--------- I call the Charlottesph City Council April 20th, 2026 meeting to order. Um, Madame Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Councelor Fleer >> here. >> Vice Mayor Asher >> here. Councelor Payne >> here. >> Councelor Snook
>> here. >> Mayor Wade >> here. Is there a motion to approve or amend the agenda? >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Any no other questions? All in favor, please say yes. >> Yes.
>> All oppose, please said no. Motion passes five to zero. Um this meeting will be divided into three um sections. The first one is a work session where we will discuss presentation and would and will not take any votes. The second is a
close session. We do have a a close session today and then we'll come back at 6:30 for a regular business meeting. Today we're going to hear a report on the key findings from the ADU manual and Lou fe and student housing study. Miss
Brown. >> Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Brown. I am the director of the neighborhood development services department and I am here to present to you on our review of the affordable dwelling unit monitoring and procedures manual or ADU manual uh
which must be updated on an annual basis to determine if updates to affordable housing expectations for student housing and bonus height are appropriate to improve ah >> to improve support for >> improve
>> to improve support for the affordable able housing goals of the comprehensive plan and address other concerns that have been raised with current policies. The manual has not yet been reviewed nor updated since it was adopted in 2024. In November 2025, staff contracted with 3TP ventures to support this study,
conducting research on practices of other jurisdictions, evaluating the current policies, and studying the financial feasibility of potential changes. Staff has also been gathering community input to confirm policy goals. We presented to you an overview of the scope of work for this effort in
January. And I'm now here with uh Jeremy Goldstein and Amanda Clipper to share key findings and potential options for updates. It's not an action item, but rather an opportunity for uh counselors to learn more about this research, ask questions, provide feedback and
insights. So um I will present uh the first portion of this presentation and then hand it over to uh our consultants. Um I'll review study background, purpose and scope, public engagement, goals and guiding principles. Um and then our
consultants will present on study findings, feasibility impacts and policy recommendations. Um so again we are um reviewing the um edu manual uh with a specific focus on inley fee payments um bonus height uh student housing and the geographic
criteria for student housing projects. And by way of background on um current policies uh for affordable housing and student housing um projects that have greater than 10 units must provide 10% of units at less than 60% of the AMI or
pay an inlue fee. Bonus heights uh excuse me um bonus height uh may be achieved for uh units that are delivered at less than 50% of the AMI or they must pay the same fee. This inloo fee has been calculated as the average total cost per unit of developing a
residential unit in the Charlottesville market. And the fee expectations go up to units that have three bedrooms. Um, student housing expectations are different. Um, student housing is not defined in um the zoning ordinance. Um,
but it is um uh described or provided criteria for specifically this policy. um and that is that they are projects that are rented by the bedroom within a half mile of campus grounds. Uh for projects that are essentially single room occupancy projects that are located
um within this geography, no on-site affordable units are allowed um an inloo fee is required. And that inloo fee is uh calculated differently than for um non- studentent housing projects as the difference between the value of a market rate unit and that of an affordable
unit. um that we refer to as the value gap. Um the expectations are also calculated uh for uh units that have up to three bedrooms. And what you'll notice in the fee structure is that um expectations for
student housing are lower than for non- studentent housing projects. Um the rationale is that um since there was a um there's no expectation for um on-site affordable units in student housing, the um in fee expectations
should also be lower. The reason why um no affordable units are required for student housing is because student housing projects are inherently um a different product. Um they um they are typically not constructed such that um
separate um units uh that could be rented as a full unit rather than by the bedroom um could be provided um at lower levels of affordability. That's just simply not what student housing developers would typically want to provide. Um so the the reason for that
that was essentially the reason for not requiring uh on-site affordable units for student housing projects. Um this is the map that shows where this policy for um single room occupancy um developments um within a half mile of um
campus grounds um are located. You can see north grounds and central grounds defined um I think it's easier to see in the map on the right. And then that buffer shows all the locations within a half mile of grounds that um would not required would not be required to
provide on-site units and would have that lower in fee expectation. >> Miss Brown, can I interrupt you second? There was a decision of the BZA just last week that I would like to understand that apparently suggested that one of
these maps was was diff was to be changed or to be viewed differently. the the the the decision uh by the board of zoning appeals last week was a 3 to2 vote and the determination was that the zoning administrator um made the correct determination that this is the correct
um definition of north grounds and central grounds um and that the um project in question is located within an area within a half mile of grounds >> and and what exactly was the the issue? There was some some question about whether a particular kind of university
property would be counted. >> The I believe the the um the appeal was that um the zoning administrator did not correctly um define uh north and central grounds, but the board of zoning appeals
confirmed the administrator's uh determination. Was about the the park where the George Rogers Park statue used to be on whether or not that counted as part of central grounds. Okay. >> And the decision was that yes, it does count as part of central grounds. >> Okay. >> The reports that I saw were confusing
and I didn't know what exactly they were measuring. >> Thank you for the specificity there. Yeah, it was that that part was the was the question that was raised specifically, but there were a lot of different opinions about how north grounds and central grounds should be defined instead. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
>> No, no problem. >> Okay. So, a little bit of history, and I've shared this previously, um, but sharing again a little bit of the history of student housing in um, the city of Charlottesville. So, as we know, UVA enrollment has increased steadily. Um, while, uh, students historically
lived on grounds and, um, in areas within very close proximity to grounds in older apartment complexes and converted single family homes. Uh, we are now seeing um, interest in private development for this purpose-built student housing concentrated close to grounds. And these projects are being
built um as uh single room occupancy pro uh projects um uh in many cases with fourbedroom units being made available to the students of the university or um people that work for the university that are looking for that um that housing
type. Um uh enrollment today is at 27,000 students undergraduate and graduate. Um there's a limited supply of uh of beds available on grounds. Um UVA aspires to
have all secondyear students living on grounds by 2030. Um and there is quite a bit of construction underway. Um so there are five projects currently um under construction totaling an additional 3500 beds. Um but certainly
there still there will still be um many students um living off grounds in the surrounding community. Um this is the type of development we are seeing. Um Charlottesville is not the only place that is seeing the sort of student housing um under construction. Um but
here are two of our um most prominent examples. The Ivy um or Bloom 231 units, 10 stories and the Verb has 442 units and 12 stories. Um, these buildings, um, have a lot of high-end amenities, um,
opportunities for mixed use, um, and a lot of opportunities for private space, private bathrooms. Um, one other piece of data that is new from the last time I presented on this, just as we think about um, trends and what we could anticipate in the future,
um, we are at that peak of enrollment um, really this year um, with 18 year olds um, metriculating next year into college. Those birth rates in Virginia, but also nationally are trending down. And so while certainly there has been um
a increase in enrollment, an increase in demand for this sort of housing um you know there is a question of whether or not that demand will be sustained um whether you know UVA would even look to build any additional housing on grounds or wait to see if we've reached um
really a already a point of market saturation for this sort of housing. And could I again, sorry to interrupt, but directly on point at the planning commission meeting last week, I think you were the one who said that UVA had basically put on pause any efforts to to
build more housing. Does that include the the effort to build housing for secondyear students? >> Um the so the projects here are the only ones that are currently um Oopsies, I'm going backwards. Um sorry. The projects that I showed on the screen are the only
ones that are um >> in the pipeline. Yeah, there's no other plans from what I have been told. >> Are we to assume that previously expressed hopes, let me put it that way, if not quite plans may be put on hold as
well. >> I don't have any additional information, unfortunately. >> Okay. I was hoping maybe you did. Thank you. just just what I've shared already that there are no additional plans that I've been made aware of >> and we do know that there are existing plans and UVA's pipeline to get rid of
currently existing upperassmen on grounds housing and then around I believe the uh barracks area they've bought um private town homes and apartments that were private so they may actually be taking supply offline is the point. >> Huh. Okay.
So the scope of work for our study um was broken into three phases. The first was factf finding information gathering um analysis of our existing fee structure. Uh what are the approaches of other jurisdictions and what approaches might best incentivize production of
on-site units without limiting development feasibility. Um we also did community engagement to um try to understand what people in the community are sharing uh with about their concerns. Um and then we've been
working now um over the past few months to um develop guiding principles, complete that feasibility analysis and uh develop some potential options for policy changes. So the key questions that we tried to get feedback on from the community were
really what are the most important things we're trying to achieve with this policy? What are the problems we're trying to solve? Um and what are the impacts we want to avoid? Um so we tried to um get a sense of you know um what what would you prefer if you were
presented with different options um to really understand that there are some trade-offs in policy. Um we uh used uh connect Charlottesville for the first oper uh time to try to get some feedback. Um we did have a lot of page views. So we're very happy about that
ability of the um the tool to raise awareness. Um limited um actual u submissions of responses to the survey unfortunately um but it is um you know one data point that we can use along with you know our other um uh pieces of
other considerations to inform recommendations. We also conducted um interviews with stakeholder groups, one-on-one conversations with u stakeholders um presented to the housing advisory committee, planning commission um newsletters and direct neighborhood
outreach as well. >> So I just just >> sure >> previous one the the your recommendations aren't based on the 40 just the 45. >> No, it's we were just wanting to try to share with you all what we did here. Um
it is you know one piece of uh feedback um along with you know the best practice research what we're seeing you know in our own uh analysis of the fee structure what we're hearing from stakeholders you know all of that works together to inform recommendations.
Um some of the themes that we did pull from the feedback that we did receive are um in in line with what we're you know hearing in in in stakeholder interviews as well. Concerns about you know the impact of greater height and
density on these areas. you know that uh this inl fee structure that um is lower for student housing may potentially be um uh incentivizing the the production of that sort of housing closer to more vulnerable communities. Um we asked
folks to rank um what they would view as their priorities and addressing displacement pressures and vulnerable neighborhoods. I'll get them later. I don't need them anymore. Um was ranked highest. um encouraging on-site affordable housing units came in second.
Um we also asked about aligning fees with current financial costs to produce and maintain affordable units, supporting development feasibility for housing production, supporting new student housing within walking distance to grounds, and increasing affordable housing options for students. Those were
ranked lower in the order of priority. So the community feedback, our own observations of issues and opportunities um led us to propose these as kind of our guiding principles for developing recommendations. Um we suggest that it
is important that whatever um expectations we have for affordable housing be predictable. Um that um they promote uh affordable dwelling units on site in new development. that we see a range of um housing options at a wide
range of price points in development. Um that we have a policy that can promote um and support both public but also private provision of affordable dwelling units and that also while it's important to produce new units, preservation of existing affordability is important.
things we want to avoid are um is a policy that could um lead to the concentration of affordable units uh in lower cost areas or make worse the development the displacement pressures in vulnerable neighborhoods.
>> The Can you go back the the avoiding um side the first bullet concentrating affordable dwelling units in lowcost areas. Yes. >> We're avoiding that because we want to spread out affordable access throughout
the city. >> That's correct. Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Amanda Clipper to present on the findings of the study. >> Hi, I'm Amanda Clipper from 3TP Ventures. Um so uh some of the initial
observations and concerns that staff shared with us in the scope for this study um for non- studentent housing development just that I guess first the significant gap between the fees that um student housing is paying and other types of development. Um the current um the concern that the current fee
structure may not be best practice. Um the lack of difference in fee for projects that are getting bonus height. Um and then for student housing, uh possibility that um the fee structure is
uh hindering new affordable units being provided near campus. Um student housing's lower per fee being kind of an incentive for more student housing to be built. The lack of a fee for fourbedroom units when a lot of student housing has
fourbedroom or more units in it. um the concern with what happens when or if a student housing development is then converted later to a non- studentent housing and they haven't um provided affordable units and the concern with the large geography for uh for student
housing the halfmile buffer leading to displacement concerns in surrounding neighborhoods. >> So in our initial study first we looked at the current fee and we did some research on best practices for fee calculation. um we didn't have access to the the models that the the previous fee had
been calculated with, but um we we did some research and we found the most common best practice methods for calculating an inloop fee are uh the affordability gap, also called the value gap, and the production cost. So the affordability gap is the value of a market rate unit minus the value of an
affordable unit. So this is like the market rate developers perspective of how much revenue they would be losing by putting in an affordable unit rather than a market rate unit. And the production cost is the uh construction cost minus the value of the affordable
unit. So this is like the for a nonprofit developer for example what is the amount of subsidy they would need to break even on building a a unit. So they it's the construction cost minus the revenue that one would get from an affordable unit. And um I'm sorry it's
Emily >> Amanda >> Amanda I'm sorry Amanda um and you you may are going to say this or you may have said it I was taking notes what are you the definition using for affordability
>> um it's what whatever is required for the units um so the I guess in in your case 60% AMI um so there's various ways also So to to structure the fees, they can be fixed like Charlottesville's fee where every development everywhere pays the same fees or they could be indexed where you
have some kind of a formula and it's done on a on a case by case basis. >> What sort of factors would go into such a formula? >> Um it could be about the size of the development or the um you know square footage or uh the costs individually. So
>> sorry, >> location. >> Location. So different neighborhoods might have different um different formulas and things like that. So it become it becomes very complex but it also kind of captures each development more. So there's pros and cons. Um so uh note that construction cost uh
which is what Charlottesville's fee is based on is not considered a common best practice. Um it's it's tends to be kind of high. it's like over representing the cost of um putting in affordable units. >> So, the construction cost when it was
developed was kind of intentionally high um as a way to make it more feasible for on-site affordable units to exist. Cuz if we have an inlue fee and it's just one, everyone's always going to choose the inloo fee and never build on site.
So, is that uh uh practice that other localities have done of trying to intentionally have an inlue fee but incentivize the existence of on-site affordable units? >> Yeah, that that's a policy choice that can be made and I know that that was made in in Charlottesville's case and
there are other places in Virginia that use the construction cost as well. Um but we were also hearing that there was a concern that it may if the fee is too high that maybe it's uh hindering development from happening. So, we wanted to address that that concern as well. Mhm. But in which case we should
expect that the goal of having inloo or um on-site units won't occur, >> right? >> Um so some of the pros and cons of these different methods um while they're all uh methods that you you could reasonably choose um construction cost, the pro
being that it's a high fee that promotes on-site units, it also ensures sufficient funding to build units off-site because it's the entire cost of developing a unit. Um the cons being that there's only so much developable land in Charlottesville for providing
units off-site. Um the fee is higher than the loss of revenue from ADUs and also it doesn't account for affordability levels. So that's the issue with the bonus height is that there's not um whether it's 60% AMI or 80% or 50% the fee is the same. um
production cost. The pro would be um it's it is in line with the subsidy of providing a unit offsite that that a nonprofit developer would need to do that. Um but the con is again that it's much lower than the at least in this case it's lower than the cost sorry lower than the loss of revenue from
putting in units. So with that developers would choose to pay the fee every time. Um the value gap or the affordability gap method is a good match for the market rates market rate developers cost. So, it represents the cost of providing those units. Um, it's
still enough to fully subsidize off-site units if if that hap if we go that route. Um, allows for fees at multiple affordability levels and also might align well with the tax abatement strategy if you choose to to do rent based tax abatement. But the con of the
affordability gap is that it is lower than the the fee that you're currently using and therefore um less likely to promote on-site units. So, we did look at other jurisdictions in Virginia and what they're doing. Um, most there's only kind of a handful of other places in Virginia right now that
have required affordable units and they're all structured kind of differently. Um, most of the places that do have a requirement also have a fee in L. So, we only found, I think, one place that requires units that doesn't have a fee in L, but they had other ways of modifying the requirements. Um so not a
lot of comparability between different places in Virginia right now and no place doing it quite like Charlottesville. Um we did find a case study from Minneapolis where they uh do require student housing to prov provide affordable units on site. So um these
this is showing several student housing developments in Minneapolis that have on-site affordable units. Um however they are their affordability is tied in with being a student. So there, you know, if you uh if you qualify for certain types
of financial aid, then you can qualify for housing, the affordable housing these buildings, which I think is maybe not what what Charlottesville has in mind for these, but um they are doing affordability requirements for student housing. So our findings and takeaways of the
initial study are that the existing fee uh does match with local construction costs. So, we validated that fee and if we decide if you decide that um you want to stick with the construction cost method, then the the current fee is okay. Um but that method is not a best practice even though it is used
elsewhere in Virginia. Um we also found that the existing fee that is being used for student housing, which is described in the manual as being the value gap, might actually be the production cost. So when we calculated production costs, um it looked a lot like the the existing
student housing fee more so than than our affordability gap calculation. Um so we think that might be on the low side like a low representation of of the cost of affordable housing. Um and we recommend the affordability gap as a best practice alternative with more
flexibility and better policy alignment. Does that equate I'm gonna actually save this till the end. >> Okay, thanks. Um, all right. So, uh, we also conducted a feasibility analysis. Um, we used the
feasibility tool that was developed for the tax abatement study to test the um, in Luffy's impact on development feasibility. Um, so we uh, we modified that model to compare three project scenarios. One is providing the units on site uh one with the existing fee and
loo and the other with a proposed fee and loo based on the affordability gap method. Um and in theory the feasibility of the on-site and the fee and loo should be similar if we want to um represent the costs of affordable units. Um so this is showing the two fee
structures the existing fee structure above and the proposed fee structure below uh for rental units and condos. and we added a fee for four or more units. Um, this is just a screenshot from the analysis showing the calculation of the
fees for rentals. So, we took the market rent and that's based on sort of an average of market rents that we found from recent developments in Charlottesville. um subtracting the property tax and other operating expenses to get a net operating income
and then uh did a capitalized value based on the net operating income. So that's like the the value of a unit as an investor would look at it based on how much revenue it generates. >> To go back for a second, why are the cost per ownership at the studio in one
bedroom level so much lower than the current fee structure? Uh should I go back to the here? Sorry, what was that >> for? Um the cost per ownership condominium unit. Why is it what makes it so much lower at the studio and one
and twobedroom level than our current uh fee structure? >> Um I think we are not really sure because we don't have the calculations that they did previously. Um >> is that your question?
We we don't have all the details of the current fee structure. So, it's surmise. >> Um there are not a lot of examples of recent condo development in Charlottesville for us to draw upon. Um
so um yeah the the the data is sparse for for calculating these. Um okay. Um so the affordability gap fee for um
rentals is shown here and that's uh just the difference between the capitalized value of a market rate unit and an affordable unit. Um, and here's another screenshot of the feasibility analysis with the these kind
of red boxes highlighting the total fee paid in the three scenarios. So, this is an example of a student housing development built in the tier one submarket, which is kind of one of the more expensive parts of town, somewhere where land costs are high and rents are high. Um, so this is probably the
highest feasibility example. Um, and so there's, sorry, it's kind of small. All the fee and loo uh being zero for on-site about three and a half million for uh the existing and uh 5 million assuming that um sorry close to 6
million for the proposed assuming that student housing is paying the same fee. Um and as a part of the project costs which are in the you know 60 60ome million it's a fairly small part of the cost um and therefore doesn't have a
huge impact on feasibility. Can you say that again please? >> Um that the fee in loo is a small part of the total project cost. Um so whether there's whether it's the existing fee or the proposed fee the um impact that it has on project feasibility is small
>> and in this example just to clarify because it is small and that slide doesn't seem to be in our packet. What are those actual numbers >> of the total costs? >> Yeah. >> Are they in fees the like real number? >> Yeah. So the total fee using the
existing method is 3.5 million. Um and for the proposed it is close to 6 million. So it's it's higher because student housing paying this affordability gap fee. And who determines if that's a big or small number relative to the project and the
bank accounts of the people doing the building? >> I think it's help by how much the construction costs are. >> Yes. So total project costs, yes. 66 million for the project paying the existing fee and 68 million for the
project paying the proposed fee. So about 5% of project costs. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at it just in terms of numbers like that, sure, maybe it seems like a small percentage of the whole thing, but that's still several million dollars. and that, you know, we are not the
professional builders knowing whether or not that's going to how how um much that really does matter to the project. Yes. Um I guess I I had had some questions previously about the the
yield not um changing very much. So I was I was hoping to address that that the reason that the yield didn't change tremendously with even with that change of several million was because of the because it's a small part of the overall cost. >> So yeah I mean I'm you know I'm
certainly not in this field. It would be good to know like on a typical project what is you know um the profit >> I think that's captured on this slide as well as with the the yield numbers seem
like the most relevant of what they need for it to be successful. Correct. >> Yeah. And I'm I was going to get to that. Okay. Um >> go ahead to this next slide. Um so for rentals the metric we're looking at is the yield on cost. um which for the
target for rentals, we're assuming about 6% would be a a feasible project. Um so the table on top is comparing the yield for on-site units versus projects paying the existing fee for a variety of building types. On the bottom, it's comparing the yield for on-site units
versus the proposed fee for those building types. Um you might notice that student housing is the only um project type that is achieving 6% in in any of these cases. Um there's not a ton of difference between the existing and the proposed fee for rentals in terms of
yield, but the proposed fee is a better match to units for most housing types. Um similar analysis for condos. Again, want to acknowledge the limited data that um that we had for these. Um we're looking at the metric here is gross
margin, which the target would be about 20% for feasible project. So, we're we're showing that most condo development potentially would be below that. Uh, and that may be why we're not seeing a lot of condo projects. Um, but
the um because the fee changes quite a bit more. Um, there's a bit more difference between the existing fee and the proposed fee. And I'm seeing that table on the bottom is mislabeled, but that is the proposed fee. Um, and so the lower fee helps with feasibility, but is still not enough to make these projects
feasible. Um so general findings of the feasibility analysis is that changing to the affordability gap fee narrows the financial gap between on-site provision and fee payments in most cases. Um changing the fee is recommended is probably not going to make that much of a difference in project feasibility
especially for rentals. Um wanted to note that because the fee is an average and this is true of both the existing and the proposed fee. it's a fixed fee that's an average for everywhere that if you're in a more expensive place in a more expensive part of town that it's probably going to make more sense to put
it to pay the fee and if you're in a lower um cost part of town it's probably going to make more sense to put in the units. Um but that's uh I guess kind of the nature of having a fixed fee that is an average. um bringing student housing bringing the
student housing fee in line with other housing types um removes that incentive. Uh but student housing remains the most feasible housing type to construct. Um so I can move on to the policy recommendations.
