Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-10September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count y, Virginia, was held on September 10, 2015, at 3:00 p.m., CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from September 9, 2015. PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel, Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris. CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Mr. Bob Fenwick; Mr. Satyendra Huja, Ms. Kathy Galvin, Ms. Dede Smith and Ms. Kristin Szakos. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager, Maurice Jones, City Attorney, Craig Brown and Acting Clerk, Barbara Ronan _________________ The meeting was called to order at 12:39 p.m., by Chair, Ms. Dittmar, and Mayor Huja. _____ The following agenda was used as the basis for the meeting: 1. Welcome; goals for today. 2. Suggested ground rules. 3. Review the July 1, 2014 joint meeting, and its outcomes. 4. Reports from the 3 subgroups that were formed at 2014 joint meeting: a. Courts Complex b. Rivanna River Planning c. Regional Transit Authority 5. Summary of Rivanna River Report done by the TJPDC. 6. Next steps for each issue. 7. Lessons learned from the subgroups' efforts (how the process worked). 8. Discussion of new issues: a. Life-long learning (post K-12): What are we doing to promote it. What else is needed. b. Small area planning - how to do it in places like Woolen Mills, Avon St. Extended, Barracks Rd. 9. Final comments. _____ Mr. Russ Linden, the meeting facilitator, convened the discussion at 3:13 p.m. At 3:14 p.m., the Chair, Ms. Dittmar, called the Board of Supervisors’ meeting to order at 3:14 p.m., and Mayor Huja called the City Council meeting to order. Ms. Dittmar stated that both she and Mayor Huja are rotating off of their positions at the end of December, and they hope that Board and Council will continue joint meetings into the future. Mayor Huja stated it is good to have these joint meetings, and he hopes they will continue to work together on topics of mutual interest. _____ Mr. Linden said in terms of what they are trying to accomplish at this joint meeting, the major issues seem to be the status of the three priority items identified last year, and what l ies ahead for the future; what these bodies can do to enhance lifelong learning; how to address small area planning for areas like Barracks Road and Woolen Mills; and how to continue to build relationships. Mr. Linden stated there are differing perspectives on the importance of meeting together, and he recounted a story related to Hurricane Katrina and the coordination of emergency management services in Louisiana, which illuminated a clear lack in working relationships among officials. Mr. Linden stated they will review what had been discussed in July 2014 and what has happened since, and asked that Board and Council members work in pairs or small groups to talk about those things. Board and Council members met in their small groups and had a brief conversation about their joint initiatives. Mr. Linden asked them to report on their discussions. Mr. Fenwick stated that meeting together in an informal atmosphere and other interactions help s him gain a different perspective and helps establish a trusting relationship. He said they know what to expect and are more likely to bring up items that are challenging. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Ms. Mallek said the selection process for the three topics was fascinating, and the progress from the three workgroups is very exciting, so she looks forward to hearing what comes next. Ms. Dittmar suggested they resume the coffee meetings and one-on-one sessions between Board and Council members, as there will be some new representation on each body. Ms. Smith stated it is a great opportunity to identify existing issues and also provide an avenue for which to form their committees and begin meaningful dialogue and action. Mr. Sheffield stated there is a bit of an overlap with Board and Council because he, Ms. Smith, Ms. McKeel, and Mayor Huja serve on PAC, which is a coordinating group as well that includes UVA. He added it is good to have more than just those limited quarterly discussions. Ms. Galvin said the highlight from last year was the richness of the discussion, and they had come to fairly quick agreement on the three primary topic s, although the economic piece was a close runner-up. She stated her group also agreed that it was important for staff to communicate as well as Board and Council members, and noted that she and Mr. Boyd had observed how well their respective Planning Commissions work together. Mr. Boyd stated he is not sure they can take full credit for the Planning Commissions’ ability to work together well, and said that both he and Ms. Galvin serve on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority together and work on some important issues. Ms. Galvin noted the RWSA Board has accomplished a lot, and that has helped open up communications in general. Mr. Linden stated anyone who works in an organization knows that the people at the top set the tone, so if the elected leadership is working well together, that often leads to staffs working together well, and in the reverse, a lot of friction makes that relationship more difficult. Ms. Szakos commented that her observation of the meeting was that it was nice to come together with an eye toward future planning, rather than just dealing with a crisis, and said that while there is overlap in service on committees, it is also valuable to have the one-on-one informal meetings and conversations. Mr. Linden stated there were follow-up groups formed on the three priority items, courts, transportation, and Rivanna, and asked the sub-groups to report on their findings. Mr. Sheffield said they talked about regional transit at the last meeting, and they were getting to the point of wanting to discuss it and have handed much of it over to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. He stated because he has an interest in JAUNT and is the organization’s Executive Director, he must disclose his interests and not participate in those discussions. Mr. Sheffield noted his formal disclosure statement is on file with the County Attorney’s office. Mr. Linden asked what JAUNT stands for. Mr. Sheffield responded that a long time ago, it was named Jefferson Area United Transportation, and JAUNT serves as the region transportation provider as Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) is for the City. _____ Mr. Linden asked for a report on the courts project item. Mayor Huja stated that Bill Letteri will be providing a report. Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, addressed the joint meeting and stated the work of the Courts Committee has been tremendous, with a great deal of progress made over the last year. He stated he has been involved with the courts planning for a long time, and he is very pleased to see this progress. Mr. Letteri said a little more than a year ago, the Board and Council appointed this committee, with Mayor Huja and Mr. Fenwick representing City Council and Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek representing the Board of Supervisors. He stated that County Executive Tom Foley and City Manager Maurice Jones also serve, along with Aubrey Watts. Mr. Letteri noted he has also served on the committee, and it has been a pleasure and honor to help facilitate that discussion. Mr. Letteri stated the Courts Committee has faced some challenging and complex issues, but has been able to come together on a few principle ideas for moving the project forward. He presented the information on the site, which includes the Levy Building and a more recent addition that has hosted the Centel Company. Mr. Letteri explained the City and County jointly own both properties, and the thinking has been to build a facility in the center of the property, which will encompass both General District Courts for the City and the County. He said the committee feels the building can be large enough to house both, and will fit in nicely with the other courts facilities in the area. Mr. Letteri stated they ha ve come up with a concept plan and hired Mosely Architects to provide an update on caseload studies to September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) ensure the needs are still there, and to come back with three or four options for the facility. He said three options were dismissed fairly quickly, with the concept he is presenting emerging as the consensus favorite. Mr. Letteri presented a rendering of the proposed facility, noting the location of an entrance way and queuing area, with both the City and County Clerk’s Offices on the first floor, and the possibility of combining some of their services in the future. He stated the City has discussed moving its Commonwealth’s Attorney into the Jessup building, which is a nice solution as the County’s Commonwealth’s Attorney will be on the other side. Mr. Letteri noted the basement floor will provide limited secure parking for judges and critical facility staff, which is keeping with modern court design. He said the second and third floors are similar to each other and both contain two court sets, a judge’s chamber and various other rooms and meeting spaces necessary to conduct court operations. Mr. Letteri stated the County will occupy two court sets immediately, with an expansion court available on the third floor; the City will occupy one court set. He said this is presented on a conceptual level, and the figure of $28 million is based on that concept but seem s to be realistic, including a 10% project contingency and an escalation since it will be a few years before the site is actually built. Mr. Letteri stated it will be about a four-month process to issue the RFP, interview all of the bidding firms, and get the project design started, with a goal of spring 2016 for being under design. He said this project will involve a great deal of public engagement, so they have allowed for a seven or eight- month timeframe for that, along with verification of space and cost-sharing agreements. Mr. Letteri said final design will take about 12-14 months, with completion in spring 2018, and possibly even late 2017, and then there will be about two years needed for actual project completion. He emphasized they will need to reach certain agreements before signing contracts for design services, and will need to do some work in terms of allocating spaces, then another set of agreements prior to construction. Mayor Huja stated he would like to add to the discussion the City Council decision to offer up to 100 parking spaces downtown for court usage, with their location to be determined. Mr. Jones clarified there will be 35 spaces when construction begins, and an additional 65 by the time the project ends, so there are various options to choose from that made Council comfortable in passing that resolution. Ms. Dittmar said the County will take this information and work it into their planning before getting to the RFP stag, with details to be worked out with Mr. Foley and Mr. Jones. Mayor Huja said it will have to be presented formally to both the Board and the Council in order to discuss details and next steps. Ms. Dittmar stated they should be able to free up Board and Council resources for the project next year, and the Board feels the process went very well. Ms. Mallek commented she is happy they are all moving in the same direction. Mayor Huja added he just wants to make sure the project gets started. Ms. Galvin said she appreciates the sensitivity of the site plan relative to the historic Court Square area, and it will be a positive and elegant addition to the whole precinct. Mr. Fenwick stated it was a pleasure to serve on this committee, and said Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek are “forces of nature.” He said working with people like them made things go better, and they are both very appropriate in stating that the committee’s conclusions are preliminary and