclusion of diverse community representation in decision-making by funding recipient) Task 2.5 HR&A will hold a meeting with City staff to review the recommendations of Tasks 2.2 through 2.4 and discuss any revisions or changes needed. Following this meeting, we will develop a final set of recommended changes to the City’s NOFA, RFP, contracting, and monitoring processes. We will hold one meeting to present the findings of Tasks 1 and 2. Alternatives: Not applicable! Attachments: None Page 140 of 144 12/6/21 AGENDA ITEM #2 ARTICLE XIII. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PLANNING Footnotes: --- (13) --- Editor's note— Ord. of August 15, 2016(2), amended Art. XIII in its entirety to read as herein set out. Former Art. XIII, §§ 2-416—2- 420, pertained to similar material. See also the Code Comparative Table. Sec. 2-416. - Purpose and applicability of article. (a) This article sets forth planning and decision making procedures for the community development block grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs, funded under the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Act of 1991, as amended. (b) CDBG funds should be used primarily to benefit low and moderate income persons and to meet the national objectives, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The funds may be spent for any activities permitted by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and applicable federal regulations. HOME funds should be used to strengthen public-private partnerships to provide more affordable housing, as defined by HUD. The funds may be spent for any activities permitted by the HOME Investment Partnerships Act of 1991, as amended, and applicable federal regulations. (c) The process established by this article shall apply only to funds specifically allocated for CDBG programs under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the HOME Investment Partnerships Act of 1991, as amended, or other funds specifically allocated for such purposes by city council. (d) This process shall not apply to the allocation of any funds remaining from urban renewal activities in the Garrett Street or Vinegar Hill urban renewal projects. (Ord. of 8-15-16(2)) Sec. 2-417. - Community development block grant and HOME task force. (a) The community development block grant/HOME task force is hereby established to make recommendations to the planning commission and city council for funding housing, community development, economic development, and public service needs based on the consolidated plan and the CDBG priorities as established by city council annually. The CDBG/HOME task force will work with city administration to evaluate CDBG and HOME programs to ensure consistency with the consolidated plan goals. Such recommendations and evaluations shall be forwarded in accordance with the procedures set forth in this article. (b) The CDBG/HOME task force shall be composed of nine (9) members appointed by the city council. The members shall include: (1) Five (5) members from HUD's identified income eligible areas of the city who are residents of city Page 141 of 144 council designated priority neighborhoods; (2) One (1) member of the planning commission; (3) One (1) member representing public service programs as defined at 24 CFR 570.201; (4) One (1) member of the city school board; (5) One (1) additional citizen. The term for the one (1) member of the CDBG task force from the planning commission and the one (1) member of the school board shall be coextensive with the term of office to which such member has been elected or appointed, unless the city council, at the first regular meeting each year, appoints others to serve as their representatives. The remaining members of the task force first appointed shall serve respectively for terms of one (1) year, two (2) years, and three (3) years, divided equally or as nearly equal as possible between the membership. Subsequent appointments shall be for terms of three (3) years each. Vacancies shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term only. Members may serve up to two (2) consecutive full terms. (Ord. of 8-15-16(2)) Sec. 2-418. - Community development block grant (CDBG)/HOME task force subcommittees. (a) Priority neighborhood subcommittee. When the city council determines that a portion of available CDBG funds will be used to assist an income eligible area, the council may appoint a priority neighborhood subcommittee, including but not limited to representatives of the CDBG task force, the planning commission and residents, business people and property owners from the priority neighborhood. The term of each priority neighborhood subcommittee shall be three (3) years, unless otherwise specified by the council, and each priority neighborhood subcommittee shall operate under such guidelines and perform such advisory functions as the council may direct at the time of appointment. Priority neighborhood subcommittee shall make recommendations to the CDBG/HOME task force for funding housing and community development needs based on the consolidated plan and work with the city to evaluate feasibility and to ensure consistency with programmatic regulations. The city council will designate an income eligible area for three (3) years with the authority to postpone or extend funding in the event of a compelling project or need. (b) Economic development subcommittee. When the city council provides for a CDBG economic development set aside, the city staff who participate on the strategic action team (SAT) will serve as the economic development subcommittee. The SAT is an interdisciplinary team of city staff who examine the city's workforce development efforts and assist with policy development focused on self-sufficiency for city residents. When the city council determines that a separate economic development subcommittee is needed, the city council shall appoint members with economic development expertise, including but not limited to local business owners, chamber of commerce, office of economic development and other major stakeholders. The subcommittee shall make recommendations to the CDBG/HOME task force for funding economic development projects based on the consolidated plan and work with city staff to evaluate feasibility and ensure consistency with programmatic regulations. (Ord. of 8-15-16(2)) Page 142 of 144 Sec. 2-419. - Annual process. The following steps shall comprise the annual process for planning and programming the expenditure of CDBG and HOME funds. (1) City staff assigned to CDBG task force will review CDBG/HOME consolidated plan goals and applicable regulations to formulate recommendations for annual funding priorities. (2) The city council shall conduct a public hearing to solicit the views of citizens on city wide community development and housing needs. The purpose of this public hearing shall be for council to receive citizens' comments on recommended priorities and program performance. The notice of the public hearing shall include an estimate of the amount of funds available for CDBG and HOME activities and the range of activities that may be undertaken, as well as how the public can access a copy of the most recent consolidated annual performance evaluation report (CAPER). Public comments may be presented in writing or in person. (3) After receiving all comments, council shall establish priorities for the grant year, including such percentage allocations of funds to categories and to particular income eligible areas as it deems appropriate. (4) After council establishes priorities for the grant year, city staff with the CDBG/HOME task force will develop a request for proposals, within the funding priorities established by council, to be advertised and distributed to interested parties and prior recipients of funds. (5) Responses to the city's request for proposals will be evaluated by the CDBG/HOME task force. (6) The CDBG/HOME task force shall provide funding recommendations to the planning commission and city council to ensure that proposed projects are consistent with the CDBG program requirements and national objectives and/or HOME program requirements, as applicable. Review will also include a determination of consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and affordable housing goal(s). (7) The city council and planning commission shall conduct a joint public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed annual action plan of the consolidated plan and CDBG/HOME performance, as appropriate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDBG/Home performance plan may be presented at a separate public hearing as required by the Code of Federal Regulations. (8) Following the public hearing and any additional meetings or hearings deemed by the city council to be necessary, the council shall make a final decision on the programs, projects and expenditures to be funded from the year's CDBG/HOME programs. (9) The city shall provide the task force and planning commission with the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) in conjunction with the city's submission to HUD. The CAPER and evaluation of program specific successes and challenges will be used in future CDBG/HOME recommendations to city council for projects and programs. (10) Once council has approved and funded a program, any reprogramming and budgetary changes will be done consistent with the citizen participation plan adopted by council. (Ord. of 8-15-16(2)) Page 143 of 144 Sec. 2-420. - Procedures for public hearings, meetings and records. (a) Plans or amendments, as required under this article shall be advertised in the manner provided by Code of Virginia, § 15.2-2204, and in accordance with the adopted citizen participation plan. (b) All meetings conducted pursuant to this article and all records of the CDBG and HOME programs shall be subject to the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. (Ord. of 8-15-16(2)) Sec. 2-421. - Reserved. Editor's note— Ord. of Dec. 15, 2003, repealed § 2-421, which pertained to expiration of article. See also the Code Comparative Table. Page 144 of 144