Um so we recommend changing the fee method to the affordability gap. Um this brings the fee in line with best practices and the true cost of affordable units. um and also addresses the perception that the current fee is high and thus curtailing new development. Um potential impacts if
that's the case that could be an increased supply of housing and also increased payment of the fee because if if the high fee was holding somebody back then they probably were not going to put in units anyway. Um but that is the bonus of you know the plus of having more revenue
um through fees. uh recommend aligning student housing with other types of housing in terms of requiring units on site and having a fee in LU that's the same as other housing types uh because student housing is housing so it could be contributing in line with other housing types. It's a simplification of
the affordable housing policy and it removes the concern of what happens if an afford or if a student housing development converts to non- studentent housing. Um, and potential impact would be an increase in the student housing fee payment and increased revenue to support community needs.
Um, to go along with that, uh, eliminating the geographic criteria for student housing, that halfmile buffer, because if student housing projects are treated the same as other types of housing, then the buffer is no longer needed. This is again a simplification of the policy. Um and we believe that
there are other reasons that these developments would want to locate closer to grounds like students are there. They would get higher rents. Um there are higher densities available there. Um and it it removes the incentive from those neighborhoods further slightly
further away within the half mile. Um we also recommend adding an inloo fee for fourbedroom or more units because the current fee structure ends at three bedrooms. Many units in student housing have four bedrooms and some have even more. Um, which would increase uh revenue from fourbedroom units in
student housing, though we think student housing is probably still more likely to pay the fee than to include units. Um, and adding fee requirements for bonus height. Um so because the uh because the fee is uh now includes the
affordability level in it um it's possible to calculate another fee for 50% AMI units. So that's shown on this slide. And um also that um if if there's a if you don't want to have a second fee that could be paid for that or if you want to
continue with the construction cost, the the alternative would be just require the units on site in order to get bonus height. Um so this is just a summary of the options to consider. again um applying the affordability gap approach and increasing the fee for bonus height to
reflect uh the lower AMI level requiring on-site affordable units for student housing with an inluff fee equivalent that is the same as other units other housing types u removing the geographic criteria and um adding an inluff fee
requirement for fourbedroom units. Some future considerations would be continue to monitor what's happening as a result of policy changes. Where are units being provided on site? Where is it happening? Where are people tending to pay the fee? Um and those things could be can inform the next round of
updates and also monitoring the market conditions given the policy and demographic changes that Kelly talked about. Um especially regarding demand for student housing. Um and Thanks. So, we did go to planning commission last week um and got some
feedback from them. So, I just wanted to make sure I documented that and shared that with you all. Um there was a request to see data uh additional data on the impact of change fees on project feasibility. Um so, we shared some additional information in the presentation today. That's why it wasn't in your packet posted last week. And
we've also posted that um that full workbook um on the project web page. Um there was uh in terms of uh broader feedback, there was um support expressed for standardizing expectations for student housing and non- studentent housing. Uh also support for eliminating
the geographic criteria for student housing. Um there was a question of whether the proposed changes will support the provision of affordable on-site units. And so um there was some discussion about other strategies to support the production of affordable units beyond the scope of this study um
but flagging them here. Study of potential options for tax abatement and study of potential for additional height and density closest to grounds. Uh so with that uh we conclude our um presentation and um look forward to your
feedback. Um the first question um that would be helpful for us to get feedback on is are these recommendations for proposed changes to the ADU manual uh for affordable housing expectations and in lee payments heading in the right direction? What are your um concerns?
You know, what sort of clarifying questions do you have? >> Thank you. Thank you. Um so it's a lot lot of information, a lot of discussion. Jen, do you have any comments or questions at this time?
>> Yeah, I think um thank you for such a robust uh review of what is going on out there. It's you're strangely making it easy to follow or easier to follow than if I tried to do it on my own. So, I appreciate that because it is pretty complicated. Um and it's good to see
that there are maybe some other recommendations like increased density and abatement that could be in our future exploration of it. But we had kind of received some um information that maybe the tool that we're using has some flaws in it and I wondered it came
in pretty late so I didn't know if >> I'm going to ask Jeremy Goldstein to respond to that question. >> Yeah. Good afternoon all. I'm I'm Jeremy Goldstein. I actually was with you a couple months ago to talk about talk about that tool that was a project under my lead. So I did see that uh that
gentleman's concerns the the primary one related to the internal rate of return uh calculation which by the way has no impact on any of the work that was done for the inloo fee that's dealing mostly with revenues and this deals with
effectively cash flows. Um still double checking. It does look to me though on first impression that there is a a a you know a formula error on on my part and I do apologize for that. that uh may in
fact uh slightly uh um downplay IRRa uh baseline IRRa I think likely to be on the order of 1 to 2% I don't know if you recall that uh looking at the existing market conditions um uh two
months ago that IRS uh for typical projects were low effectively everywhere. This would certainly make small improvements to that, but in no way does it fundamentally change any of the findings uh that there were about um about any of the the the related issues
uh that were tackled in that in that study especially as it relates to the role that uh inclusionary zoning plays in uh market feasibility or the role that a taxape would play in affecting u uh financial feasibility for projects.
So, we'll we'll continue to do additional due diligence uh try and address all of the uh gentleman's questions, but I don't have any particular concerns that in any real way has impacts on any of the findings uh of that work. It's just sort of one of the
benefits of moving from, you know, a static report to an interactive uh uh updatable tool is that we can make this update and uh and move forward from there with I hope you know ultimately a a better tool and better model.
>> That's just >> for right now. That's >> for right now. Yeah. Well said. >> Yes. No, no, you can have Lloyd. Do you >> Yeah, I have a number of questions. One, sort of dealing with the the model. Um,
I spent a fair amount of time playing around with different things. I guess that's what the model is intended to allow us to do. And I found that I could the one thing that I couldn't figure out how to do would be to say uh supposing
the city were to subsidize an affordable unit to the tune of $100,000 a piece or $50,000 a piece. >> Is there a place in the model to do that >> to put that in? I couldn't find it. >> There there is. I'd be happy to maybe we
please feel free to email me. We can sort of uh walk through it. that wasn't really technically part of the scope that we were doing, but we did sort of build some of that stuff in for for exactly those kinds of those exact those kinds of reasons. So, it would be like a forgivable loan, for instance, or something like that >> or or something. I mean, part of what I
was trying to do was to figure out if there was anything that would move the needle. And what it looked like to me was that there were, at least the way that I plugged the numbers in, there was nothing we could do that was going to make feasible anything other than
student housing. There are I think it's fair to say there are serious headwinds for current house like you know new housing construction and costs are very high and revenues aren't necessarily keeping track even though rents for most have gone up say
over the last five years but the the you know the the market's a pretty good indicator of you know the of market feasibility and the fact that those are the things that are getting built right now um stem from some of that work. I do expect that there are, you know, there there are more places finding more
nuanced ways of providing different kinds of housing, housing at different at different sizes, different scales, using lots differently. Uh, and I do anticipate that that kind of creativity will find its way here just uh, you know, in all due time. Um, but certainly
as it relates to typical projects, yeah, I mean, I think the finding is right now it's pretty hard to make things uh, turn turn green. What you do have are some substantial impacts that uh public incentives can have on yields on irr so
that when these projects are close or there is a say a specific project that because of that particular parcel because of that particular funding stream etc etc uh its particular design that project is close to penciling out I think there are there are there's plenty of evidence that some of these tools that you can bring to bear can can yield
can yield real uh real fruit >> case by case basis It would make logical sense to think that that were the case. I just couldn't figure out how to make your model reflect what I hope would be a reality. Any tax abatement, the only tax abatement strategy that seemed to make a
difference was 100% rebates on all taxes on all units, affordable or not. >> So, >> which clearly would be a non-starter for a whole lot of reason. >> Yeah. And this is this is really like that that tool in this first iteration is really meant just to evaluate the sort of like typical project. There are plenty of ways in which this could be
done. We're doing more sort of specific project type. You've got more of the more of the levers up front to you are about very like really specific to that exact parcel, what it had to get purchased for, what can go on it, you know, how many units can it fit, how tall can it be, uh how big those
specific units are, what kind of specific materials you're using, like all the various things that go into like a a you know, a what I call a real proforma done for for a specific uh analysis. and and all that is effectively sort of ready. It's all in the guts of this, but that would be a
spin-off of what that tool was initially designed to do, which was to do an applesto apples comparison of, you know, with and without inclusionary zoning and with and without a couple of different tax abatement structures. Yeah. >> So, it wasn't it wasn't so focused in fact on like if if a project was read.
It was really focused on what was the incremental difference was the change in yield and IR as a result of that intervention. Can I ask a quick clarifying question for for that? If the IRRa is adjusted based on the feedback that we've recently received,
>> will that help some of those projects pencil out more so than they are? >> I mean, not not really. No, the the IR on the IR side, it's quite low um uh for for right now. Um at least
as as calculated by us and and you know, sort of uh vetted by others. But as you can see, there's still opportunities for improvements and change. But it certainly was not, you know, when a when a if an IRRa needs to be somewhere in the teens, high teens to be appealing um for, you know, outside capital for
instance, uh most of the baselines were single digits and even, you know, a two or 3% change to that number, which would be sort of on the high side as a change as the result of this fix. Uh you know, you're still you're still a little short. Again, but this is a tip, you know, the the sort of generic typical
project. So, I wouldn't I wouldn't like tend to lose heart. I think it's just you're looking for kind of really like the specific projects that that find ways to reduce costs, increase revenues, you know, because of what able they're able to put on site. It doesn't just
have to be in in form of rent. It could really just be in the form of like how many units you can get onto a parcel now. Um, you know, that that sort of stuff. um that is probably the the near-term solution uh to this o to the overall you know economic headwind for housing.
>> Thanks. >> I mean I let me say I I'm about 50 years removed from having been a computer programmer >> working on finance kinds of things and I do not claim to be even I can't even remember what I what I forgot. Um, so I
I am not I'm not competent to look at your at your model except to uh with any critical eye except to say that if none of the things that we seem to have the power to do changes anything in
the outcome, I wonder is that a flaw in your program or is it a flaw or is it simply the reality of our economic situation? that I mean I have a hard time believing there's literally nothing we can do. One of the things that causes me concern
just to be specific is on the one hand we're told that the fees in lie right now are so high that they discourage development and on the other hand we're told uh that the in that an increase in those fees wouldn't discourage
development. They can't both be true. Uh, sorry I um I got a little tripped up in the middle of of uh >> Okay, the news, but >> the news today was that if we go from
$66 million project cost to $68 million project cost, that won't make the project less feasible. >> Oh, well, it does. It does make the project less feasible. They're just it's the the you know when you're looking at what that means from a yield perspective, it's measured in less than
1%. Um but it certainly you know it does it does make it it does make it lower. >> Well, it's increasing it's increasing your cost by about 3%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh and so that that's today's news is that a 3% increase in cost doesn't
affect adversely the feasibility of >> just not just not it's not so dramatic that as to necessarily make make or break a project. I guess the whole reason we're looking at this is that we're being told that the fees
in Lou are so high that they are discouraging investment right now >> for non- studentent housing. Thank you. I guess for for non- student for non- studentent housing. So the >> student housing the update to the student housing the non- studentent housing is that the fees would actually be lower
>> um than they are it's the student housing fees that would end up getting higher. So the old the old mechanism was that non- studentent housing fees were let's say very high student housing fees were very low and the recommendation is to make them aligned and sort of in the middle. >> Well not bringing down the other ones
just bringing up student housing. >> The the other fees go down a little bit as well. Yep. Yeah. The the old construction cost fees are are slightly higher than the new affordability gap fees. So yeah, there is a there is a there is a meeting in the middle component
to what's going on here. So this should help I mean in theory this should help the feasibility of non- studentent housing developments. >> Okay. Um the last question I had was the
suggestion was made that additional height and density in areas near the grounds would would help in some way. uh many of the neighborhoods near the near the grounds uh are in areas where
right now we're getting a lot of push back from people who don't who really think their neighborhoods are are under stress or under attack. Um and the suggestion has been made, well what we need to do is to have more of those
folks uh go into the the Jefferson Park area, Jefferson Park Avenue area and away from Fill or Tenth and Paige, which is fine until you talk to the people who live on JPA. Um, it it's I don't know. I I I'm I'm just
concerned that uh we're we're advocating that that at least that policy uh is going to be advocating for something that really isn't going to help people feel much better about the situation. So, yeah. >> Um Natalie.
>> Um okay. Thank you for revisiting this with us. Um, I do have a couple questions. So, and some concerns. Um, one of the concerns being that I know
this this particular study is focused on student oriented housing, but we are not seeing anything else get proposed. Um, and I'm I am concerned about that. And
if we make changes to this, um, what else are we doing to try and incentivize the housing of all types? And so I think we had some valid points from our planning commission that the abatement
study needs to be done in conjunction within ly adjustments so that that all makes sense and pencils out. Um, but then I I get to thinking about how is inclusionary zoning now just kind of
a middleman problem where if we are fully funding subsidized units via the construction process, can we skip all of that and just create a voucher system
or is the idea that it's being paid for an opportunity cost and not real cost so it costs the city less outlay. Does that make sense? That also might not be answerable at
this moment, but this is a theory I'm putting together as we talk. Right? So I am trying to remain focused on the scope of this study uh which was to see if the inluff fee expectations are appropriate and aligned with the expectations for affordable housing that we have
established 10% you know of all units um for non- studentent housing and whether that's also something we want to be considering for student housing. Um the inloo fee um expectation was established so that developers could have some
flexibility either provide the units on-site or pay the onloo fee if you know given their the specifics of their project that's a better scenario. So the inlue fee was created and exists in other jurisdictions to provide that flexibility
ultimately so that more housing is produced, right? The projects actually do come to fruition. It sounds like what I'm hearing you say is that um the existing expectations um there's a question of whether or not
the existing expectations for affordable housing in Luffy payment as an alternative are supporting our goals for the production of units the production of affordable housing. So that's actually a secondary question right kind of beyond the scope of this study. Are
there other strategies that we should be considering to help incentivize the production of affordable use housing? Or um or maybe what you're saying is um simply make it possible for households of lower incomes to live in the units
that already exist here today in Charlottesville or in in new development. Is that kind of what you're asking? >> Kind of because one of the things that we've heard Yeah. Um one of the things that we've heard I know this is a complicated thing. One of the things we've heard is that uh student oriented buildings prefer not
to include affordable units in the buildings um for various reasons which one of which is that the um determination of the AMI level of a student is weirder and different and
harder to calculate than a working person working family because they are by definition students. who yes, some do have jobs, but it's >> the scale is much. >> There is not an established way to determine if a student um is of limited
income and should qualify for a committed affordable unit. Um, >> right. And so the the Minneapolis model was mentioned, but like >> they found a way they looked at, you know, whether or not the students receive PEL grants, you know, whether they have, you know, other um whether they are recipients of other sorts of
public assistance. >> Yeah. And then you can imagine that the developers are like, we're not >> right >> administrators in that capacity. So that's why we're we're pivoting to the inloop fee >> of it all if the in fees is something that a city requires. >> Um
>> yeah, I'm just thinking about how like nonprofit development is so high as a cost per unit. Private money is often faster and cheaper to build and inlue fees drive up the cost of the building. So yes, this is more towards the non- studentent side of things, but since we
have inloo fees for everything, um is is creating additional vouchers essentially the same as the rent gap funding model, which might not be this that's not the scope of this study. >> That's a question. It's something we would have to look into. understand, but
just as kind of a are we >> are we um kind of overthinking that >> solution which >> um yeah something we can think about and bookmark. Um
I think it is I I wrote this down when it happened and now I'm realizing it's like bad word play. um cavalier to say that um several million dollars might not be a big deal for a project um because what we're trying to avoid is
like a death by a thousand paper cuts right there. We've already gotten feedback from um >> a million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money, >> right? And the difference the difference that you're talking about is the difference between like 66 and 68. But ultimately the inclusionary zoning as a
whole is a difference between like 61 62 and 68. And all of that is just extra money paid to the city which then drives up the cost of the project in total which drives up the cost of the market rate units within the building that gets passed on to the renters which drives up
rent all of that. So, um, the, you know, we've heard it's no big deal. In the same presentation, we've heard it's no big deal, but also costs are very high. Some projects are pretty close to penciling out. That was a quote. So, it's like, well, that couple
million is pretty close to maybe making it not pencil out. Um, so I think that is something we do have to take seriously as we determine this is like obviously we can't necessarily go to a bunch of developers and say, would 68 versus 66 make it harder for you? because obviously they're not trying to
overspend. Um but maybe somehow figuring out some real numbers for that um in in practice. I know there's not a lot of examples to go on, but that that concerns me that you know we're kind of well at a couple million they have it. Well, you know, they're borrowing too
and passing it on to to the renters ultimately. >> Um >> may I just add one more thing to a comment that you made about study of um you know providing more vouchers. I would say that part of that study would need to look at the funding source for
those vouchers. >> So >> of course and so kind of the theory of the case there is if it's easier to develop development costs >> will or the the it's easier to develop more development will happen. Our tax revenue goes up we can use that money
for vouchers. you know, right now we're making it harder for things to develop and adding strings to it, which yes, those strings are going towards a dedicated source, but are we seeing that production? >> Um, and then the the
thing that I've noticed too, and I've I've said this before, is, you know, out in the county right in the urban ring, we see a lot of things being built. And so even even though construction costs are high, things are still happening, but they're happening under previous
zoning codes or, you know, there is obviously a difference in in accessible space in the county and um and land costs and Charlottesville has, you know, less accessible space. Um but things are still being built, so construction
projects are still happening. Um and so if there's a rush to get vested or a um for you know the projects that we saw right before the new zoning code came into play that happened with like four
projects maybe >> off the top of my head. >> Yeah. And that's happened in the county as well. And you know, we've seen when I is applied without funding to cities all over the country, >> permit applications plummet. >> Um,
we have to face the reality of like sounds really good to generate units. Does it actually generate any units or revenue or buildings and um again that's beyond necessarily the scope of this particular study. Um, a
question that I don't know if if you have the answer to. Um, how many non- studentents live in J on JPA itself? Not extended, but to >> I don't have that answer right now, but I could. Yeah, because I know I I did a little um we did a little mossy around
that neighborhood last week and there's definitely a couple a handful of single family homes with non- studentent or maybe university affiliated but not student folks. >> Um >> I know it's in like the mid 90s renter
occupied. it seems pretty concentrated whereas you know 10th and pageent by Phil are significantly more people are not immediately students >> so that kind of just weighing the balance there is something to consider
>> agreed and I think that that's that's an area where um I think we could do some more you know research to try to get some additional information on where students are living um off grounds. So I guess in answer to your question of are we heading in the
right direction I think I would say we have some more review to do but this is good information that we can use towards formulating next questions. >> Okay. If I could just add a couple a year or two ago, we got some data from UVA where they were able to sort of
cross correlate addresses of students with locating them on the map and were able to get not a perfect but at least a pretty decent representation of how many students were living in the Feville neighborhood, how many were living in Tenth and Page and concluded that we've
concluded that it's a fairly low number actually right now. >> Yeah. and we have that data. We're actually we've reached out to see if we could get updated information and just still working to receive that. >> I mean, the algorithm exists. It may just be a matter of somebody punching the button again. >> Yeah. >> Finding someone to help us out with
that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, >> Michael. >> Yeah. Um, a few questions. Um so to return um to some of the questions about feasibility, this was covered in
our original inclusionary zoning studies and the recent tax abatement study. Um, would it be an accurate summary that the most recent tax abatement study was that if the city completely removed our inclusionary zoning program, we still
wouldn't expect to see a significant amount of non- studentent housing development? >> Yes, that was that was the conclusion. >> So, I mean, could one way to look at it be that like all things, there's always a trade-off, it's a cost, but inclusionary zoning is not the binding
constraint. stopping development. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Um for the the condo in Lou fees, um I'd be curious
just to look at that more just at like a gut level. It seems weird, but it may maybe it's a reflection of that market. It's just awful here locally and not feasible, but they just kind of stood out to me. But um >> I don't
>> I don't have any additional information >> but the model is available and we can look through the spreadsheets more closely if there's follow-up questions. >> Well and and and also I think noted in the in the presentation here and maybe even the tool as well there's just very little data on new condo development. So
there's a higher number of assumptions that had to go into that calculation and and really should effectively be taken with a grain of salt. Our our hope in some of with with this with all all these tools really is that what they're allowing you to do is now do make it
easier to for sort of robust followup engagement updating etc. So right now with the constrained housing market there's less for us to really work with but as things change over time so too can that can that tool because the underlying you know the the underlying definitions
of of financial feasibility don't change. Um it would be it sounded like in the presentation with you know we moved to the affordability gap um framework where
there's an on-site um option as well as an inloo option that we should expect essentially everyone's going to choose the inloo fee. >> We don't know. I mean we we we believe that the student housing um model itself
or the single room occupancy how you know product type targeted for students uh you know those those producers are are is not going to be interested in providing on-site affordable units because it just doesn't fit within their program. Um, I think that it's it's a
question whether for non- studentent housing reducing the fee would um would be helpful. I mean, it certainly improves the feasibility just because we're lowering that fee expectation. But as we've talked about, right, there's
just so many other factors at play that are making it difficult to see how those projects could pencil in this current climate. >> Can I add to that? >> Yeah. Um yeah, we we calculated the affordability gap fee with the intent that it would be sort of even with the cost of units. So I guess compared to
the construction cost um it would lead to more projects paying the fee rather than including the units. But it is I guess because it would be like a 50/50 rather the than the construction cost which is designed to be would really want people to include the units but with the the perception that that is
hindering development that's why we wanted to kind of bring it down to something that was um you know, in a in a logical way to be something that was 5050. Um, if we're going to bring it down that that's what we would we would choose to do. Um, but there's still the the policy choice that you could want to
remain with the construction cost. >> Yeah. I mean, I would I would guess that pretty much everyone will choose the inloo fee. Um, both because I would guess it'll still be less expensive and just easier overall. um good or bad, it seems like
if if the primary goal is on-site only, the mechanism would either be not having an inloo fee for certain locations or types of projects or having a much higher fee. Um not suggesting we do that, but there's kind of those cross purposes of if we want to prioritize
on-site specifically. Um I guess I would say you know at this point I mean one at a high level inclusionary zoning I think is not it's certainly not a silver bullet and a perfect tool but it is one tool and I think it does matter and in my mind part
of it is you know we significantly increase by height eliminated in many areas any by right density restrictions um which you know creates windfall profits for certain incumbent land owners which which is fine. But the question of inclusionary zoning in my
mind is, you know, can we capture part of that and have it directly benefit people at 0 to 50% AMI who are janitors, people who work for the city, dining hall services staff. Um, do their interests matter and how do we prioritize them? I certainly think
inclusionary zoning can be developed very poorly. Um, I don't think that's where we're at. Um, I think these recommendations to me are, you know, moderate. I mean, personally, I would like to see um looking at a higher fee
just for student housing just because it's so much more profitable. But I think um you know, this direction to me makes sense both because it seems like we're getting more realistic about um the fact that student housing is significantly more profitable um as well
as bringing down that cost for non- studentent housing. So, it seems to me kind of like a clear move in a better direction. And um again, inclusionary zoning is just one tool, but I think it does matter. I mean, we're going to have projects in
the pipeline through inclusionary zoning, um, bringing in, you know, around $10 million to the city, which is enough, you know, when we invest that match with state and federal funding, um, to do really transformative projects at the scale of 501 Cherry or uh, Macka
Park Street that otherwise we wouldn't be able to. Um and so it really is directly whether dozens of people uh who are you know at 0 to 30 0 to 50% AMI in our city have places to live here or not. Um,
and so all of that said, I I do think it's moving in the right direction. And I do think um for me, I I'm in keeping in mind that just inclusionary zoning like everything, you know, it's it's one of the costs, but it's not the binding
constraint. Even if we eliminated it, we're not going to see a flood of non- studentent market rate development. I don't think it's right for us to cut one of the small marginal costs that happens to directly in uh impact and improve the lives of working-class and poor people
before looking at other things. And um our market is just always going to be weird because student housing is so much different and so much more profitable. It's its own asset class for investors and just ballpark looking at, you know, just floor plans at the Yugo formerly
the standard in a 1,200 ft unit. The total monthly rental income coming in is a little over $5,000 a month. That's about the same amount of monthly rent coming in per month as newer construction in Navyyard DC, which is right next to Metro Stops and Walkable
from National Stadium. And it's about half as much income per square foot um in monthly rent as compared to non- studentent new construction in Charlottesville. I mean, this is a very different type of product that can withstand way more costs than non- studentent housing. So, I do think that
this approach of bringing down the cost for non- studentent housing and increasing it for student housing makes sense. Um, I would like to see it on an upcoming council agenda for at least discussion of whether we want to do this or not. uh because it's a fairly quick
fix for us that can be um administrative not to underplay it but administratively implemented easier than you know a new tax abatement program. So I would like to see it on upcoming agenda. I do think it's the right direction. Um and I'll just finally end by saying I think this is the right direction. It would be a
positive improvement. Um, it still doesn't address concerns from people in the community. I if their concern is that the location of student housing in and of itself, depending on the location, could that increase local neighborhood displacement and gentrification? This doesn't address
that concern. Um, but I know that's not what um your presentation was suggesting that this would do. Um, but just for the community to be clear that that's still a separate and additional question. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Can I ask one small question? Um, can you remind me what's next about the
abatement study? >> Uh, we are working on our work plan for the next year and do intend to prioritize it. Um, so okay, we'll be working on it. >> I think we need to clarify at least one
thing. What Michael said. When you say this would represent a change like what you've suggested represent a quick fix, it's at least a three-year from now fix. >> Well, >> there is no quick fix. >> Is it as easy?