need to be taken back to the Board and the citizens. Mr. Fenwick said the court complex now g ives the community a lot of its character, and they need to make sure they do not lose that. He stated that given the world today, they also need to make the building strong, with measures to ensure its security. Ms. McKeel asked what the next steps are on the courts project. Mr. Letteri responded that staff is working on the details of the RFP scope, and it will likely be brought back to them in November or December. Mr. Foley said in the meantime, they will nail down the terms of agreement such as “operating shares” and things like that, and that process can be parallel to the RFP process. Ms. Smith asked if they will also get information on what space is freed up for both entities by measures such as moving the Commonwealth’s Attorney, as that is something to consider. Ms. Mallek noted this is not something the committee has talked about because each entity has needs of its own. Ms. Smith said it is just a way of thinking about the advantages. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Letteri stated there will probably be a separate design effort underway to look at how they will modify the Jessup building to accommodate the Commonwealth’s Attorney. Mr. Jones responded the City has actually talked to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and they are excited about this opportunity, but there are other decisions that need to be made regarding the timing of the move, and they may end up waiting so they are not next door to a major construction project. Ms. Mallek said that further down the road, the County will need to figure out how to accommodate the renovation for the Circuit Court and rearrange things to get that accomplished. Mr. Linden asked if there are any particular issues that Board and Council members want to convey to Mr. Letteri before this discussion concludes. Mayor Huja said he would like to have the report back by fall. Ms. Galvin stated she would like to have clarity on what is meant by “community engagement,” to ensure they are all on the same page in terms of getting the notices out and targeting the right people in the community. Mr. Letteri said he would envision this as being a real team effort between their respective communications staffs. Ms. Palmer asked how much longer they will need to nail down parking spaces before they go out to the public, as she feels this is a question that people will ask. Mr. Foley responded this is definitely an issue for the terms of agreement in parallel to the design process , as they will want to have some clarity prior to going out to the public. Ms. Smith stated she would like to have more details on the rationale on where things are located in the building, adding she is a little bit surprised to learn the courts are on the second floor and not the first, given the mobility of how people move about and the fact that this is a court. Ms. Mallek said along those lines, she would like to know if the Clerk’s Office has the most visitation, and if that is a reason for locating it on the first floor. Mr. Boyd stated he would like to see more information on the operating costs associated with the facility, including staff, parking, and other ongoing expenses. Mr. Foley commented there are a lot of important questions like that and things they all will need to agree upon, because those details will inform how they will define those operating costs. _____ Board and Council members agreed to talk about the Rivanna River Committee, and Mr. Linden asked who has served on that group. Ms. Szakos stated the concept of “turning toward the river” has been discussed by both bodies individually, and said it occurred to her that the greatest world cities, such as Paris, London, and Prague, are located on rivers, as is Charlottesville. She said the river comes through the County into the City, yet they have all turned their back on it except where Free Bridge crosses it and discussions of the traffic there. Ms. Szakos commented the TJPDC staff has been very helpful in the committee discussions, providing maps to help conceptualize what they are talking about. Ms. Smith agreed that what TJPDC has provided is valuable and has kept them on task, and said it has been a great experience. She said their committee keeps growing because more players get involved, including young industries that are interested in taking advantage of the river. Mr. Boyd stated one of the biggest outcomes he got out of their discussions is the importance of the river as a shared resource between the City and the County, and they also talked a lot about what other communities have done with their rivers. Ms. Palmer said she has always looked at this as an impossible task because of all the landowners along the river, but the TJPDC was very good about bringing that in and making it more realistic. Mr. Chip Boyles, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, stated his staff was responsible for all of the maps and supportive information, and the process was enjoyable for all of them. He stated he came into the meetings thinking there would be an environmental focus, and after just one or two meetings it became apparent there is a balance between environmental and water quality concerns, recreational uses, and development potential along the river. Mr. Boyles said the committee helped to establish recommendations, which were based on the past history that both the City and County have worked on. He stated they began meeting in September 2014 and have had about nine meetings since that time, with about 20 people involved, from organizations like the Rivanna River Basin Commission, the Soil & Water Conservation District, Stream Watch, the Rivanna Conservation Society, Monticello, and citizen representation from Bill Emery. Mr. Boyles said each brought in an area September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) of expertise, with inclusion of past studies and plans for the Rivanna such as a Vortex Study