>> If you change the ordinance right now, something would be proposed and approved and built and finally occupied two or three years from now. >> Are you addressing me or >> Yeah, you're the one who used the phrase quick fix. All I mean by that is that
the policy change would be easy to implement. I I support the tax abatement program. I think from our results, it showed under current market conditions, it won't have a significant effect. But I think that's just going to unfortunately with our limitations and current staff capacity, that's just
going to take longer to practically develop, identify, or hire new staff to administer it. Whereas this is just, you know, changing some text in the ordinance. That's that's what I'm getting at. Okay. So, I >> from our end, not from their end.
>> I just had a couple of questions. Um, Amanda mentioned like the best practices from that that this is the best practices and and I was really looking for what other localities were doing and it sound it
looks like that the other localities they all are doing their >> own thing >> own thing. So how do we come up with this as the best practice you know if you know everyone's doing that
>> um just uh research in planning literature um >> okay >> so >> nationally yes >> um yeah groups like um sorry the names I'm blanking on the names of them do you remember >> urban >> urban institute
>> land grounded solutions network >> um So um with the projects, how would this do we know how this would impact the projects that's kind of already in in the pipeline as far as
>> uh we have not done analysis on um projects in the pipeline, but if you're looking for an understanding of like an order of magnitude change in fees that could be expected um we took a look at the verve which also wasn't um ju just
to understand kind of the scale. So again, the verb was a 442 unit project and um under the current fee calculation requirements, the fee would be $10
million. Under the proposed changed fee expectation, the fee would be $18.7 million. So a significant increase. And that that was for a 442 unit project
>> and we're getting about six by a negotiation because it was on the cusp of the change. >> Right. So the verve was not actually um we didn't apply these expectations to the verb but if just to understand like a a comparable project we pull that one
out. Um, have we asked um non student development about inclusionary zoning and like if if it was not there would it have an impact on >> so I believe that there was some input on this question through the tax
statement study perhaps no >> sorry >> okay so we didn't do that through this study and it sounds like it's still a it's a it's a question you know that would potentially be good to ask you you know, we're a couple of years in, you know, how are things going? But >> yeah, yeah,
>> I think we're anecdotally hearing that um >> while conditions are difficult uh just because of the market constraints, the inclusionary zoning fee is, you know, an you know, additional constraint >> in our control and out of our >> Yeah. Well, that
100% agree that anecdotally report >> survey, right? >> Yeah. Um and you had mentioned the the community um input process. The what is it? Connector um >> connect Charlottesville. >> Yes. Connect Charlottesville. Is that
something that also goes out to um everyone or just >> Oh, we sent that out through I believe there was a press release. Uh we sent it out through neighborhood list serves. Um we did not do targeted outreach to the development community. That is a concern that has been raised. Um I'm happy to
facilitate some additional engagement in that space to get their input. >> It it would be good because it just seems like that without significant city >> contribution
um no affordable housing or very little would would get done. Uh, is that unique here in Charlottesville or like Richmond and Norfolk or other places? Do they have to provide the, you
know, I mean, I tal a lot that we dedicate $10 million a year um to show our commitment. Do we have to do that because, you know, um, >> that's the only way we get it done or in other localities they are building affordable housing.
>> Do you feel like you have >> Okay. Well, well, certainly I can I can speak to other places that we've tried to do this work. This is a common this is a common problem right now. Only a handful of projects in each market sort of pencil out. Uh it adding affordable
housing as a requirement um adds adds significant costs especially in places where there's a major gap between market rents and uh area wide median income which often can happen in sort of like urban places where there's a very like there's a high there's like a high
market rate class and then there's and then but the the average worker makes significantly less than that. Um, so in some cases this problem is even worse there than it would necessarily be be here. There are certainly places that are still making making projects work.
But as I mentioned before, one of the major responses is just sort of increased flexibility in designs. You're seeing more creativity in the kinds of projects uh that get built. And I think that the ordinance itself certainly is is a is part of part of that process.
And I know anecdotally we also are hearing that there are other parts of the um approval process that are you know sort of increasing stumbling blocks when land disturbance uh square footage uh changes what regulations you have that changes the kinds of things that
you can put onto a parcel you know whatever your parking requirements are can change. So, a lot of this is just really, I think, a a at least nationwide trying to learn how to overcome current construction cost and financing cost headwinds. And it's usually through
creativity. It's just that old products don't work anymore. >> Yeah. Sorry, one more question. Um uh one of the other concerns that was brought up were was the um cost per square foot
>> and this the scale of that and how that um I I I am not a builder of >> high but no happy speak to it. So, so the way in which all that stuff all that stuff was the way that we got at initial construction costs at hard costs um we
used outside software that um does construction cost estimates of different housing product types at in different submarkets for them. Submarkets mean like a a city. So there's Charlottesville specific construction cost estimates. We tried to align those with um existing projects and then we
shared the findings of that with our sort of the the the stakeholders and those who were involved which did include the housing advisory committee and cadre uh especially as well as some others and city staff who have some experience with that and then asked for um their thoughts because of course the
you know local local expertise uh is always preferred. The responses we got were well besides the fact that they were actually fairly diverse in their expectations of what they saw as as costs, hard cost, soft cost, land costs honestly were quite different from from
different folks. Uh the place we got the most information where people felt the most confident was in mid-rise development where they felt like the construction cost numbers, the hard cost numbers needed to be raised. So we did it. um we did not have the same bit of
information for for other types of housing products and so effectively left them alone. Perhaps what should have been done was to say well if if mark if mid-rise construction costs we're hearing are art that this other software undersold them perhaps we should just raise all of them. Um though all that
would really do would be to change the project costs and make the >> performances worse. I mean again, you know, all we can really do is go on. I mean, I'm willing to believe that the numbers that are being given to us by local developers are they're honest truth.
There's no reason not to believe that. I'm also willing to believe that the folks that build these proprietary softwares that do this analysis are doing their best to to be accurate as well. Um, so we just tried to, you know, uh, split the difference, but again, I think that's the kind of stuff that should be updated over time. >> Okay. But so you're saying it's poss so
you got the numbers from the software. You double check them with um with locals, >> but there was some con some inconsistency with what counted as hard soft costs >> or just what they thought what some folks thought uh was a reasonable hard
cost. say um for it's just that mid-rise was the one where we got the most consistent feedback where where folks were aligned that we should raise the uh the hard cost construction cost which is why then it sort of stood out to that gentleman
that it was different than say high-rise >> high-rise costs >> and were like receipts analyzed or just like vibes >> we just asked them for whatever they were uh willing to provide and some folks provided did uh no sample proformas of projects that they had
done, but those were not projects that ever got built. >> Um so that was just their own, you know, their their own analysis, but of course they're asking their general contractors, etc., etc. And if and if it's if it was from a year ago, you know, it might be different. It does look like recently the cost of steel
relative to the cost of wood framing and concrete has changed a little bit. So perhaps high-rise costs in fact have gone down a little bit for those major highrises, but that could change again. And that's part of I mean really that's part of the nature of all all of these types of analyses. They there are lots of numbers that have to go into lots of
assumptions. They are subject they are subject to change. Uh and that's part of why it's part of worth doing this as a or our suggestion was to do it as like a tool as a model that can be updated over time. And did the um the stakeholders who reviewed um
that those numbers were they aware that it was in the context of like a tax abatement potential situation? >> Okay. We told them what like what this what this work was for what the what the intention was. Absolutely. And and I think they all recognized the need to have as best we can sound underlying
data in order to do uh these types of evaluations. So we didn't get a lot of push back. there are just only so many folks who are willing to come forward with their own their own data. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, Sam. Um, we're about 5 minutes um left, but
before I get Sam to kind of give us guidance on what to do next, I just want to make sure if there are any other questions or comments at this time from counselor. Well, I would say just one, I mean, I think the the number about um
the verve is um a good benchmark. It makes me think about, you know, that number is the scale of what the city would need to invest in a project at the scale of uh West Haven redevelopment. So to me, you know, part of the question that jumps out is how much do we value
being able to get the fiscal room to create hundreds of units of affordable housing for poor and working-class people? And is that something that we care a lot to figure out that new private market rate student housing construction, which is overwhelmingly
the most profitable housing type, helps contribute to that? or is that not important enough to try to um figure out maintaining uh that happening? Um and it sounds like but what's in front of us right now is whether at an upcoming
council agenda we discuss and vote on whether we reduce how much non- studentent housing has to pay and then have student housing be on the same level as non- studentent housing essentially. >> Yes, that's correct. and the half mile radius >> and eliminating the half mile radius.
There would no longer be a specific designation for where student housing should locate. >> I guess the the only reaction that I have uh is that I have not heard a majority of you say that you're ready to move on the recommendations or I guess
that's what I'm looking for. I mean that's ultimately what the presentation is is meant to ask you at the end. Are you ready for this item to come forward? for action as as it as it's been framed around the recommendations at the end of the presentation.
>> So I think we have a clear guidance from Michael Natley. Are you >> Yeah, I would say we're not ready like next meeting. I would say there's more looking into things that we should do before we bring it back >> as it relates to the items identified or
additional items. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, considering the formula concerns and double-checking all that and making sure it out, you know, there's some double-checking, I think it's worth spending some time on. Not to say we won't get there in the end, but you know, this is a big thing. We want
to make sure we do it correctly. >> Lloyd, >> I I think I would second Natalie's thoughts with I'll add two additional thoughts. One was that when these numbers came before us, what three years ago now? I'm trying to
remember how long ago it was. Uh council didn't really spend very much time analyzing the numbers and we just sort of took the numbers from what was being told to us by then our our then consultants. Um, and it turns out, I
don't know whether it's accurate to say that the numbers uh were not well thought out back then or whether it's simply that the market conditions have changed so much as to be unrecognizable at this point. But clearly what we had
uh what our best expert view at the time three years ago didn't didn't pan out. So I'd really like to take a much more careful look at what the assumptions are. Um, I would add that I'm I've continued while we've been up here, I've
continued to play around with the uh with the the model and I'm still not sure I understand it, but I I would really be curious to know if there is a way to plug in just as an example. I
mean I the specific thing that has has concerned me has been that we are being asked repeatedly in various projects to consider not only uh various other incentives but specifically
wanting us to kick in as much as $50,000 per unit. And I would like to know perhaps through the some modification to to the tool. Uh I'd like to know what that would do to all of the
calculations. I mean if if something like that is if we have some actual reason to believe that that could be a dealmaker, I'm willing to think about it. If it looks like simply it's just another way
for somebody to take 50,000 bucks of our money and to reduce and maybe increase their profit margin uh without making feasible a previously unfeasible or infeasible project. >> I'd like to know that too and um I don't
know >> I'd just like to know more. >> Yeah, Jen. >> Yeah. tackling the assumptions, the IR, the equity contributions, the land cost, the hard cost, the construction type characteristics. I think all the things
mentioned in that review of the tool would be great to just close that and feel like that's totally sorted conceptually for like now and future self. I think yes in Luffy's adjustment makes sense and
might incentivize something down the road as the uh ecosystem changes and getting rid of the half mile radius seems right and then really encouraging that review of university corridor and density there and the review of
basically funding and abatements and what other tools we have for that incentivization piece that is sustainable but can be calibrated and adjusted over time so that we can move
with the changing winds of this game and get what we really want to prioritize which is affordable housing. We we can optimize the fees but the housing is what we need and so >> keeping that as the priority.
>> Okay. So you want commission >> and I I you know the it looks like we got the majority that's wanted additional information and >> and I >> go ahead I'm sorry this let me get this I and I would just like to see if we can
get some input from non- studentent developers if if that's something that we can do >> and you know if you know um the inclusionary zoning um were not
there with you know would that have an impact on their their their project. I don't know how it will be questioned. I just want to >> hear from non studio developers. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead Michael. >> Oh no you're good. Um so just if I could I mean what are people I mean some of
these questions could be resolved and you know in intervening two weeks before council meeting maybe others take longer. What what are people envisioning in terms of making a decision? again whether it be yes or no at least making
a decision um two weeks four weeks eight weeks >> I think we're leaning on the tool so much that if the tool can if the math can math and the tool can address all the assumptions and it's we still come to the same conclusion okay it still
looks like this is a thing that we adjust the inluff fee and get rid of the half mile radius that I'm a go with that for making that adjustment is which we can >> um with a quick follow behind as fast as we can with the tandem of the funding,
the abatement and the density because like we've seen and we've been taught, it's not a silver bullet. They really have to be coupled. But I'm I'm hesitant to to wait for the perfect other solution. Get one rolling
and quick and stay pretty close in proximity to the abatement and other incentivizations >> and acknowledge the bandwidth and schedule of >> Thank you. >> Oh yes, >> that too. >> That's what I remain most conscious of is it's going to if there's more work,
we need to know as quickly as possible what that work needs to be in order for it to get performed. so that you are then ready to deliberate. So I think to councelor Payne's question, it's very important that we gain some understanding for
um is there anything else that you would like to look at? So I'm going to task you with hurry and identifying what some other things might be. Uh we have work to do clearly. Um but if there are other things that would be helpful for framing
out that consideration, we can try to pull that together. You only have one available work session for further deliberation within the month of May and that is the second meeting in May, second week in May, your new work session. Um otherwise
you would be looking at another month before we would actually find a slot available for discussion. So to his question of a couple of weeks or four weeks, it's already um framed out that way. Just depending on how much time we take to get to a
place of being ready for. >> So, yeah. So, if we can get out, you know, any additional requests for information um to Sam by the end of this week, is that >> is that helpful? >> That's fine. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys so much. Thank you. Thank
you. Um >> pursuant to section 2.2-3712 2-3712 of the Virginia code. I move that the city council close this open meeting and convene in a close session as authorized by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act as follows. Pursuant to Virginia
Code section 2.2-3711A88 22-3711A88 for consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such council, specifically rules governing appeals to the city council from the board of architectural review.
>> Second. >> Oh, second. >> Um, all in favor, please say yes. Oppos, please say no. Thank you. We'll be back at um 6:30. Part: 2
I call the Charlottesville City Council um regular meeting back to order. Um madame vice uh mayor, will you please read it out of um close session? >> Of course. I move that this council certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each council member's knowledge
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed session. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> All in favor, please say yes. >> Yes. >> All opposed, please no. Okay. >> Motion passes 5 to zero. We are out of close session and back into regular session. We will now have a moment of silence.
>> Thank you. Are there any announcements? >> One announcement just that there are a number of boards and commissions with vacancies. uh applications are currently being accepted through May 1st. The next cycle of appointments is scheduled for
May 18th. The uh number of some of the boards and commissions with existing vacancies are the Board of Architectural Review, Board of Zoning Reveal Appeals, the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund Committee, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority Board, Citizen Transportation Advisory
Committee, Historic Resources Committee, Housing Advisory Committee, and a number of others. So, if you are interested in city issues and looking to get more involved or have a more direct impact, um you can Google Charlesville boards and commissions and apply through that portal. And again, the deadline is May
1st. >> Thank you. >> Uh tomorrow is April 21st uh election day in uh Virginia. So, please be sure to get out and vote. Um the uh there's a
sample ballot on the uh registars's page on the city website as well as other information about how and where to vote. So if you haven't done that yet, please make sure you do that by tomorrow. >> Other announcements? If not, um we have
one proclamation for today. It is for the Charlottesville Filipino Spring Festival Day. Whereas the month of May is recognized nationally as AsianAmerican, Native Hawaiian, and um Pacific Islander Herit heritage month to
a to honor the history, contribution, and achievement of these communities in the United States and where Charlottesville Filipino Cultural Association was established with the mission to serve, unite, and celebrate Filipino community in the
Charlottesville area and and in the surrounding region, providing a vital vital network for both um longstanding residents and new immigrants. And whereas the Filipino community in the Charlottesville has a rich history dating back to the 1960s with many
pioneering members now in the and now in their late 80s and 90s continuing to serve as pillars in our city. Whereas the Filipino community has made indispensable contributions to our local economy and well-being, particularly
through their dedicated service in the medical and nursing profession as well as in the hospitality and small business areas. Whereas the Filipino is an archipelago >> archipelago.
>> I was working on that beforehand. um of thousands of islands um boasting a a vast array of um subcultures and dialects in the inaugural Charlottesville Filipin Filipino spring festival serves
as a bridge to unite these um diverse communities while inviting the broader Charlottesville community to engage with the Filipino culture. Whereas a festival will be held at um X Park um X Art Park
with will showcase the vibrancy of the Filipino um through traditional dance, music, cuisine, featuring performances and vendors from across the Commonwealth, including Virginia Beach, Northern Virginia, while highlighting local diversity by hosting
Charlottesville based blackowned businesses. Now therefore, uh, the Charlottesville City Council hereby proclaim May 2nd, 2026 as Charlottesville Filipino Spring Festival Day in the city of Charlottesville. And
we encourage all residents to visit it on May 2nd between 3 and 8:00 p.m. to celebrate the rich history, resilience, and cultural contribution of the Filipino of our Filipino neighbors. signed the 20th of of April 2026.
Thank you, Mayor Way. Uh on behalf of the Charlesville Filipino Cultural Association, I'm honored to accept this proclamation recognizing our inaugural Filipino spring festival. We are grateful for the city's recognition and
support. It means a lot to know that our efforts to serve, unite, and celebrate are seen and valued. Salamat, thank you for this recognition. We look forward to building an even stronger and more vibrant community together.
>> Thank you very much. >> And I'll I'll be there on May 2nd. A lot going on on May 2nd, so we'll be busy that day. But that's Yes, that's a beautiful thing about it. So, >> yes, actually have a couple more announcements to make. Sorry for going out of order. Um the first is that April
is uh ebike voucher signup month. every quarter um a month is open where folks can sign up to uh win an e ebike voucher from the city. Uh the best place to find out information about that is connect.sharlottzville.gov. Uh the vouchers are available in three
different uh uh amounts based on your income so that you can put it towards getting an ebike to get around town. The second thing also on connect.charlesville.gov which if you haven't been to is a great site where we're putting a lot of information for community engagement purposes. There's
the Rose Hill Drive corridor improvement uh feedback uh opportunity. So Rose Hill is going to get restriped. What repaved and then restriped which means like new lines on the road. And so there's a way we can redo that to make it safer um for
the uh drivers and pedestrians and bikers and everyone who uses that streets in a neighborhood. It's also next to a school and it's also a big fast hill that you get to go go down. Um, so there's uh there's some options for how we can address that. So again,
connect.sharrilesville.gov and right on the homepage you'll see the Rose Hill rester striping process and you can provide feedback about how you'd like that to look. >> Yes, I forgot that they had a meeting last week. They're still taking input. >> Yep. Good turnout. Um, and city staff are available for
>> specific questions if you if you'd like. We're now at the opportunity for um for the first community matters. We had four people to pre-register leaving slots for 12 additional speakers um on topics that's not um listed um as public
hearing. And um you have three minutes and the first speaker is um um Moren um Broadike. Did I did I say your name correct? >> Moren Brondike. Uh 1418 Hazel Street. Um, I'm here to thank you um for your
investments in the arts and affirm how widespread this gratitude is. Um, tonight's agenda includes a consent item to stand up a public arts commission. Um, we love it. Um, recently James presented on the role of this commission and councelor Payne asked how it was related to community efforts to bring
back an arts council. Um, because they work in tandem in many communities, city staff believe these two entities should be distinct and that together they'll work towards shared goals. We know that from the nearly 500 residents who participated in an arts council planning project last summer was funded by both
private and public partners including the city led by nine artists and 14 organizations joining the 200 organizations and residents who publicly endorsed this process. Um it was popular um through public convenings, a needs assessment, peer city benchmarking, reviews of past coordination efforts,
and professional facilitation, we found a deeply committed and active arts community operating within a fragmented ecosystem. Existing opportunities and resources are hard to access. The negative impact of Charlottesville's high cost of living on venues is real. Artists themselves express fear of being
priced out and burnout and limited staffing are widespread due in part to organizations filling arts council gaps. The recommendations released this month include standing up a 501c3 arts council without depleting existing funds for arts venues and initiatives. And in the last month, you all have already hit the
mark by matching funds for coordination with new support for arts nonprofits in the FY27 budget. I'll conclude with portions of a letter sent to council on behalf of Charlottesville's downtown arts organizations who represent a small group of the many communitywide venues, artists, and organizations who would be
served by an arts council. Public art is already a vital component of our city's rich and arts and cultural landscape, contributing to the vibrancy, identity, and economic vitality of downtown. We believe that establishing a Charlottesville Public Art Commission will provide valuable structure
coordination and long-term vision to further strengthen this important work. We believe strongly that this initiative should not come at the expense of the nonprofit arts organizations that form the foundation of our creative community. So, thank you for the additional funding that council allocated in FY27 to support arts
organizations, many of whom are represented by this group. We encourage council to consider a long-term vision in which funding for the arts is coordinated through a designated local arts agency. And by standing up a public art program and local arts agency at the same time, the city can build a
sustainable framework that supports both new public arts initiatives and the continued vitality of the nonprofit arts sector. We wholeheartedly support building a strong and sustainable arts and culture ecosystem which depends on all robust public art initiatives, effective coordination of resources, and
adequately supported organizations. These recommendations follow those in the Charlottesville area arts council feasibility study, a process that was publicly supported by many of our downtown arts organizations. Thank you for your continued commitment to the arts. >> Thank you, Moren. The next speaker is Gillette Rosenlith. I hope I pronounced
your last name. Hello, my name is Gillette Rosenble and I am on the board of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority and I'm here for uh two related reasons. The first is to encourage you all to support and vote in favor of um the nonprofit
that the CRA is proposing. We would like to um create a nonprofit for a couple reasons. One, um it allows us to receive donations in a different way from a governmental entity. two, it allows us to apply for grants um that are different from what governmental
entities can apply for so that um we can, you know, get a little bit more money and serve more residents, you know, in in better capacities. Also, having a nonprofit status will allow us to enter into partnerships with other agencies that have similar legal
structures and will help support um the work that we do with the eviction diversion and economic opportunity programs. Um, so, uh, John and the CRA team have done really amazing work to kind of figure out how to make sure that all of this fits within the kind of legal requirements that are, um, you
know, at at stake here with these kind of mirroring organizations. I will not pretend to know, uh, what these are, but I promise you that, um, it has been explained to us very brilliantly by John and Deline. Um, and this is just going to help us to do that work of kind of putting residents first, which you all
have helped us to do consistently over the last several years. um and to help support self-sufficiency through job training um empowerment workshops you know for financial uh you know awareness etc um and also to work again I think I said with the Blige um pantry uh food
area uh so that we can provide residents with um better uh food security which is a real problem right now. Um and I want to reiterate um what I said when I was here two weeks ago that I really do appreciate all the work that you have done in support of this and I think um
you know especially you've given a lot of financial support to CRA and its various redevelopment projects etc. And I think that unless we like kind of listen to residents about um kind of the concerns that uh have arisen around the two developments that this work is going
to only be halfway done, right? um it won't go far enough if we're not also kind of doing the work of hearing what residents are saying and thinking about um redoing the zoning that I know we just did. Um but as a reminder, we are pushing for the core neighborhood
corridor overlay districts to allow three stories by right and five stories with 20% of on-site affordable units at 50% AMI. Uh and I think the decision on Friday was pretty harmful um for our low and even our middle inome neighbors. And I hope that um in supporting the
nonprofit and and kind of also thinking about different zoning options, we can move forward in a really kind of multiaceted, strong, powerful way to support uh those of us who have been here for generations and those of us who are just arriving in Charlottesville.
So, thank you so much. >> Thank you, Lisa. Um Costello. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> I came to give some feedback on the cat and jumped.
>> Yes. >> And um about a year and a half ago, my car died. It died for the last time. It wasn't coming back to life, and I wasn't situated. So quite honestly, I said, "Oh no, I'm
on the bus." That's exactly what I thought. "Oh no, I'm on the bus." It's been a year and a half. I love riding cat buses. >> All right. Good to hear. It is so awesome to be able to get out of my house and walk up to the bus stop. Someone else is checking the tire
pressure. Someone else is putting gas in it. Someone else is dealing. You know, I never even knew how much time, much pressure, mental pressure. Every little light on the dash goes off. You know, it's time for inspection. What
are they going to find this time? little rock hits the windshield and that little is going. >> Yeah. >> And how much this was like in the back of my mind. >> And today I just walk up for the last year and a half, get on the bus
>> and I can interact. I've met so many people riding the bus, you know, not only I ran into my my son's old uh Boys and Girls Club teacher who is now a CAT bus driver, >> people I talked to on the bus. I mean,
when I was driving, I'm like, you know, scanning the area and, you know, you're not relaxed. I'm relaxed looking around. It's been awesome. It's been awesome. But I know that when I just go up there and just jump on that bus, >> there's a whole lot of work that goes
before I can just step on it like that. There's a lot of staff. The ladies down and the gentlemen downtown at the transit station are wonderful. The drivers are wonderful. >> Ja, my son, is qualified to ride to Ja. they have been so great to look after for him even on times where he was going
somewhere to make sure that he had someone with him if he needed to. Um I can't say enough good about that also. Um but I can just get him get onto that bus and ride around the corner and be at
a hospital that is top rated in this country has top experts in different fields around the corner. And I know we've got a lot of problems here in Charlesville and things we're trying to tackle, but we have a lot to be blessed
for. >> A lot to be blessed for. So, I just thank the community for supporting public transportation and the council, the community, everybody. It is such a wonderful thing. And I love riding the cat buses. I love riding the cat.
>> Well, you know, I have to tell you, it's only going to get get better. So, we're we're looking to increase the frequency, increase the the number of buses and drivers. >> So, awesome. >> Where's Garland, Sam? Where >> I feel like we need to feature somebody. >> CAN YOU COME back next time and then the time after that?
>> It is awesome. But thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Um Alicia, you want to follow follow that? >> Good evening. My name is Alicia Lunahan. live in the county. In January, the Brennan Center conducted a survey with a
random sample of 834 election officials, 50% of whom are either somewhat or very worried about political leaders interfering with their work. Lawrence Nordon of the Brendan Brennan Center said the results weren't surprising. Quote, "Since at least 2020, when you
had threats against election officials reach unprecedented levels." End quote. What is new, said Scott McDonald, clerk in Dayne County, Wisconsin, is that the threats are coming from the occupant of the White House. Safety concerns also rank high in the minds of elected
officials. 32% reported experiencing threats, harassment, or abuse due to their job, and 52% said they are concerned about the safety of colleagues. Nordon called for preparation and push back in the election community. I don't think there's any question they're under
threat, Nordon said. And if there isn't a concerted effort to push back and to be ready, then I'm worried. Trump mused in February that the GOP should nationalize elections. The White House drew fierce backlash after FBI officials raided an election office in Fulton
County, Georgia. 29 states have been sued by DOJ demanding unfettered access to voter roles, raising yet more fears that the White House will try to exert influence over state-run elections. Last week, Senator Mark Warner went so far as to say that he is terrified that this
administration is going to try to create some incident that can allow federal intervention. Quote, "Trump has said he wants Republicans to take over elections." We've heard from his former Secretary of Homeland Security say, "We want the right people to vote for the right people." We've seen the executive
order that demands that all states turn over their voter files so DHS can apply a secret screening formula that will determine who could be an appropriate voter. Senator Warner went on to say that he's terrified because these policies are so unpopular that this
crowd may try to do anything, including intervening in our elections with federal forces, troops at the polls, or spreading disinformation that could actually be catastrophic. If we abandon the notion of a free and fair election, he said, I don't know how we ever
return. The danger right now is complacency. While managing elections isn't your job, upholding the rule of law and community safety are your responsibility. What commitments will you make to ensure that voting in Charlottesville tomorrow, in August, and in November will proceed
without federal interference? In this time of distrust, fear, and uncertainty, what will you do to push back and prepare for free and fair elections? Thank you. Thank you. We have the opportunity for 12 additional speakers. Would anyone on this side like to speak?
Miss Terry. >> Hey everybody. >> Hello. My name is Terry Tyrie and I wear many hats, but today I'm here as the president of Shawsville Community Resilience Center and a member of Click. Tonight, I want to start by
acknowledging this inloo fee study confirms what our community has been saying all along. It confirms that displacement is real. It confirms that the student housing is putting pressure on our neighborhoods. and it confirms that allowing developers to pay fees
instead of building affordable housing is not working. So, yes, there is alignment here and we appreciate the movement toward requiring more on-site affordability because that does matter. However, we cannot continue to center
developer feasibility over community stability. We cannot keep allowing buyouts in place of real housing. And we cannot remove protections without guaranteeing that the people put most at risk will actually be protected. Because
housing policy is not just about units and density. It's about my people. It's about families. It's about whether longtime residents, especially in historically impacted neighborhoods, can stay in the communities that we help build. Right now, the study leaves the
door open for developers to opt out. It treats affordability as flexible and it still does not fully censor the voices of those most impacted. So, tonight we are asking you to go further. Require on-site affordable housing, especially
in high impact areas. Strengthen anti-displacement protections with real accountability. Tie bonus height and development incentives to guarantee community benefit. and most importantly create a process where residents are not an afterthought but a driving force in
the decision-making process because if the policy allows displacement to continue then it will continue to not work and if it does not protect the community then it's not enough. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone in the center like to speak?
Anyone in the center? Anyone over here like to speak? There'll be opportunity at the end. >> Back over here, Rory. >> Good afternoon again, council. Uh, my name is Rory Stolenberg. I'm a resident
of Water Street. I guess I'll apologize in advance for my brashness. I've spent about 20 hours this weekend looking at a spreadsheet. Um, I think it is safe to say that none of you except for Lloyd, uh, Councelor Snook have opened it. Um,
I was amazed to hear this attitude that you should proceed full steam ahead in relying on the actual outputs of this spreadsheet, the literal numbers, forget the policy as a whole, forget policy recommendations. The numbers are wrong. Um, and maybe I
didn't adequately convey that in my email yesterday. though I think I did. Uh, it's not just a $20 million error on a $74 million project. There are two additional $10 million errors that partially offset each other. There are other errors in these spreadsheets. Uh,
that literally does not include a line item for construction cost uh for for spending construction cost in your cash flow. Um, my ask to you is that you ask for these spreadsheets to be correct for the model
to work as a model of housing development in Charlottesville. And then to examine the assumptions, the inputs that go into the spreadsheet. You can have a a model that works, assumptions that don't make sense.
You can have a model that doesn't work at all and assumptions that are good. Um, I think right now what you have is both of them not working. Um, I think the consultant is capable of doing better. I had a good conversation with them afterward. I certainly will not say
that I've never made an error in a spreadsheet. Um, but you can't just blindly take a work product that you paid $40,000 for and assume that it's correct. You should make sure that it is. And when then you know that it's
not, you should not say that you're going to use it anyway because you like what it told you. I hope that you will make policy for the city based on a model of reality because your job is to make a policy for
the city as a whole. And that's what you're doing here. It's not just about these two projects. If you want to kill two projects, you're free to do that by reasonzoning them right now before they get a preliminary approval. Don't make bad policy because you're motivated by
two projects. Thank you. >> Thank you, Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> All right. >> Hi guys. Um, sorry, my voice is gone, but um, my name is Aba and I'm here on behalf of Friends of FAR and I've been
here for quite a bit, but I'm still fighting alongside my other peers to support the work that um, FAR does on behalf of low-income and public housing residents here in Charlottesville. So, I will be graduating in a couple of weeks. And before this meeting, I reflected on
my time as a university student and my work that I've done with FAR since my first year. And I kept returning to this quote by Martin Luther King stating that the ark of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. And over the past four years through my involvement in friends of far and by
learning directly from the community members and leaders I witnessed that arc in motion which is slow uneven but real. However, I am not naive. An arc does not bend on its own. It bends because people demand it to and because communities organize, speak out, and refuse to be ignored. And yet I've sat in countless
numbers of these meetings where residents, professors, students, and concerned community members have been begging, pleading for you guys to take meaningful action on the current expansion of student luxury housing. As a student, I feel the responsibility
to name my institution UVA and the role that it plays in shaping the city. When student housing is built at a luxury price point and placed in or near low-income communities, it does not exist in isolation. It drives up costs, shifts neighborhood character, and places an additional pressure on
residents who are already navigating these systems in in these systemic inequities. In my public health classes, I we engage with the principle of recognition, justice, the idea that decision makers must acknowledge and value these voices, histories, and lived experiences of
those most impacted by the policies. And right now, that principle is not fully being realized. I urge you to listen to Click's priorities for core neighborhood corridor overlays as Miss Tyrie and others have repeatedly claimed. I urge you to do so.
And I know you were recently in a work session about this, but a halfmile radius may look small on paper, but in practice it becomes a powerful tool, one that can justify encroachment and exist and extend institutional reach into communities that did not create these pressures. These are not abstract planning decisions. There are changes
and choices that shape who gets to remain, who is pushed out, and whose voices are truly heard. Working with FAR has taught me this. So, if we believe that in the arc that Dr. King spoke of, then we have to ask who is helping to bend it and who is holding it back.
Justice in Charlottesville cannot be a long-term aspiration. It must be reflected in the decisions that you make now. Listen to residents. Center their voices and their experience. take action that protects these communities who've called these cities home before these
pressures have intensified. Thank you. Anyone in the center like to speak? Thank you all so much. We will have another public um input process um at the end. We'll now go with the consent agenda. Madame clerk, will you please
read the um consent agenda? Consent agenda number two, minutes, April 2nd, budget work session, April 9th, special meeting. Three, resolution to appropriate $100,000 for utility line remediation facilitation. Second
reading. Four, an ordinance for the public art program that includes an ordinance to establish the Charlottesville public art program, second reading, and resolution to fund the Charlottesville public art program, $50,000. Second reading.
Five, resolution to appropriate funds from the Charlottesville City School reimbursement, one of two readings. Six, a resolution to approve a funding agreement for LEAP 2025 to 26 solar readiness program.
a minor amendment to the city's annual action plan in the amount of $18,576.72 in community development block grant funds previously approved by council. Seven, resolution authorizing a temporary installation of art on the
downtown mall by Service Dogs of America of Virginia. Eight, resolution to appropriate $115,443 in Woodland Drive performance bond funds. One of two readings.
Nine. Resolution to appropriate $18,564 received from the Library of Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Grants Review Board. One of two readings. And this has a request to wave the second reading. 10. A resolution for FY26
Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund Grant Funding Award. $823,000. One of two readings. and 11, a resolution to approve the city's participation in the proposed settlement of opioid related claims
against six remnant defendants and directing the city attorney to execute the documents necessary to participate in the settlement. And I would just highlight for any community members that are interested, the consent agenda includes our
Charlottesville affordable housing fund awards, which includes over $800,000 for affordable home ownership through Habitat as well as numerous investments in critical home repairs of older affordable homes. So just if anyone's interested in our investments, um can
check that out. But that said, I would move to approve the consent agenda. >> Thank you for highlighting that. Is there a second? >> Second. Um, are we voting virtually? Is everyone signed up or? >> Yep, everyone's Let me initiate the vote. >> Is that the first time we've all done
that? >> Second, but it's been a while. >> Good job, team. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the motion passes. >> Okay. Those didn't come through yet.
said yes. Did it still didn't go through? >> Yes. Okay. >> You spoke too fast there, but it it didn't come up. But anyway, so motion passes 50. Um,
and we are now at the city manager report. >> Uh, Remy is going to pull up my uh slide deck, but we have a couple of uh announcements as well. Uh, Roman, you want to go first? Yes. Good evening, counselors and members of the community. Just wanted to
remind everybody that our intern uh ship program KUP is still accepting and currently recruiting host organizations to host our youth and they'll be doing that through May 15th. So, if you are an organization or a business that don't
mind being a mentor at no cost, uh which will then build a stronger community, we are looking for you. So, just wanted to make sure that the community was still aware of that. Thank you. >> And hello, Mr. Mayor and City Council. Uh, a couple quick announcements for
you. Uh, the first, happy to report that the wreck pool at Smith Aquatic is back open. It has been closed since late February. So, that is back uh available for the public. And then the second item is uh announcing family bike day on
Sunday, May 3rd, 1 to 4 at McIntyre Park. Uh there will be free helmets and fittings for the first 150 kids. Uh Blue Wheels Bicycles will be providing free bike safety checks and you can try out
our ebikes uh from the local uh ebike lending library. >> I thought you were going to say that. No, I did that. I've been told that. >> Well, I I will add that May is bike month and we are making that announcement on the 4th, which is our
first meeting, but family bike day is the day before that. So, thank you for covering that. >> Oh, good. That's why that's why we make sure we try to back you all up. A couple other things before I get into this uh slide deck. Uh Abby Matthew Wade, our um economic mobility uh and opportunity
special assistant in the city manager's office is partnering with UVA Center for Community Partnerships to host a community data walk at the Carver Rec Center on Thursday, May 7th from 6:00 to 7:30. Residents are invited to explore local um economic and mobility
opportunity related data and help shape uh shared definitions along the cris crisis to thrive continuum which will help guide future efforts being led by Abby. This event marks the kickoff of a two and a half year project funded by ICMA. That's the international city and
county managers association which all of us are proud members of. Uh but this is an opportunity for us to bring resources to this community that are paid for by other people which you know I really have a special relationship with. In addition to that from the uh Commonwealth Attorney's Office, I just
wanted to share that the Charlottesville victim victim witness assistance program recognizes National Crime Victims Rights Week from April 19th through April 25th. This year's theme, listen, act, advocate, protect victims, serve communities, invites us to pause and
honor all those whose lives have been touched by crime. Last year, the Charlottesto Victim Witness Assistance Program provided services to more than,00 victims. And to learn more or seek assistance, please call 434-970-3590. That number again, 434-970-3590.
So, thank you for those uh updates. And now we'll shift into my quarterly work plan update. Yes, ma'am. >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat the date of the walk at the rec center? >> The walk is Thursday, May 7th from 6:00 to 7:30. >> Thank you. >> Great.
All right. So, u this is a quarterly update. Uh for members of the public who have not seen this presentation before, this is my opportunity to come before council, holding myself accountable for what we are responsible for doing, and that is doing the good work to implement your vision and giving you quarterly
peaks at how it's going. Uh what we're going to do tonight is uh give you what we've been up to between the months of January to March. Uh I've shared a copy of the actual document. Uh, I'm not going to go through line by line or section by section like I've done in the
past because I want to do something else tonight different than I have, but that document has now been posted on the transparency portal on the city website for the public to be able to engage with it just the same. And I encourage you all to take a look at it and if you have questions, uh, stand ready to receive
your emails. All right. So, what we're doing is looking at what have we done this for the first quarter of 2026, which is the third quarter of this current fiscal year. And I remind you that the theme of this year's work plan is implementing our plans. So the goal is to not just simply do a great job at
planning, but for us to be really good, if not great at implementing those plans. Uh delivered this quarter, what you'll see here is the FY27 budget adopted. High five Chrissy Hamilton one more time. Thank you for all your good work and getting us across that finish line. Uh we have uh you all received a
presentation from our partners in the um within our homelessness ecosystem. Uh we labeled that vision for holiday drive for 2000 holiday drive. Uh there's a follow-up conversation for you all on May 4th when they will return as a part of a work session. And in that moment,
we look to be able to start asking additional questions and start to move towards figuring out what the operations of that facility could look like. In addition, we've created the economic mobility and opportunity plan. As you just heard, Aby's doing her walk. That walk initiates that two and a half year
period of work that we look forward to being able to bring resources to our community. EV school buses have arrived here in Charlottesville. So, we're excited about that. Showing that our climate action plan is moving and our children will ride safely on school buses that are powered better than buses
we have been powering in the past. Uh we have a re-imagined city manager's office. Within these past couple months, I've shared with you the addition of new assistant city managers and additional team members, including a chief strategy officer and soon a chief prosperity officer. Those are all opportunities for
us to see how we can serve this community better and support your work in setting the vision for this organization. I also am happy to report that we have a new police contract and fire department wage reopener. Both have been signed. Therefore, setting up FY27 compensation for both of those
departments as an agreement, which is always a good thing to be able to accomplish. And then the last thing I highlight for you in this quarter is that council, you all delivered a set of strategic goals, which is a process that you all were participated in in January as a part of your retreat. This is where
I want to focus some of our conversation, a deeper dive in looking into those strategic goals. I wanted to share with you that we have accepted the five goals as you wrote them. When we left that conversation, I shared with you that we may come back to you making
changes to what you did in the way of word smithing, tightening it up, and or just giving you some feedback as to how it may or may not have landed. What I'm actually doing tonight is thanking you for the good hard work. I know it wasn't always comfortable because some of you had a real problem with are we really
doing something here or we doing something over all over again? But I'll appreciate the fact that we did uh take these five strategic goals, shared those uh with amongst ourselves first and foremost and then took it to members of our teams to make sure that we got to uh
get their feedback. Not only did I take it to our lead team which is made up of about 35 individuals who lead various departments, but we took it to the extended lead team which is about 80 individuals that goes down another level or two within our leadership structure. And in all of that, we were able to have
really good conversation about why the five goals as you presented them work for us. What I want to do tonight is just show you that those five goals as you wrote them, how we've internalized them and that shows you that we've already put them to work. So you don't have to do anything else about these
five goals. Your work is done. Thank you. So let's take a look at how well you did. So goal number one, we maintain accessible public engagement to educate and connect the community to inform decisionmaking. That's what you said you want us to do. We broke this down using
the consultant that has been advising us along the way, looking for key words that mean something and helping the team understand what is the why behind all those various words. The simple summary is this goal protects consistent inclusive engagement that actually shapes decisions, not just outreach.
We've heard you and this is what we're already doing. We've added a position of assistant director for public engagement. That position has now been filled. Oay Aken Lotan has been hired and is working already uh in that space of making sure that our team really
prioritizes public engagement as not an option but a requirement. Uh and then we've had a soft launch of connect Seafill as of Charlottesville as you all have had various references in this meeting this evening already about how we're using it. Yes, ma'am. >> I just wanted to um give a thumbs up for
the Rose Hill engagement session that happened at Carver Rec Center last week. Um one of the pieces of feedback we've heard from uh residents about why they're not able to participate in engagement is um you know it's happened at dinner time or you know they have to leave their kids somewhere. But there
was both food and kids running around at that event. Um, which was >> Yep. >> part of why it was so successful. >> And we're reimagining how we do what we do so that we can appreciate that that's what's needed. Do more of that. >> Next item, we turn plans into reality to
meet all residents needs and we just basically accept that as we do the thing that we say we're going to do. So in looking at that, the the simple summary is this goal protects execution, discipline, and equitable delivery, not just planning. As I mentioned, we're good at planning. Most local governments
are really good at planning because you just hire someone, give them a scope, they do it, you pay them, you accept it, and you move on. But what a lot of governments also do is put those plans on the shelf. And that has been a statement that I've made to everyone here. We're not going to do that anymore. If we're going to invest in the plan, we have to also in invest in its
activation afterwards. And this is how we've been doing that. Trafficcom homing installations have already occurred in various neighborhoods. The VOTE infrastructure projects are moving forward rapidly. There was a meeting earlier today. I can't I don't know how many people were in the room, but I would estimate about 50 people in the
room today. Cross departmental collaboration, which is what we have been prioritizing and what I've been insisting on. I was to be fair and say that uh and that that work has made sure that these projects are moving. We are actually concerned about how fast the
many projects are moving because it is going to disrupt what our normal workflow is in this community when so many projects are happening at the same time. I've expressed to the team that I will apologize and in a way that is not really an apology. It's pardon our progress. We're trying to get things
done and in doing so we'll do our best to coordinate so that we can have as little disruption into the flow of people moving around our city. You got a re you received an update on your ADA transition plan and your parks master plan in your last meeting. You have a climate action plan update coming in
June and the affordable housing plan continues to guide a lot of our efforts. Again, your goal has already been activated in this number of ways just in this past quarter. And that's really what we want to point out to you that we agree that you picked the right goals for us. We measure the effectiveness and
impact of city programming and report results that build confidence in government. And the reason for doing that is so that we know when it's working. And then you break all that down in the simple summary is this goal protects accountability, transparency, and trust building through results. And
that's really what we want to prioritize. And the team as the gallery you see over there are all focused on making sure that this message goes out of the city manager's office on a regular basis to the team and then the team ingests it and shares it with all members of the teams, various
departments and offices. And this is how we've been dealing with that. So organizational excellence is now pulled out of your strategic outcome area because that's a how you do it and instead it's become the way we do it. Uh a lot of our conversation has been around helping our team appreciate that
there are four pillars under organizational excellence. It is openly discipline. It is strategic advocacy. It is empathy and it is empowering. So those are four pillars that we are trying to live by. We are modeling that behavior. Now, this team right here has
gained an appreciation for that term and those pillars, and we're now working with our team members to roll that out to them, asking them to begin to pick that up, and by the end of this year, they will be sharing it with their team members just the same. Organizational excellence is something that we strive
for, but it is something that we expect. So, that's part of what we're trying to make sure we help individuals see. one because when you adopted your strategic outcome areas, you identified organizational excellence as a high mark and we're now going to live that way. And then strategic planning, we hired
chief strategy officer, Jen Hendrick, is working very much with this team trying to organize and identify ways that we can measure ourselves, how we can capture that, how we can produce a document, a five-year strategic plan. The goal will be able to bring that plan to you and the public so that everyone sees this is where we're going over the
next five years. Organizational excellence is how we will do that work. And then next we have we drive informed participation so all residents feel or are part of the solutions and that is so that we get better external communication that requires work that
requires different that requires intention. Uh and the simple summary here is this goal protects meaningful civic participation not just attendance. Doesn't matter if 30 people came. It's how well did they engage with the opportunity that was provided to them. That also may mean that we can't just do
it once. We may have to do it three or four times. We can't do it at five o'clock. We may need to do it at seven o'clock. We may need to do it on Saturday morning. Those are all things that stretch this team. And I recognize that. And part of what we have to do is to make sure that we can offset what it is that we're asking of them so that
they can enjoy the moment. So that it is a positive impactful moment, but that it's appreciating that we're looking for civic participation as a godmark based on what you've identified as a strategic goal for this organization. And that's what you using connect
Charlottesville is meant to be. It's not just a tool. It is actually an opportunity. It's a way for people to not necessarily have to leave their home and come and participate. If they're online, they can actually just go to the website, be a part of whatever conversation may be going. And if we
populate multiple conversations, they can pick and choose ways that they can participate and they don't have to put themselves out trying to figure out how to make it to city space, how to make it to Carver, or how to make it somewhere else for a meeting. And the goal is to diversify how we use this tool. And
we're spending more time with our team members trying to get them aware of how this system works because it is a system so that they then can embrace it and use it way more often than we have in the past and with other tools. On the spot segment that's just uh my shout out to
Afton uh Schneider, our communications and public engagement director. She drags me out on the mall. She makes me get on camera. I didn't want to do it. U but it's being received very well. So we continue to do that uh most of the month of month of March I use those segments to help engage with the budget process
itself. So every one of our work sessions that Tuesday spot was focused on what is that topic a way to teach people how the budget works for them and participatory budgeting is a big topic for some of you. We are making sure that we dig into that. I have dug up what we
have tried to do in the past. So in 2019 it was a big project. It was something that we were ready to to release. It didn't happen. And tomorrow in a workg group meeting, we're going to have convers or Wednesday in a workg groupoup meeting, we're going to talk about what we did in the past, bring that forward, and let you help us figure out how do we
activate participatory budgeting soon. So stay tuned. And last, we build internal networks of communication to foster clarity, efficiency, and collaboration. That just means we get better at internal communication because it is important. And the simple summary, this goal protects organizational
effectiveness through better internal coordination. Had a conversation with that group that I mentioned that was assembled earlier today and I referenced uh coordination, collaboration and communication as things that we just have to do. Uh and it is hard because when you are in charge of an area and
you've been given the title director, you believe that means I make the call. And I've had to help people understand that is not exactly how we're going to do that going forward. You make the call when it's time for the call to be made. But my question is, did you call someone else and get their perspective? Did you
make sure that you were considering what might go wrong, what could go wrong, and the last time you did it, what did go wrong? You may not be aware of that by simply making a decision from your seat. If you have a conversation with a few people around you, may you may learn something. And the goal is you may learn
how it impacts the public. And that's what I don't want us to miss. So that is the reason why I appreciated the goal that you identified here. And while this particular goal actually posed some contentious conversation on isn't this a repeat of the prior one because there was already a conversation about public
engagement and collaboration. This one is internal focused. The other four are external focus. This being internal focused. I like the idea of giving us something to look at in both directions. So that is the reason why we are supporting keeping your goals as they are. And here are examples of things
that we've been doing this quarter. We had a group of about 65 people pull together across all departments about a month ago, I guess, for emergency management collaboration. That is important for us to be able to demonstrate that we are ready to protect this city as it's needed whenever something arises. And you do that
through planning, testing, and just ensuring that you're ready for whatever that may be. We are working on transportation planning. It is a big conversation for us. There is a lot that comes with that work and it is not to be done by one department. but is really decided on, determined and executed by
four or five departments in all honesty. Coordinated communications. Aftton pulled together a first meeting of all communication responsible individuals across the city. Brought them in the city space and said to them, "Hello, my name is Afton. I am over communications
and public engagement. I'm not changing your world. I'm just wanting to work with you." Something we haven't done before. So that is about coordination of those communications and it's important for us to be able to do that. We don't miss things when we do things like that. And then city strategists remain
available to our strategy officer. This is something that we uh branded our team when we pulled them together to talk about long-term strategic planning, giving them a title, giving them a brand, and giving them an assignment. That assignment is that they will return and they will give us feedback. They
will analyze and they will report. And that's what we're looking forward to as we build out a five-year plan and start reporting to you the progress that we're making on that work because that's your vision to be a place where everyone thrives. In my mind, the five strategic goals have risen to a
level that allows us to focus on the things that matter so that we can help you deliver on that vision. It is meant to be aspirational as a vision, but is my desire for this team to work hard every single day trying to implement it. So with that, I'll say any questions?
Thank you. Great detail. Any questions or mic? >> Thank you, sir. Well done, sir. Um the next item on the agenda is um the first action action item is a public
hearing a resolution to authorize um execution of a rideway agreement and utility easement at Darden Tile Park. Mr. Anthony. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. This is Ron Anthony. Um,
director of Parks and Wreck. Uh, today uh bring you forth a public hearing and a resolution. Uh but first I also would like to uh invite uh Jim Barbara uh the park superintendent of uh the city county if
you have detailed uh questions about the project since uh the county operates the day-to-day operations out in Denm. Uh but uh I would like to request approval um to authorize the city manager to
execute a right ofway agreement uh with utility easement uh with uh Dominion Energy. uh per our agreement um in 2007 um the Darren Park it is a joint
agreement a joint park that we share but in the agreement it states that if there is any portion of that property going to be sold or easement um the county has to bring it forward to the city and the
city will have to have a public hearing and this is why we're here today uh the project um talks about uh um extending an electricity service near the Louiswis Clark building um to
um install a new prefab ADA compliant restroom. Um again uh with uh details that you really want to know, I would uh um invite Jim up to speak about uh the details of the project. But uh staff
would like to uh recommend the city council approve um the easement agreement uh with Dominion uh Energy of Virginia. If you have any questions uh please let me know. >> Thank you. Any questions from council
before um are we ready to open up public hearing or you have some more staff person? Um no question from staff. I mean council. I will open up the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak on this from the public?
If not, I will close the um public hearing and see if council has any questions. If not, I'll um open to take a motion. >> I have no questions. >> May I get a motion to um support this?
>> I'd move approval of the resolution. >> Second. Uh okay there's no further discussion we will take a vote may have to refresh your screen's >> I'll do Yes. Yes. Um,
>> there we go. Motion passes 5 Z. Thank you very much. Thank y'all so much. The next item on the on the agenda is a resolution to approve a business. >> I'm I'm so sorry to um interrupt voice coming from over here. Um, >> item 11. Uh, Mr. King reminded me that
uh it there's it's somewhat timesensitive. y'all voted on it in the consent agenda and so he asked if it would be possible to wave the second reading requirement. This is the resolution to approve the city's uh participation in the opioid settlement proceeds. >> So it would require a motion to wave the
second reading. >> Do we need to make a motion to pull it out of the consent agenda first? >> Um you've already voted on the extent agenda so you've got that vote there. It's not necessary. Just do we need to vote to wave the secondary requirement for item 11. I would make that motion to
approve item 11 uh by waving the second reading via four fifths uh vote. >> Second. >> All in favor, please say yes. >> Yes. All oppose, please say no. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um Todd, please. Um Todd will speak on
the resol um resolution for a tax refund of $94,169.79. Um, Mr. Divers. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of council, thanks for having me. Um, this is actually a continuation of the last
refund I was here about. Um, there's a quirk of code that only allows us to do a refund for the current and prior three years. Um, however, the other locality that picked up the uh
the business decided to go back six years, which is what they're allowed to do. Um, but I can't refund them. Jason and I can't refund them for the current or beyond the three years without going to to the uh circuit court. So, that's why the delay. We had to get permission
from the circuit court to do what's called an ends of justice um appeal. Um, so essentially so that they wouldn't be double bill because Almar County was going to bill them for the outy years. I didn't have authority to refund the outy
years. Uh, so now we have the authority to do it, but as usual, we have to ask you folks to do it. It's an odd I'm going to editorialize a minute. It is an odd situation. Um, under normal circumstances, we would not
go back six years on a business that unless you know there was some malfeasants or some fraud or something, which is what the tax commissioner directs and there's a number of opinions to that effect. Um, Elmar County decided to go ahead and do
six years even though there was no fraud in my opinion. So, um, that being the case and because we did not want this business to be deemed by us and Alar County, we had to jump through these extra hoops and I had to come back and ask you guys to do the rest.
>> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is um any discussion on councils on this? >> Just or go ahead. >> No, please. >> I was just for the public's benefit. Essentially, this is there was a business that
>> Oh, tax and out of Charlottesville. >> Yeah. They they they um it was an out of town um engineering construction firm. Um that got a business license in the city of Charlottesville. Um all their accounting is done out of state. Um you
know, we have the records that they give us. Come to find out, a good portion of the work was done in Almor County. So, we have to refund the business license. Um, and then Al County picks it up. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thanks for
making me clarify. >> Is there a motion to approve this? >> I'll move. >> It's okay. >> Okay. I'm sorry. That's >> um I second. >> Second. All in favor, please say yes. >> Yes.
>> All oppose, please say no. >> Great. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you all. Have a good night. The next item on the agenda is a resolution to authorize a reallocation of um1,854,818 um previously um appropriated in the CIP funding into um alternative in
infrastructure project with um budget gaps. The first of two readings >> and I have uh the next two items and I like that applause thing that happened a little while ago. So hopefully I'll get it again. Maybe not since I'm spending a lot of money. But >> can we add um we should let people who
speak to council choose walk up music. >> Uh don't do that. >> Don't do that. >> Just a couple seconds >> cuz then you're going to make me have to decide what it is that I'm going to walk up to. It will be different every time. I promise you. >> Enter Sandman. >> Uh maybe. We'll see. Um, so this item is
a resolution to authorize reallocation of prior funds that are no longer needed to support specific projects. Uh, it's 1 point one 1,854,818. There are two projects um that we are looking to have most of this money shifted to with a small balance going to
the CIP contingency fund. Uh, so I'm going to walk you through a couple of slides here. Uh, the Meadow Creek Trail, a long discussed project. Uh, I should have said, Council Snook, cover your ears. I know we've been talking about this for quite some time. We've been wanting this project to be done for
quite some time. It is not. Uh, but we are moving. We're getting, uh, it ready. Uh, two of my friends in the back from public works are working very hard, Eric specifically, to try to get this project to completion. I just wanted to just point out to you that this project budget has ballooned to $4.9 million. We
have $4.8 8 million on hand. So, we are short 1 point that math doesn't work. I did that wrong, but I'll fix it. Uh the budget gap is 1.5 million to be accurate. Uh ideally, what we're looking to do is because we have identified
funding that was um leftover balance from insurance proceeds when we had a leak in the hallway out here that came into this space that also went down lower level. we were able to get all the work done and still have some of those funds remain that along with the fact
that the CHS roof the salts the improvements on the roof uh left the balance we're proposing to take those funds they've already been earmarked so it's not spending new money it's just spending what is available in this way to bring forward this project that has
been long desired by many members of the community multiple neighborhoods affected by this and the reality of of a dream deferred Um the goal would be that 1.5 million would go to this project and another 300,000 would go to the Pollock branch
bridge which had to be relocated as a part of the South First Street redevelopment site has been moving fast in getting that project done. We're moving the bridge which is what you see that green dot as the new location and then a trail by parks and rack is being
added as a part. I would not sign off on this project continuing to be moved without a place for people to go once they came across the bridge. Uh and we did not have that as a guarantee uh in the prior version because we weren't exactly sure what the development impact
was going to be on the other side. We now have a new trail that is proposed to connect to the bridge with an extension which is the future trail line that you see on the bottom of this screen that is uh showing you that you'll be able to cross from Elliot to Brugemont Avenue uh
ultimately when this is all realized. Parks is planning to use existing funds to bring forward the new trail aspect. The future trail is going to be something that we'll have to identify funding for, but we're at this moment ready to move the bridge project forward, which the picture shows you what the bridge could potentially look
like. And ideally, it's just to make sure that we can create a usable trail uh with granting the access of a bridge over the Pollock branch. Uh we have $663,000 on hand. 300 is what is the gap. The goal would be to use this 1.8 8
million to close both gaps, get both projects done, and hopefully Eric will bring them both in under budget, which is what he has tried to get uh done, and then we might come back and have you move that money for something else. So, that is my recommendation is that we
approve the reallocation of $1.8 million in existing unspent CIP funds to fill budget gaps for project plan for Middle Creek Trail, Pollock, Branch, Bridge. Any questions? The remaining 54,000 as I mentioned would go into the CIP contingency.
>> So now those two projects will be completed. >> Yes, sir. I promise you. And I'm not coming back to ask you for another dollar. And he has assured me he is not going to come back and ask for another dollar. >> But he can't guarantee that. Of course, we're still working with contractors to figure things out.
>> I think we've heard those words before with this project. >> He can tell you I was not happy when they had to come. going to add probably >> and delivery of each one >> trails going to be at least a year. >> At least a year. Metal Creek.
>> So we're looking for pilots to start bids due in August and that'll probably be a six month project. >> Okay. Both within a year hopefully. 18 months. Let's say 18 months on both of them. How about that? So, about the time that I'm going off
counsel, >> we will have a ribbon cutting that you get to cut that ribbon. How about that? I promise you that. >> Okay. >> If not, I'm coming back and cutting the ribbon anyway. >> I will meet you out there. How about that? We'll make sure. I think that is a fair thing because I remember you
talking about Metal Creek quite often. So, this is that moving things along. We've been talking about stuff. It's time to get things done. >> So, appreciate. Any other questions, comments? >> So, with the Meadow Creek Trail project,
when we originally committed to this, what was the amount of city money? >> I know that I looked at the spreadsheet and saw that we were at a $3.2 million proposed budget initially, and that was
at least six years ago. That being how much the city puts in >> that was the total project budget. So that that number of city contribution has grown over time. Yes. >> That also includes part of the grant. >> Yeah. There were grant funds. There was a second grant. Did we lose a grant? I
feel like >> I think we had we had two grants. I do remember there were two grants at one time and we lost one of those grants from a timing perspective. >> But the city contribution has grown. Yes. It's sounding like it was 750, but >> yes.
>> Um, and what is the total city contribution now? >> Right. Right now we're at 1.575 million. >> This would put us at 3 million. >> This would put us at 3 million. >> So 3 million in city contribution. And I I know the goal is to not have anything
increase further, but can that actually be guaranteed? We are close enough that we believe that we will not have a further increase, but we can't guarantee anything because the market is playing games. >> Well, but the sooner we get started, the
>> the better. >> Yeah. Well, I'll still say again, um, the project costs have ballooned exponentially and there's been multiple rounds of expecting no increases of what
the city needs to contribute and it has. And I'm still not going to call it a boondoggle because I can see there are clear benefits of it. It's a great project in terms of it being beautiful. But I'm going to be completely honest when I think about this level of investment that could be going to
affordable housing or public health goals or even if we just wanted to keep it in the world of transportation, other trail or bike projects that would get far more use. Um I feel like we've just gotten into sucked into something that got a little out of control, but I'll
leave it there. >> I would join you in that. So, if you can come in on a budget, it would be cool. >> That's why I said that. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. I seriously I would just say that there's been a lot of focus on the
idea of managing our CIP because we haven't always fully managed it. We put things in the CIP. Chrissy's tried to stay on top of it. She's asked for updates. She's about to do that process. Now that this budget cycle has ended, she's about to ask everybody to update where they think their scopes are, where
their timelines are. That's a feature of the process. I think there's more work to be done in that process, which is why the three gentlemen to my left have all been given an exercise of working with their individuals who have line items in the CIP to make sure that they're
accurate and that that update is real and that projects are moving. As you know, I'm not um afraid to bring to you when it's necessary to cancel a project. I don't like that. I don't want to do that. But I also don't want to continue to carry projects that are not deemed
good projects. And at this moment, we still consider this one a good project, which was weighted. I considered it because that's a big step up. And they can tell you I wasn't happy when I heard that this was how much we needed again. Um, but we won't be coming back because I'm not coming back.
>> And sorry, just one more question. And I I know this has been explained at previous meetings when cost was still lower, but um what is it that's driven the cost up so much more than what was anticipated? >> I mean, do you have any Mike? I will
just say time has been a big factor. We have had time as as an issue. Also know that we have shifted all of our project management to the public works department and with that we've gotten better numbers, better plans. Uh and from that it comes at increased cost because we may have missed some things
in some of our early work. That's part of the fix. Um too many of our projects are out of whack budget wise. There are multiple contributing factors. But some others >> um yeah well it's been a very tough time in the construction industry over the
last five or six years. I think that's that's universal. Uh there were a few items that we identified in our original bid package that we've addressed that should bring the price down a little bit. So we're trying not to chase that escalation. We're trying to do a little
value engineering so that we come out even. Uh that's why I'm a little more confident than I think I would have been in the past uh about us coming in on budget. um some material selections that we clarified uh and we made some additional uh
changes in our bid package so that there's more information about the geotechnical situation along the trail which we identified as a question mark for some of the contractors who bid previously. So, you know, it there's a lot uh but yeah, I think we're doing our
best to address the escalation, but escalation in the construction industry right now is um a little bit out of control and has been for a while. Um and you know, we have to just choose where we want to draw lines.
>> Thank you. And I'm also reminded that we'll be coming back with another item in regards to the VOTE money because it was never appropriated mainly because we were still trying to figure out what the gap could be to help you fill it. Uh so that item will be coming. That is not any
additional money going to the project. It's just making it possible for us to spend what VOTE has contributed to it. >> Did you want to take these one by one? >> Yes. So, we have the option of this to vote on it tonight or defer it to um for the second reading on May the 4th, which
we can put on the consent agenda item. What's the board's pleasure? >> Council, >> if it's not time, >> I would say just have a second. >> Is it? >> Yeah, I would agree. >> Consent agenda for May 4th. Is that okay? >> Yep. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.
>> There's that. >> Thank you, Rory. I was waiting on that. All right, Remy, pull that one back up for me. There's There's more. All right. Next is CIP contingency fund action
item. So, this item I am requesting that you authorize the expenditure of four $4,555,000 from your CIP contingency fund. That fund today has a balance of $20.3
million. I start with an acknowledgement of that fund being what it is. I remind you and the public that this is one-time money versus recurring resource money. Uh so it is meant to help us close gaps, address spontaneous priorities and fill
holes that are created in critical areas that are not captured in an annual budgeting process. So, it's always good to have surplus so that you can close gaps. Um, but I just share that with you all because we need to make sure that people don't get this confused with
money that we can do other things with because it is one time in nature. When we spend it, it's gone unless it's replaced. Half of this balance has been uh potentially identified uses that we want to make sure that we make it possible for us to remain nimble. We have heard from various partner groups
and made up of community members that we want the city to be nimble enough that if we were to take down a property or to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, some funding needs to be available for that. So that is the reference that I'm making to you and what some of that money could be used
for and why I'm considering it not available for us to use. So that is there for a couple of different projects that could come to pass. $ 8.5 million was added as a part of your FY25 surplus that was um brought to you a couple
months back by the finance director. And again, these funds are an accumulation of not spending some of our budget in prior years um things coming in under budget and a variety of other uh contributions
uh that led to those funds being a fund balance and therefore transferred to the CIP contingency. What I've done tonight is because there's so many things in here is I didn't want to just walk you through a list. I wanted to show you some of what it would be used for. This is the list of priorities that I've
identified as to what these funds are for and immediately made a change that the CRA CRA capacity building item. We have identified funds that are available uh earmarked for CRA in a different way that can be used to address an old item
of what we had promised to give to the organization and never delivered. We're going to deliver on that. I just no longer need it as a part of this request, which is why that has now been reduced to six priorities for funding. Those six priorities are made up of these things. Human resource management
management $1.5 million. It is to acquire to move forward with the implementation of success factors. That is a cloud-based uh suite of services designed to support human resource management. I've referred to modernizing human resources. Since I've been here in
the five years that I've been here, this program, this comp this this resource is a way for us to look at those five boxes or whatever you call those up there. core HR payroll uh employee experience HR consulting services analytics and talent management those are all the
features of the program and this is to help our HR team manage the 1100 person workforce that we have today pedestrian infrastructure a million $95,000 this is focused on highway 29 at Angus Road and Holiday Drive as you all
are aware there was a fatality at that uh intersection last year the goal would be that we would implement improvements ments that would ensure that that does not happen again. Million dollar would be used to install a bus stop, some signal improvements and crosswalk, and then $95,000 for lighting. Yes, ma'am.
>> Does that include rightway acquisition? >> It does not necessarily include rightaway acquisition unless we needed something for the bus stop, I would imagine. >> No, we have not identified any necessary rightaway acquisition. >> So, does the expense come from traffic
management? All those those three things are all what was identified as what it would potentially cost. We haven't scoped the project fully. This is just a projection, but this allows us to get to that clarity. >> So, it's going to be no more than this, but it hopefully will be less >> if they follow my lead and that you
don't make me come back to council and ask for any more money after I ask you for money for a project. Yes, that is the plan. >> Or I'm going to stay up there and make that finance for it. M >> just just to go back um >> one um
>> the mysterious desert car photo is is quite >> gotcha. >> More importantly, um how what so this is this is a pretty high use area and I think a lot of people who are low-inccome without cars use it. Um,
>> but so what is going to actually be done to improve? >> There'll be a bus stop that's not there today. There's already a bus stop on one side of the street. We're adding a bus stop on the opposite side of the street, you think, uh, KFC side of the street. Uh, signal improvements which are going to help people cross the street and a
crosswalk that does not exist today in one of the sections. >> And then additional lighting because it is dark in that area as well. Yeah, I guess I'm just curious where the crosswalk is and what the signal improvement like means specifically, but >> we can make sure you get those details.
>> Sure. Thank you. >> Okay, >> other questions. >> Nope, I'm not done. Uhuh. I got a lot more to spend. Emergency management, $800,000. Uh, emergency management is focused on meridian barriers. Uh, I'll show you a little bit in a second. the emergency
pet shelter as a part of our emergency management framework and CFD contributions to one-time uh expenses for drone replacements, hazardous material equipment, and dress uniforms. Today, our fire department does not have the complement of their dress uniforms that they're supposed to have, and we
are bringing them uh into what we believe they should be. Yes, >> I know the meridian barriers are something we've talked about before and they have the flexibility of being moved around town depending on where we need them, but there are some places where I think we repeatedly need
something like that. Do we have anyone kind of scoping out um ballards that are removable? >> Yeah, we've had conversations about the ballards. Um, I'll say that, um, Assistant City Manager, uh, Roman is going to continue to have that
conversation because we have what we consider to be decorative ballards today that don't necessarily stop anything. Probably shouldn't have said that out loud, but um, ideally the goal would be to strengthen them and to make sure that they are more for preventative measures. Uh, when I heard that they weren't
necessarily going to do the job that I thought they were going to do, then I said, we need to come back and deal with that. So this is the beginning of in my opinion what we should have done immediately after 2017. We should have prioritized the outfitting of the city for being able to do things that we
don't have to use a truck and a person uh to manage access areas. And this brings us in line with what folks are doing all over the world in managing big events like Super Bowls and various big giant soccer tournaments and things of that nature that we should have had already. Mhm.
>> And here's just some examples of how it will work. We've uh we're deploying these again as a part of TomTom this week. Uh but this shows you what we will continue to be able to do. And if you think about in years past in these intersections, you always saw a public works, parks and wreck or or utilities
truck in these places. We will no longer be doing that across the board. And the goal would be to end that practice as soon as we can and strengthening how we protect our citizens. Snow operations, one of my favorite subjects, as you all know. $400,000 to
be spent buying an additional loader attachment and a blower attachment. It allows us to be able to better manage some of the uh white stuff that we expect to come into our community from time to time. Uh there'll probably be additional uh improvements in the snow
operations space. Uh we're going to give our team more time to kind of debrief on what we experience with the addition of ice and we know that that might mean that there are some other things that we'll come up with. So there may be a request in the future of leaving room for the possibility of that. But this is
what they prioritize for us to go ahead and try to pursue now so that we have it ready for deployment next year. I just want to note that we got a lot of comments this past uh winter uh with um like this is what Montreal does. Why
can't you do that too? And I just wanted to point out that Montreal's snow budget is like twice the size of our entire city budget >> and a lot of other places like Buffalo and Chicago got some of those same messages. >> We hear the need for improved snow
um mitigation. And we also understand we are not Montreal or >> this is the Charlottesville scale. That is correct. >> Yes. And we'll do some other things. I'm sure that there'll be other things that we consider to be tactical improvements as we dig a little bit deeper. >> Strategic planning, performance
management, and capacity $310,000. These are some examples of the things that we well these are the things that we're doing with that money specifically. Finance department, cultural assessment, procurement assessment, organizational excellence, which is culture setting for the whole organization. We need some temporary capacity in our plans review
section. Our um our building official team, they need additional support. So, we're working on that while we also work to fill vacant positions. This is to allow us to continue to do that work. U property maintenance fund needs to be replenished because we expended those funds as a part of this past snow
season. And our housing program, as you well know, is a very complicated program and continues to get complicated. and we need to get some financial advisory services because we would have captured the errors in the formula if we had this available to us. So, we would not have had the conversation that we had to have
earlier this evening. So, the goal would be that we can get that work done while we also work to prioritize what additional staff compliments we may need. This is why this item is a part of this package. Public safety overtime, uh $300,000 to offset charges for overtime.
our fire department has been working over time uh in being able to maintain uh the work that needs to be done. We had a structural imbalance in how we were managing for this item as why we're left with this u need for an offset. We believe we have corrected that for going
forward. Uh the goal would be that we wouldn't have to continually ask for this offset, but for at this time it's again a one-time request to balance things out within that department. So all of that together now totals $4,355,000.
So that is the request. And I also see that the emergency management number was supposed to be 800,000 not 750. So that should be 4,405 405,000. So, the recommendation is that
you approve $4,45,000 from the CIP contingency fund to address the list of priorities identified in the agenda memo for this action item >> with the amendment that number seven is no longer a >> correct and I would be asking you to
move this to the consent agenda as one of two readings. >> Okay. Any questions um from council? >> Yeah. What's with the um HR software, the SAP, the staff software? Is that
then an annual fee that >> No. >> How did it become a onetime thing? >> So that the one time for the additional cost for implementation, we budgeted for what we thought it was going to cost. Now we're getting updates as to how much time how much more time is needed to make sure that we can get the full
complement of the system our team trained and fully deployed. Um SAP is what I refer to as our mothership. It is how we do everything. Everything is about SAP and then we have open gov which is pretty close to that. So uh using success factors is trying to lean
into the mothership catalog of services and make sure that we can bring forward what we consider to be you know best in the system that's available to us. Uh hopefully we won't find ourselves with additional uh costs but we know that we always have to plan for there's a possibility there will be we'll try to
budget for those instead of one time. >> Thank you. So, you mentioned it, but I remain very concerned about um potential to lose significant amounts of naturally occurring affordable housing as well as low-inccome housing tax
credit uh properties with expiring affordability periods. Um I know after this there'll still be, you know, over 15 million um remaining. Um but just again highlight that as a concern. Um the only question with the
So there was that amount of money for the housing program financial um >> advisor. Yes. >> Advis advisor, you know, >> advisory services >> services. Um >> so our affordable housing plan, you know, called for an increase of at least
$1 million annually for affordable housing administration. That was never implement. That's a yet to be implemented part of our affordable housing plan. I know there's a recent um almost completed um housing program
capacity study that recommended at least five new positions in order to be able to implement all the things we want to do. How does this interact with those, you know, recommendations? >> Yeah. What this is, this is meant to be somewhat of a stop gap measure. uh we'll be able to use PFM, that's our financial
services firm that helps us with our evaluation of budget. They work closely with Miss Hamill and her team. The goal and the goal is that we would also be able to access an additional section of their team which provides housing advisory services to other communities. They're working with either Arlington,
Alexandria, or both right now in what is management of complicated programming. We're hoping to learn from them as a part of an extension of this assessment work that we can actually get someone who can advise us on if we had to go with those five positions as a
recommendation. One, it would be nice to hear them say we agree you need that many people and then they can help us order the priority of when to select and then I'll be able to bring those forward as requests for future budgets. That's what I'm looking for this process to be is to carry the assessment forward with
someone who knows how to do this work to advise us on how to go about doing that. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? >> We got a question about um using CIP money for overtime. >> Yes.
>> And we essentially use CIP for capital projects but also as a piggy bank essentially. So is that how this is being >> well in that moment because that that's a it's an imbalance that we don't have the ability to cover. We're believing
that we've made adjustments by budgeting at a higher amount because that's what we did a higher amount uh for the FY27 budget because we knew that this was going to be a gap. So this is to fill that gap with one time because we think we've corrected it enough that it won't happen again or at least to that level.
>> Okay. And then a kind of second part of that question was why was there so much overtime? >> Yeah, it's just a matter of of operation managing the operations for what it is and what it takes. Um we are at a we're at the level of staff for what it takes.
If everything just works normally, if anything spikes, goes off the rails for extra work, then that's the reason why we start to incur overtime. We have a real imbalance with the amount of hours, time off hours and trying to manage that with the current workforce. So that in itself contributes to it being a
difficult thing too. So there's some fixes that we're working on, but now that we have collective bargaining, they now have to be negotiated. So that's part of the process for going forward. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, we'd like to put this on the consent agenda item for May the 4th. Is
that >> acceptable? >> As as amended. >> As amended. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. Um, Mr. Freeze, >> he gets no applause.
>> You can have some. >> Of course I have my gallery. All right, I'm actually going to turn this one right over. >> Okay, >> well, I can start it off. Uh, good evening, Mayor Wade, members of council.
My name is James Reese, deputy city manager. Um, this item, uh, as it says in the title is for CRA's request to establish a new, uh, 501c3 nonprofit entity. Uh, I believe this is a general entity. You guys have seen in the past
entities that are attached to specific projects, but this one would be a general entity. Um, and are you sure? >> Yes. And as you heard um, in the public comment section as well. Oh, and excuse me, Maline Metsler, acting housing
program manager, neighborhood development services. Um, this would allow for CRA to the the main impetus was to allow them to go for other funding sources, a 501c3, a lot of grant opportunities are only open to 501c3 nonprofits. So, even though they
they're a quasi like a governmental organization, and that just creates a little bit of a complication sometimes when you're when you're going for funding opportunities. And it also will as as the public commenter mentioned allow for um more easily collaboration with other nonprofits when it comes to
forming uh formal ag part partnership agreements and the CRA board has already provided their approval for this item and there's no financial impact to the city. We also have Mr. John Sales executive director here if you have any
additional questions. Um but that is I think the the bulk of it there. Yeah. Thank you. Questions on formation of a uh a nonprofit entity 501c3.
I'm surprised it hadn't been, you know, hadn't been done early if the >> Yeah. Um first of all, will the 501c3 u be subject to the same audit requirements and so on that CRA itself
is subject to? Um >> yes. >> Okay. >> And will that be reported in some way perhaps on CRA website to the same extent that CRA's budget and and so on is reported?
>> Yes. So we currently uh receive an annual audit uh by dueling and vicers and that is presented to the CRJ board as well as presented to HUD every year. >> Okay. just want to make sure that it doesn't serve as an off-ramp for money that we don't ever see again.
>> Yes, it it will not serve as that. Uh this should be an opportunity to build additional funding uh not coming from the city. Uh and it also will allow us enter into partnerships like the food bank uh where we can provide some eviction diversion assistance without
food bank providing money and without residents having to provide income to the housing authority. We're looking to build a program where residents can volunteer their time, get paid for that, not real payment, uh, but we look at that as a credit to their rent to bring down their tenant account receivables.
>> Okay. >> Is there a precedent for a housing authority having a 501c? >> We are probably the largest housing authority in Virginia that does not have one. >> Okay. >> Every other housing authority has built one like years ago, decades, uh, because they saw the writing on the wall from
the federal government. >> Okay. which is part of a national effort having past experience with that as well. >> Yeah. >> You have more? >> No. Thanks. >> Um, will the nonprofit have its own independent board members outside of the
CRA? It was listed that there would be CRJ of residents and how this would be structured, but where would those board members come from? >> Yeah, they'll mir it will mirror the CRJ board. So, we currently have two or we're supposed to have two residents on our board and so mirror the CRJ board
>> but not outside of CRA. No. >> Um, okay. Um, and then oversight mechanisms that was already asked that so we're all set. That was my other one. >> Wouldn't it would it be beneficial to have do is it unusual to have outside
uh like housing interested board members? Uh the only issue is when you'll have uh maybe one board wanting to give one direction for the agency and the entity that created the board maybe the CRJ housing board having point to go in a different direction and so most of
the time it's typically a mirror board >> so you have one voice thank you >> so you know you explained it opens up opportunities for funding sources um beyond
funding sources available um that wouldn't be available for a quasi governmental in agency and potentially you know maybe it increases the amount of foundations or donors who may be interested in contributing to CRA. How many staff positions exist currently for
development fundraising work? Oh, we just have one position for that work for the housing authority currently. >> And certainly, you know, compared to affordable housing nonprofits who operate a similar amount of units, it's
a very different amount of capacity. So, it seems like for this to be successful, CRA would also need to increase that just staff level fundraising ability. Well, so the last few years, so I've got
to 300 in 2020 and we began reaching out to outside funding sources other than the city um really heavily. Uh a lot have wanted us to enter into partnerships with another nonprofit to receive funds. Uh and some have worked
with like the foundation CCF to receive funds for us and then pass them through. uh we think we could receive a lot more without even building staffing capacity just by getting our message out there a little bit more about the work we're doing. And so we've been doing that a
lot. And so like recently we just got $30,000 for a new van. So we'll be able to give kid take kids on field trips. We do training programs with adults taking like K- Tech PVCC and other things. And so we are working to get our message out there. And really that's where uh we've
been the most successful just getting the message out there without even adding additional staffing. That one staff person we added that individual two years ago and since we've added her we've I think got like $5 million in grants. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Um this and Natalie, you have any questions or >> I think this one we can vote on tonight if we want to. I move to adopt the resolution authorizing CRA's creation of a new IRS 501c3 nonprofit entity.
>> Second. >> All in favor, please say yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All oppose, please say no. >> Oh, yes. Sorry. >> Or yes. I was waiting for the >> Yeah, >> thank you. Um the next item is a
resolution to approve um CHA um CHA's um request to issue $4.3 million in tax exempt revenue bonds for Kinderwood U phase three. Is this correct? >> Housing authority. >> Yes. Okay.
>> So the So funny you say is that correct? >> Uh so again once again for the record my name is James Freeze, deputy city manager. Uh thank you. Thank you. Um uh so it it has been brought to our attention that the dollar figure that was posted in
this agenda item uh needs to be updated. So what we'd asked for this evening would be that uh you all remove this item from your agenda and then we will uh bring it back at a future meeting and uh repost it with the correct dollar figure. >> Okay. >> Is that a motion to defer or do we just
skip it? >> I withdraw. >> Withdraw. Yes. You can you can withdraw it, table it, do whatever you like. >> Okay. >> So, how does that what what's if any practical implications are there in terms of deadlines and funding
opportunities? >> I can uh at that I can defer to Mr. Sunshine Mthon who's executive director of Pedmont Housing Alliance. >> Good evening. Sunshine Mthon, Pedmont Housing Alliance. Um the reason that just a little bit of background, the
reason this was going to be a partnership with CRA is it was going to be uh allow for a local uh uh local housing authority to use that bond capacity. Not it wouldn't affect the city's bond capacity, but act as a pass
pass through from DHC, the state's department of housing community development to do our 4% bonds on phase three. We were using that tool or the goal was to use that tool to avoid having to post bonds through Virginia housing. Um and it was a it was an
alternative strategy. The amount should have read 7 million. It was 4.3. Um it will affect our timing. We're um this is sort of a a last minute misunderstanding around the posting. Uh I in order to uh
be part of the local housing authority bond pool, we would have had to have this approved by April 30th. That won't be possible anymore. The backup plan is to go into what's called the governor's pool. The governor has a bond capacity
as well. Um it it looks very likely that that we'll be able to succeed on that front, but there's a little bit of uncertainty just because we have less control over less, you know, immediate control over it. But this is the circumstance we're in. So, >> is us voting on it preventing it from
being ready by the 30th? >> Um, it it needs to be it needs to read the 7 million. A 4.3 million doesn't doesn't match what we need. So, it doesn't do us any good. >> Is that the only adjustment? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And so, in
>> so, >> are you reading my mind? >> Yes. Our the reason why we have an agenda is so the public knows what is at stake and so they can come and comment on it and somebody might have a problem with 7 million who doesn't have a problem with 4 million. So by not advertising that properly, not having it
in the publish agenda, the public does not know. It's a risk that you run. Um now council's free to make another decision and and and uh vote on it with a 7 million uh figure. You could amend the item to make it seven rather than four. However, you do run a risk of of
some a claim against the city that we um failed to adhere to for you. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, um as I understand, anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, this is not a mistake that
was made by city staff. Um I think it was a mistake made on on PHA. Um, but I I don't know everything that happened, but this is a pretty much an unacceptable position to
be in. Um, I would personally say, um, I'll just say that. Um, does it rise to the level where there would be value if council is open and able to doing it to have, you know, a
special meeting that could last 5 minutes where it's voted on? Is is the impact in terms of potential delay and cost increases on urine worth considering that over the next 10 days? Uh that is an option I had not
considered. Um the short answer is that it would bring certainty to the bond issuance where if we did not do that we'd rely on the governor's pool process which is not certain but has likelihood. So, it's hard for me it's hard for me to
know exactly how to advise council in that regard, but I would say that if that is a possibility, that would bring certainty to the bond issuance and would would certainly bring make a difference because of that certainty being put in place >> and that is enough advertising time.
>> That's that that's my understanding, but I think it's three days for a special meeting, but I would I would check before we did it certainly. But >> and April April 30th is the relevant deadline. >> Correct. Well, I would I would say I would I would be open to it because I think the
I know it's really really annoying. Um but maximizing certainty is I always ideal especially in projects with this much complexity and interlocking funding sources and um >> and impact
>> um and you know I don't know everything that happened but you know I I would be curious to learn exactly how this happened and and who is at fault and why because this is unacceptable. So, >> so your correction on this matter would be that you would be calling a special
meeting. We'd need you to identify when we could do that in order for Miss Thomas to basically publish an an agenda with this single item and then you all convene to hear that matter. >> Preferably early next week at the
latest. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I'm in town. >> Um, >> should we do that now or should we send an email after? >> No, I think we'll let the mayor coordinate calling a special meeting for you all >> and it should be necessary there can be
three in person, two virtual just I know schedules will be weird. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we we will have a special meeting before April the 30th on this item on item 17. We're now to item 18.
Um, >> good evening. >> Resolution, I mean, ordinance allowing modification of the terms of 501 Cherry Avenue loan agreement. >> Yes. So, um, at your last meeting, um, city council authorized city manager
Sanders to, uh, uh, sign a loan agreement with Pedmont Housing Alliance uh, related to the 501 uh, Cherry project. This item before you uh represents essentially a modification to that uh authorization. It's an ordinance
that would authorize the city manager to um to provide for for that loan agreement to allow uh PHA to use some of those funds for acquisition of property. So as noted in the staff report has been
city's uh typical p uh typical policy that we only provide funds towards construction costs on a reimbursement basis or to essentially buy down the affordability level of a of a unit. Uh uh in this case because the uh being
able to use these funds towards the acquisition of the property would result in a substantial uh overall project savings. staff is uh offering and recommending that the city manager be authorized to uh allow some of these funds to be used for property
acquisition. Uh again uh executive director of PHA Sunshine Rathon is available to answer any questions that you may have for him and I am here as well. >> I'll start down here. Michael, do you have any questions on this? So, I know we've discussed this before,
but just for the public's benefit, um, is this change just for this specific policy or is it kind of citywide allowing it as a potential activity? >> No, only for this project. >> Okay. And that's something could be >> we we could have uh there certainly could be future discussions around the
policy itself and how it might apply to other projects. I think we're we're open to looking at that. Um, but for right now, this evening, we're looking at this project alone. >> Sure. Um, got it. Um, I think it's worth thinking
about, you know, um, but citywide, but I know we're just here tonight. Um, so for the public's benefit, just what is the reason for making this change?
>> I'm going to go ahead and defer to PHA. >> Good evening. Sunshine Mason, executive director of Pine Housing Alliance. Um so the original purchase of the site uh and the current owner of the site was done by uh Woodard Properties. They purchased
it with a line of credit. So every uh day, month, um year that passes, they pay interest payments on that acquisition uh original acquisition financing. Uh recently um we've had a delay in the start of the construction of the
project. We've um the equity investor has pushed us to the next bond round which will be more towards um the September October time frame. Unfortunately, it's incredibly uh frustrating for us and every person and organization on the the on the
partnership. uh but it's outside of our control um because that's another four months of potential four to five months of potential acrruel of interest payments on the uh acquisition cost that Woodard originally um u made with using
using debt by closing on the land now we would then um allow him to repay the the the loan and there would be no further interest payment. So it red it reduces an increase in cost that we would otherwise see because of the delay over the next four to five months
and that just at ballpark it's about $20,000 a month in interest payments and other related expenses. So it's not insignificant end up saving $100,000 >> plus or minus. Yeah. >> Other questions? Michael you. Thank you.
No, I think you know that kind of covers it. Um, I would just say long terms I think it'd be worth thinking about the policy citywide. Um, because more and more localities I've seen are using acquisition of land to either pair
vouchers with existing uh older units or preserve naturally affordable housing. And it's way cheaper per unit than new construction. So, just interesting. I I know that's separate from tonight, but um I'm in support of the ordinance
in front of us tonight. >> Okay. Natalie, you have anything? >> Um no, I'm not I'm not >> Okay, good. Lloyd, >> nothing. >> Okay, >> I'm good. >> So, with this um we we can take action
on this one. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. I move the ordinance allowing modification of the terms of the 501 Cherry loan agreement. >> Second. Second. Um, all in favor, please say yes. >> Yes. All opposed, please say no. >> Great.
>> Sorry. >> Um, so we are now, um, if there are no questions on the, um, presentations and the written reports. The second time for community matters.
Would anyone from the public like to speak? >> We have we have the state of the forest for the tree commission. >> I'm sorry. presentation. >> Good evening, Mayor Wade, city councilors. Um, my name is Steven Gaines, urban forest at Charlottesville Parks and Recre. I am just here to
introduce uh tree commissioners that are going to uh talk about state of the forest address that we do every year, a little bit later this year than usual. Um, and before I do that, so Susan McKinnon is the chair. that Hannah Brown and JD Brown also uh making the presentation. I would just like to add
that this particular report and you should have a text report as well. Um but this took a lot of effort and so we would very much uh be happy to hear questions and feedback because worked hard on this one. So thank you. >> Thank you.
Okay. Um, good evening. >> Good evening, >> Mayor Way >> and council members. We are uh the tree commission thanks you for the opportunity to present this our annual state of the forest report uh this
evening and you've already been introduced uh to the two the two other presenters that we will be working with today. Um okay so Oops.
Um our presentation uh this evening is divided into two parts. The part one the um city and community urban forestry work which I will present and part two the three initiatives that the tree commission is bringing to you this
evening uh will which will be presented by uh JD and um Hannah. Um, we want to call attention to a number of uh common themes that run run through the Whoops, sorry, I have to
remember to do both of these things. Um, that run through uh this report. First, the multiple threats to the health of our urban forest from climate and environmental changes from diseases and pests, invasive vines, and from in the
process of development projects. second that the space for planting large shade trees on public lands is increasingly limited. Um these two factors together combined um lead us to focus more intensively on
tree preservation and the restoration of urban forests, on the remaining vulnerable parcels uh on private lands, on the innovative tree planting strategies on public lands, and on the productive cooperation between the city
uh and our nonprofit uh partners. This section of the report um this section reports on the combined efforts of this our city and community partners who both separately and together make
tremendous contributions to the health and enhancement of our city's urban forests. The community organizations that have primary focus uh on tree work in in Charlottesville include the Charlottesville area tree stewards,
relief, seville, roana conservation alliance and the um newly formed Charlottesville Invasive Plant Partnership. several things to point out um in this sort of we've sort of collected a lot of
the charts in the in the um report. Um so there several things to point out in this summary of tree plantings and removals. Here we're talking about um plantings of 1 to 2 in caliber trees, not seedlings and saplings. Uh this past
fiscal year, the city planted 133 trees and removed 64 trees. Notably, this is the lowest removal rate in a couple of years due to the aban abatement of the emerald ash bore uh infestation.
Together, our city and community partners have reported a total of 704 trees planted. Two things that are not captured in these report numbers. One is the number of trees planted and removed on private
properties by individual land owners and in the course of larger development uh projects. Uh another is when trees are removed when the trees removed are mature trade
uh shade trees. If they are replaced, they'll be replaced by young trees that will take some 20 years to grow to the point of providing significant um ecoer. However, couple points to note here.
First, with the addition of the new zoning inspector in NDS, a man named O Bradshaw, for whom we are very grateful, we hope to get a better handle on the the overall number of trees planted and removed. um during development projects
and also uh as a result of the tree removal permitting process. Secondly, both the limited public land available for planting large shade trees and the loss of mature trees due to environmental and development uh
pressures make it doubly imperative to focus on the preservation of mature trees on both public and private lands. Did I get um uh whoops let's see um in this section
we'll focus on four uh preservation and reforestation projects rel um what three relating to public properties and one relating to private properties. Okay. Once uh planted, of course, there are tremendous amount of work involved
in maintaining healthy healthy trees so that it can grow to maturity, mulching, watering, pruning, disease, and insect control, and clearing invasive vines. Here we're primarily looking at those city efforts relating to pruning and
disease control for trees on city property. The chart shows that care was given to at least four over 400 uh individual trees. And this year was the first year that the number of trees pruned uh surpassed the number of trees
removed on city properties. Again, a sign of an increased emphasis on tree preservation. We'd also like to give a shout out to Relief Seville's innovative tree preservation program. This endeavor, which is funded by a
three-year grant from the Virginia Department of Forestry, is focused on the preservation of mature trees in high heat index, low canopy neighborhoods in Charlottesville. In the fiscal year 2025,
relief treated for 48 trees in Fville, offering free pruning, disease and pest treatment, and invasive species control. Turning to the downtown mall trees, um the vibrant social life on the downtown
mall would not at all be possible without its beautiful groves of willow oaks. However, these willow oaks are declining due to the environmental stress and and the deteriorating um underground infrastructure that supports
them. A number of these trees have already had to be removed due to due to the danger they pose to both people and structures on the mall. Wolf Josie landscape architects have created an incredibly detailed and impressive management plan adopted by
the city outlining the steps that will need to be taken in both the short and long term um to support and revitalize the tree canopy and the integrity of Halprin's overall design. So on the 50th
anniversary of the founding of the downtown mall, we wanted to call attention to the fact that this plan, the implementation of which will be so crucial to the continued vitality of the downtown mall, remains unfunded.
Therefore, our first recommendation is for the city to support both grant funding and annual city budgeting in order to finance all phases of the downtown um mall tree management plan
regarding invasive species man management and reforestation projects. Here we're focused not on the on the number of 1 to two inch caliber trees planted by the city on land that's already clear and open for planting, but
on the larger swaths of forested land and trees that have been swallowed up by invasive um uh invasive vines. This work involves clearing often acres of land from invasive species and either um
rescuing mature trees and/or planting seedlings or sapling trees in their place. in the last two years of the city's remarkable reforestation efforts alongside with the Ryana Conservation Alliance's impressive uh work in both
Riverview and Penn. More than 42 acres have been cleared of invasive species. And here you can see one example uh at the Sunrise Elementary School, a kind of before and after example of that clearing. It's
>> remarkable. and around 2,478 seedlings have been planted and hundreds of mature trees have been liberated. Um, here is another Whoops, sorry. Um, yes, this is another example of the uh
of the refor uh of a restoration of the Riverview Park restoration, a before and after uh photo of that. While Steve Gaines and Parks and Record doing an extraordinary job of reclaiming our public forested lands from the grip
of invasive vines, this does not touch the 80% of private lands in this city which are likewise bedeled by invasive vines. So in late 2024, we started CHIP, the Charlottesville Invasive Plant
Partnership, which includes urban forestry, the Office of Sustainability, the Tree Commission, and our many great nonprofit partners um sorry um whose uh names are listed in this slide. Um
while our broader mission is to inspire awareness and action to protect native species from invasive plants, we have chosen to focus first on the problem of invasive vines on trees. So last year we started um to work with
two neighborhoods, Kelly Town and Little High, and together developed what has become our basic program, which is basic basically we do a walk or meeting with the neighbors to figure out what their problems are uh how we can uh build a strategy to deal with them. We conduct a
survey to determine how many neighborhood properties have invasive vines. And it turns out somewhere in the mid 40s uh percent of properties do have invasive vines. And we do that survey also to establish a baseline against
which we can um assess our progress. We then train neighbors how to cut vines effectively and safely. And together, Chip and um neighborhood volunteers conduct workdays to cut vines on neighborhood properties. By the end of
this past year, we liberated a total of 551 trees across the two neighborhoods and we've just started a uh program uh in Fry Springs. So, what can the D city do to help? Um
just driving around the city um you we can all see the terrible tangles of invasive vines that are affecting small and large swaths of our urban forests. Um, most often these are seen on absentee owner rental properties
overseen by management companies, on the backside of uh large commercial properties, on the common areas of HOAs, on derelict properties, and on properties held for years by developers uh who are waiting to uh sell or
develop. The lack of attention to the adverse effects of invasive vines has had serious visible consequences for the state of state and health of our urban forest. And this slide here um is just one of many that we're uh example of
what we're seeing through the city. So our second um tree commission recommendation is that we explore the provision of incentives andor penalt penalties to check the rampant growth of
invasive of k uh tree killilling vines on private on private properties. If the city can do that for the o overgrowth of tall weeds on private properties, can we at least uh consider an analogist ordinance that to address
the overgrowth of invasive vines on uh private properties and if um anybody's interested in exploring that as a possibility uh please get in touch with us. We'd like to think about if there's anything possible here. So now um I'm
moving on to the second half of our report. I will uh turn over the presentation to JD and Hannah. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Great. So uh my piece of it is a small
piece uh but an important piece. So uh part of the emphasis and Susan alluded to it a few different times is the value of mature trees. So how do we prioritize that uh in our planning process? So we like the planting of planting of new
trees but uh the mature trees provide exponential benefits in terms of you know the health and well-being that we derive from these trees and the investments that we derive for our whole community but as well for those individual property owners. Uh and in
the urban environment we lose those trees pretty rapidly especially in the large development process. So when we plant new trees within 10 years we're losing about twothirds of those trees. There's just tremendous uh turnover in the urban environment that leads to the
loss of these really valuable assets. So in response to uh the loss of some mature trees, we reached out to the city with ideas on how do we maximize the preservation of these really important assets. So a few different ways. One is
to update our administrative guidance. So specifically during the development process, identifying at the outset that we have mature trees on the property and planning for that, not envisioning these as blank slates when we're doing our
development. Um involving arborists early and often in these process. So Steve Gaines with the city, but as well as those private certified arborists who can help guide and identify where the opportunities are to both have the
development, but also to preserve those mature trees at the same time. Uh the city adopted a tree removal permit requirement uh in the last few years, but it's remain kind of stalled at the gates because we really don't have that visible to the public. It's not
communicated well to the public. we take advantage of that, that will be a really critical tool for us for assessing what's happening on private property, right? Where are we losing trees? Where are we gaining trees? It's a really important piece of information for us. Um, last year we presented on
opportunities to update the storm water uh fee to better preserve mature trees and that's something that we repeat in this year's state of the forest report. But there's opportunities there to really put the emphasis on using that storm water fee and the incentives that
it provides to uh encourage the preservation of mature trees uh and reward that when that's done because it's of the valuable uh process that they they provide in terms of storm water capture. Um there's
a variety of incentives that the city can consider. Cities around the country have put in lots of different incentives that balance all the objectives that the city wants to achieve, whether that's increased density, but combining that
with flexibility to allow for the preservation of mature trees at the same time. Um, there's also a variety of things that the city can advocate for at the state level in terms of additional regulatory authority. So putting this all together, one of the
things that we'll be working on over the next year is a tree preservation guide. Uh this would be done in concert with the local development community so we can identify opportunities that are achievable um to preserve mature trees using all the kind of resources and incentives
that we have in place right now. Four different potential um if we look at the timeline for development, four potential points of um implementation. One is thinking pre-esign about what are the assets that we have on that property. So
when the development starts, we already have taken that into consideration. We're designing our buildings, you know, not again as a blank slate, but taking into consideration how do we preserve these trees? Um a variety of different things that we do during construction to
protect those trees. Uh and then postdevelopment, um you know, what's long-term maintenance? How can the city provide technical expertise to assist in that process? So, uh in summary on the mature tree part, the recommendations from us
are updating the city guidance and administrative uh materials to really emphasize the preference for the protection of mature trees, engaging a broad range of the public uh in this process. So that's really kind of half
of this effort here is this tree development guide um to talk about how we do this and then when we have successful efforts documenting that success so using those as the case studies going forward so that when we do have uh opportunities to
protect mature trees that becomes the playbook for how we do that in the future. So so thanks very much. So now I'll turn it over to Hannah Brown. Okay, so the next tree preservation initiative that we were focused on over the last year was mapping vulnerable
parcels. Um, so we started developing this map with the understanding that with the limited public space available to plant shade trees that it's really imperative that we preserve existing forests that we do have on privately held land. And to be able to do so, we first needed
to develop a spatial understanding of where these tracks of forest actually exist in the city. Um, so this is quite small for you all to see probably. Um, but unbuilt and forested lots, also often called green field sites, are
those that are likely to be targeted for development. They have lower development costs typically. So such parcels are indicated on the map in the bright salmon color. And those salmon colored parcels that have an additional dark red outline are those that we're calling
vulnerable parcels. Vulnerable parcels are unbuilt sites that also host intact forest, sit within flood planes, or andor also contain critical slopes. This map also visualizes city-owned parcels so that we can start to understand which of our vulnerable
parcels make up part of significant forest patches or that otherwise play a key role in connecting habitat corridors. From this mapping exercise, it became very clear that many of the large-scale unbuilt sites that we have remaining in
Charlottesville have a high degree of ecological value and sensitivity. Yet protections for ecological site resources are often insubstantial or easily overcome with waiverss. Further development on green field parcels often
often maximizes buildout as the default kind of what what JD was getting at um where we do have more sight sensitive design approaches that can meet development needs and preserve valuable ecological assets if that's the commitment from the beginning of the process.
So it's our hope that this mapping exercise provides context that will inform city decisions early in the site design process and we really believe that the understanding of both the value and the procarity of these remaining unbuilt sites can lead to more sensitive
design approaches. For example, a planned housing development on one of our identified vulnerable parcels could early in the design process commit to an approach like clustered housing that could aim to preserve ecological assets without
compromising the quantity or quality of the housing built. So over the next year, we will be continuing to develop this initiative and carry out further mappings using Greenprint 1.0. And it's our intention for these mappings to help the city weigh specific development plans against
collective sustainability goals such as those that are outlined in our comprehensive plan and our sustainability plan in order to balance housing density with the stewardship of natural resources. Okay. The city can assist these efforts by continuing to emphasize and
potentially expand key restrictions that we have on site plan development such as the protection of critical critical slopes, urban trees, and our hydraological systems. We may also consider a zoning change that would add a design overlay district for these
ecologically sensitive parcels. And we may also um begin to evaluate these parcels with critical slopes, urban forest connections and/or flood planes for potential acquisition which the city could hold as parkland or green
infrastructure investments. I will now share um the third key initiative we are working on over the last year and that is canopy collective. Canopy Collective is a new initi initiative that began in 2025 and it emerged from our um urban shade advocacy
work. So, Canopy Collective develops planting projects that are focused on cultural attunement, the creation of highquality social spaces, and on improving canopy equity within Charlottesville. So, many publicly owned lands have
extensive areas of paving or turf grass, um examples of which are shown on the screen. These extensive turf grass areas create maintenance burdens for city staff while providing little or no contributions to storm water management, biodiversity, shade, or resident usability.
The images on the screen shows such examples at Charlottesville High School, Sixth Street, Tonsler Park, and Talos Elementary School. So, pilot planting projects on these and other underutilized city lands could increase our tree canopy, model sustainable
practices, and create immersive spaces for residents use. We've identified three types of opportunity sites for pilot projects within the city. The first is sites within neighborhoods that are experiencing shade inequality and are thus disproportionately burdened by
urban heat. These include Tenth and Page, Star Hill, Filill, and the Meadows neighborhoods. The image on the top of this slide shows an unbuilt parcel in Tenth and Paige, which could provide an opportunity for culturally attuned tree plantings that provide much needed
shade. Pilot projects in these neighborhoods would engage neighborhood leaders and residents to co-design plantings that align with each neighborhood's distinct cultural and escape. The second type of opportunity sites are those in the downtown core. Downtown is
one of the hottest areas in the city and the city owns several primarily paved lots um in in quite visible locations such as the one shown here next to the city market. These sites could offer public space and green infrastructure potentially in the form of temporary
installations or pop-up parks. These high visibility sites um have the opportunity for demonstrating both the value of and alternative approaches to planting in our constrained urban context. The third type of opportunity sites are
our schools and parklands. Recreational and educational spaces are really an ideal opportunity for fostering youth connection with the natural world. Canopy Collective envisions transforming over oversized or underutilized turf areas into plantings with an educational
bit. The image at the bottom of the slide shows a courtyard at Charlottesville High School. Um, we like to imagine if this patchy grass was instead planted in a way that evoked the specificity of a regional forest. We think innovative plings on school grounds could be co-designed with
students um to introduce shade, promote biodiversity and above all provide critical social spaces all of which really coales to support mental health and the well-being of the school community. So as mentioned, Canopy Collective is a very new initiative. It's only gotten
started the last year, but in the coming year, we'll be working to realize pilot projects that have the opportunity to enhance the social and ecological value of some of our public spaces. The city can support this work by considering forthcoming proposals for alternative
planting installations on publicly owned parcels. Um, so with that, we're at the end of our state of the forest report. Um, I think we're very excited about the momentum we have with these three initiatives that we've presented here tonight. Um, we know we shared a lot of
nuanced ideas very late in your all's evening um, in a relatively short time. Um, as we continue to move forward each initiative, we'd value the opportunity to have a working session um, with city council in order to discuss in a greater level of spec specificity each of these
initiatives and to collaborate with you all on advancing these projects. Thank you for your time and attention. >> Thank you all. Great job. Thank you. >> We join you this time, Rory. So, um I'll start with you, Jen, with questions and comments.
>> Yeah, thank you so much for this. Um I can only speak rave reviews for CHIP um in particular. They have been so helpful on private property projects that I've been associated with them and um just volunteer days. It was only then that I
I realized how uh um destructive invasive plants can be and the harm they can cause to neighbors and other private property and how quickly that can happen. So, um shout out to Chip and all the work that they
do. Um, and I I am curious about some of your recommendations and um would love to yeah continue that conversation and and explore what options we have. Um, I did have a question about the downtown mall trees
and I think I must have just misheard it, but the we we did have in the budget the 4.5 million for the tree the downtown mall tree stuff, right? in the capital budget.
>> Yeah. Um phase one uh got approved uh uh with this year's for next year's budget. Um so we are busy planning on phase one just under 600,000 for a work and then the following year
um that's where construction will occur. >> Okay. That's where the was it a four point was the million 4 point something million was that a number that I made up or that's the all the phases or >> that's all the phases >> all the phases. Yeah. >> Can you say those numbers more?
>> Oh sorry. Um so what uh the parks and recreation um department um uh requested was uh funding for phase one out of the mall tree plan. Um so we strategically put it in uh uh two years
where the first year will be a work uh meaning we have to get a consultant to come in um get us to construction drawings and then from there we are also requesting for construction dollars in outers so that phase one can begin.
>> Very good to hear. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. No >> thank you. Um, I want to echo Jen's comments about Chip and just the pictures of the invasive species removal was awesome. As someone who has picked ivy out of my own
backyard and had sore hands the next day, I know it's a it's a big job. Um, and I've also attended a neighborhood association meeting to to share how to do that with the community and it's great to see that engagement and getting out there. Um, the one thing I
kind of was found missing from this was a discussion about um, repurposing public rights of way for street trees and maybe that was something that was looked into, but like you know, I'd be happy to trade parking spot for a tree.
Um, and if there's any chance that, you know, that is something you looked into, but there's like utility problems or other reasons why that wouldn't work. But if it's not something that's been looked into, that would be um perhaps worthwhile adding to the scope. >> Can can you say more about what you mean
by repurposing rest? >> Yeah. So um instead of reserving a a 10x5 uh or 20 x 5 parking spot for a car, we could turn that into a tree.
>> Do you want to say anything? Uh I can't think of too many situations in the city where that's actually come up as an option, but I would be happy to explore it. >> Okay. >> Or just like keeping an eye out for where that's potentially um usable and you know, of course there's utility and
and uh those sorts of considerations and um probably some road safety considerations. But knowing that trees provide a barrier to help pedestrians, um you know, shade, traffic, calming, all the things you
noted in that um graphic, but instead of taking space away on the people's side of the sidewalk, you can take some space from the car side of the sidewalk. >> Thanks. >> Okay, Michael. >> Well, echoes what others said. Um
appreciate all the work you've done for the public. In addition to the presentation tonight, there's over a 30-page report which is publicly available in our agenda packet if anyone watching is interested in, you know, reading more in depth the recommendations as well. Um,
and I know there was a lot of work in previous years for recommendations that still the city still hasn't implemented. Um, so a few questions kind of echoing what what um, councelor Flecher had asked. So there's 600,000 in FY27 for downtown mall tree
management plan, 1.7 million the next fiscal year. What's the gap between what's currently in our CIP and what full implementation would look like? >> Me again. uh when you're talking about
uh gap so uh the plan the DTO mall tree plan breaks it up into phases and uh the phase is the first phase uh that uh will focus on central place um and that's reason why that was the focus point um
that's the area that has lost the most trees or we could not grow so that's where we're going to focus on um um so we are just focusing on the phase one. Um from there, the plan also talks about it's a 20-year plan um to implement the
entire replacement of all trees on the mall. um our urban forester Steve uh will be working on phase two to look at uh which vase or which section needs to be replaced and that's how we're going
to move forward and keep continually requesting funds because what we do not want to do is request a large amount of money and then we add add then we land in the same position where we have a cap that has not been completed uh for many
many years. So we want to be very strategic. That's why we broke it down u per the recommendations where we focus on in phase one. Once you complete phase one, we'll do we analyze which trees are the weakest and then we focus on the weakest trees to replace that.
>> Mhm. But phase so it sounds like phase one is fully funded and then >> you know re once it reaches the moment of completion or work on phase two could begin those are the budget cycles when requests for that would would come in. >> Yep. again uh budget just got approved.
Uh thank you so much for just the A&E. So we'll be coming back for the construction um dollar figures for the next year. Um and in the presentation you all mentioned it a little bit but I'm curious what would involvement in the
site plan process look like specifically in terms of having a role there to try to encourage mature tree canopy preservation? >> Yeah. So, you know, recognizing that the development process is a complicated one. Um,
outlining, you know, mapping so that we have the trees outlined on these site development plans so that we can see them and we can plan for them appropriately. I think a lot of what we heard uh regarding the
development process is it's intended to be a multi-step process but often development plans come you know fully designed from the very first meeting and so the opportunity to
>> right to have you know there be some consideration of what is existing on that parcel before the the the site development uh discussions get started. is is what we are referring to. So I don't know
Stephen you have more specifics on >> Sure. Um I would just add uh in a lot of these situations particularly with early phases of the development the the way this the trees are actually represented on the site plans being drawn to scale
and they in general trees are usually the last thing on the list to really be factored into consideration where what we're saying is that should really be closer to the beginning when you think about critical root zones and all the things that are involved with protecting that critical root zone. it just it has
to be done early otherwise you miss all the opportunities to save the trees. Um so having literature available at the site plan early site plan meetings. Um we are actually the presentation suggested having a pamphlet and those first meetings when we first start
talking with the city and the developer having that information passed early in the process so we can actually start really having a good solid inventory of the trees and pick out early which trees we want to save and start building the development around that instead of just
kind of looking at as a clean slate. won't make a lot of difference. >> So yeah, just trying to understand it sounds like, you know, maybe similar to way, you know, the housing program staff provide feedback as part of the site plan process, the desire would be to
have, you know, a staff member be able to do that just specifically with kind of tree management. >> Certainly that would be ideal. >> Certainly. Um I mean right now my position is on you know public property but having somebody to do that for for um
you know private property owned properties um and then also offering more incentive for saving large diameter trees right now they're there's the you know canopy credits u which is useful uh but it's I think we can probably go into
another creative solution in regards to adding more incent to save larger trees because we have a study ongoing relief. Seville has funded a study through Darden Darden students to actually illustrate how much more of an investment trees are as the properties
built around. Um so stay tuned for that. That study should be coming out probably in the fall. >> And um I would say, you know, I've always been curious what if anything can be done with renters who are, you know, about twothirds of the city and
especially in those low canopy neighborhoods. um you have a lot of workingclass renters, some of who may have been renting their home for a decade plus. Um obviously a lot harder for them, you know, if they're not owning the property. Are there models in other localities that have been able to
um kind of deal with that that that problem? Um I would say there's some solutions coming in regards to maybe maintenance programs for some of those trees so they don't they don't we lose them as quickly. Um >> that's
>> that's what ME is doing. Yes. Um and that's that's partially grant funed. But I've heard of particularly, you know, Washington DC had a program where they were taking money like five a couple of cents, five cents from phone bills or cable bills and actually putting into a
tree fund for low-inccome neighborhoods and actually using that to pay for tree work that was needed. So that trees can be maintained. What we find is if trees aren't maintained, they need to be pruned. Um, a lot of times a big windstorm comes, branches get broken, that's when an infection sets in. It just kind of leaves leads to the demise
of the tree. But if you are able to get in early and actually do more productive pruning of structural pruning, that goes a long way to actually keeping more trees intact so that we don't lose them as fast. >> And then um just final question um number of policy recommendations in the
report tonight um or policy recommendations in past years, not all of which were implemented. Um, obviously council won't be making a decision on all of those tonight. It sounds like at this moment there is not yet a process or timeline for when these would ever
come to city council for a decision of saying yes or no to them. >> Yeah. You know, so we have envisioned the short-term, medium-term, long-term policy recommendations, right? So, the short term would be these requests to uh
update the administrative guidance, which is something that could proceed right away. Uh, in terms of kind of trade-offs like the storm water fee, how that's structured and utilized, that's part of a much bigger conversation. And the tree commission would like to be part of that conversation. So when the
city and staff for the city undertake that examination, it would be wonderful to have a tree commission or a representative be part of that conversation. Um, which will obviously involve a public process as well. And then the long-term one is these policy recommendations that are not within the
city's authority right now, right? So, what do you want to advocate for in terms of new legislation that would give the city additional regulatory authority to work with? You know, joining with other jurisdictions around the state and asking for those things, that's well
within the city's ability to do that. And we would love to make recommendations on things that the city might consider advancing. >> Yeah. Well, was I as I understand it, both on the short, medium, and long term, there's not yet an expected
timeline or process for um council making decisions on those items whether it be yes or no. Um so I will just say I do worry about the recommendations just kind of sitting on a shelf without even an answer about do they move forward do they not move
forward recognize nothing's going to you know happen you know >> we have met with uh NDS for an initial conversation and it would be nice to have a working group where we can come formulate those policy recommendations and bring them back to you all would be wonderful
>> and and we if possible I think especially for the three initiatives at the end. We could have a working session with you all at some point to kind of explore different possibilities. Um, you know, before having to make any
decisions on any of those things that would be great because they're much more complicated than what we could present tonight. >> Well, I'd certainly be interested in, you know, getting there and having me a goal to get to that moment. >> Yeah. I can't say tonight what that
timeline would be, but >> we'll talk with um Sam about, you know, a work session at some point. >> Highlighting it now. >> Yep. And um I just had a couple of comments you had mentioned. Um
uh you planted 64 trees and trees >> and you planted >> 33 >> 33. So, um, you mentioned Relief and I know that, um, they're like they're on private property, but they I know they
work closely with you all. Is that including the trees that relief planted? >> No, that's that's not >> Yeah. So, my my essentially I have there's a tree
planting program, CIP program that I use to fund tree work. Um, from that fund, we planted 133 trees. Usually, it's closer to 170, but I intentionally decreased that amount and increased watering and maintenance. >> Uh, things are getting hotter and they
need to pay people to do that sort of thing. U, but, uh, those numbers do not include the relief numbers or the trust tree numbers or the Urbana Conservation Alliance numbers. The 704 number
includes all cats and and relief and >> 700. >> Is RCA the the free tree giveaway that utilities does or >> No, that's different. That's different. A whole different thing actually. Yeah. And that was I think closer to 200. >> Okay. >> Uh they do a spring and a fall. They did spring and a fall.
>> Same. >> Yep. >> So yeah, there's lots of ways to get trees and we do we do plant a lot. Uh, and this year was the first year we didn't remove this one. >> Great. >> Great. Um, thank you all so much. This is a lot of work. We really appreciate
this. Um, and um, this is one of the things that we do that when I talk to my colleagues in other cities that they just don't get this type of information and this type of preservation that that we do here. So, I really appreciate it. Um, any
other questions or or comments? Thank you guys so much. Thank you. Um we are now um any questions on the written report? Did anyone have anything on that? Nope. >> If not um this second time for community
matters. Would anyone like to speak? >> Yes sir. Uh, good evening again, council. Uh, Rory Stozenbury, president of Water Street. Um, I'd like to talk to you guys a little bit about showing your work. Um, I think that I and maybe some others
sometimes yell about showing your work and why it's important or just saying that it's important and we don't really talk about why. Um, but it's more than just checking a box to feel like you're doing good open governance. Um, one reason uh is to have the best
information available. Um, earlier tonight you heard from our consultants who were hired to revise our inlies that they didn't know what methodology was used for the prior inluff fee that they were hired to revise. Uh they
assumed uh that because the numbers were closer to one methodology they used uh that that was what was used 2 years ago. Um, but they didn't have access to the model. Um, and they didn't know. Uh, that was a surprise to me, uh, because 2 and a half years ago, uh, I yelled and
screamed a whole bunch, uh, at, uh, then director Freeze over there, uh, to get access to that model. Um, and I have it and I know what methodology was used and it's the same metric that they're using this time, which raises a question of why the numbers are so different. Um,
but if it had been posted on the website, they would have been able to find it. Um, if NDS had it anywhere, uh, nowadays, they would have had it. Um, another reason to po show your work is so that work that work can be verified.
Um, earlier tonight, you heard about how many of our CIP items are stalled because of bad financial modeling in the beginning. Now, I don't expect you all uh I said earlier I don't think that you open the spreadsheet. I don't expect you all to open a 14 tab spreadsheet um with
hundreds and maybe thousands of cells doing things. Uh I do expect you to do what you can uh to make sure that people who are experts uh verify that the calculations in the spreadsheets are correct. Um and none of you guys are experts. I'm not an expert. In fact, I
have the same qualifications as Lloyd. I was an econ undergrad. Um and that's it. Uh but you guys do have access to experts. You can check this. Um I do want to address one thing the consultant said uh that uh the specific change that most of my email uh or the specific
error that most my email was dedicated to only affects irr which does not in turn affect yield on cost the other metric used in the earlier study or uh net net operating income which is what the inloo fees they're recommending are based on. Um yesterday I said in my email that I did not see the derivative
model for inluffies uh but actually uh apparently uh another planning commissioner now a planning commissioner uh kicked and screamed himself um and then was sent to foyer and after foying it got the new model it was posted on the internet an hour before the meeting. So while I was sitting over there before
my computer died I was poking at it. Couple things I noticed uh that do affect the enloff fees that were uh posted. Uh in the rent data uh the pavilion at North Grounds uh one of the one-bedroom units there uh is listed at
about $22,500 a month. Um that unit definitely pencils. Uh it's definitely a typo for $2,500 a month. Um there on the other hand, there are units at the Grandmark uh that are listed at about $900 a month. >> You won't count it. >> Those are double occupancy units. Uh
those are wrong. Major assumption cap rate 4 and 3/4 >> 10ear treasury is at 4 and a quarter. Not a good assumption. The 3bedroom Luffy based on that is 411,000 at 5 1/2% cap rate. A more reasonable assumption I think. Uh that would drop from 411 to
362 or at 6% down to 337. These are things the questions that you should be asking after checking the data. Please do the work before you make the policy. Thank you. >> Thank you. other. Would anyone else like to speak? Any other public comments?
If not, um can I get a motion to adjourn, please? Oh, before we we do that, I'm sorry. Um Monday at 5:30. Would that work for the special meeting? I know I heard from some of y'all. Um Jen and Michael 5:30. So, it's going to be like
Chrissy's um final budget meeting. should be short and sweet. So, um, madame clerk, >> Monday at 5:30, um, >> here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Yep. Okay. >> Okay. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> No. Move.
>> Second. >> All in favor, please say yes. >> Yes. >> All oppose, please say no.