done by UVA. He stated there was a lot of backup documentation supporting future growth and development along the way. Mr. Boyles stated the committee looked at identifying compatible land uses, resource sharing along the Rivanna and in the planning process, encouraging businesses to front the river, increasing communication among respective staffs and elected officials, master planning the shared borders between the City and the County, environmental quality, historic preservation, and recreational opportunity. He noted they expanded the partnership to include participation from neighboring localities such as Greene and Fluvanna counties. Mr. Boyles said the committee agreed that increased communication between jurisdictions, departments and advocates was key for the process to move forward, but they determined that they need a starting and ending point for the Charlottesville and Albemarle section of the river, so they decided from the South Fork down to Milton Road should be the beginning or ending point to concentrate on. He stated the committee discussions also made it clear that both the business and development sectors have a vital role to play in the process, again striking a balance between water quality and environmental concerns. Mr. Boyles said the river planning will be a multi-jurisdictional approach, and there will always be a growing interest in the river’ health and recreati onal value, with Stream Watch attending every meeting. He stated that Stream Watch clearly emphasized the quality of the river is totally dependent on what feeds into it from the smaller streams and drainage areas, so it must be addressed long before it h its the banks of the Rivanna. Mr. Boyles said some of the recommendations from the committee included the need for memorandums of agreement so there is a sustainable structure in place for the County, City, TPDC and nonprofit partners to formalize expectations and communications. Mr. Boyles stated in addition to the initial MOU, the committee recommends that a second MOU be established to put some funding in place to keep the dialogue going, and to take it to the next level, in a similar approach to what they have done with solid waste. He noted the City, the County, and other members of Planning District Ten contribute $10,500 per year toward a solid waste fund that is managed at the PDC, and the committee feels that would be a great model to use with the Rivanna. He said the TJPDC will be preparing a submittal and proposal to the City and County as well as Fluvanna and Greene counties. Mr. Boyles said the final recommendation will be to make a commitment and complete a master plan for the Pantops area, and said the County has already been working on this. He stated the committee would like to have the City involved in the master planning process, as it is the area with the highest growth potential and also has a lot of influences such as transportation and a highway system around it. Mr. Boyles said the recommendation is to move forward with the master planning process for the Pantops area, and if it takes a few years to fund and implement, there are some lesser planning processes they can begin, with the TJPDC helping with that prior to the full master plan so that a lot of the front-end work will be done. He stated they can start to map out the Rivanna River and collate the work that has already been done, as well as locating property owners, land uses, historic sites, recreational sites, water quality sites, and anything that will be important for the future planning of this. Mr. Boyles noted that hopefully this will allow for some of the groundwork to be done less expensively, prior to an outside consultant doing the master planning work. Ms. Mallek said the Rivanna River Basin Commission has an upcoming conference on October 2, and said that communication with elected officials, staff and citizens is a major statutory responsibility of the Commission. She stated the question of funding the master plan can be addressed at that time, with Chesapeake Bay Program Director Nick DePasquale, and Elizabeth Nealons of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation attending to discuss funding sourc es for river activities. Ms. Mallek said they will also focus on the technical aspects of making river access possible, infrastructure, and environmental protection to enhance the river and its adjacent areas. She stated this is the beginning of a great partnership going forward. Ms. Szakos stated water safety as an issue has also emerged recently, after recent tragic incidents on the river, underscoring the need for children in the community to learn how to swim and what to do if a crisis occurs. Ms. Galvin asked if there was any discussion about Woolen Mills for a small area plan to happen in tandem with this. Mr. Boyles responded there is, and a Woolen Mills developer spoke at one of the committee’s meetings, but Pantops takes precedence because of the needs there. Ms. Galvin asked if Woolen Mills can be integrated. Mr. Boyles replied that, in his mind, it has to be, as at this point it can be the biggest catalyst for changing the area. Ms. Dittmar clarified that Ms. Galvin is referring to the entire area, not just the Woolen Mills project. Mr. Boyles stated they looked at the entire area as part of that discussion. Ms. Szakos said the reason Pantops rose to the top is because there is so much development that can happen before they have a chance to plan for it. Mr. Boyd stated one of the things the committee has done is to identify the major landowners along that corridor, and asked if they can be sure to get the notice of the conference. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Ms. Galvin asked if it can also include High Street, as the body shops and car repair shops along that stretch are feeding a lot of toxins into the river. Mr. Boyd stated the Pantops Advisory Council is about to enter into its master planning process, so perhaps City representatives can be included in that. He noted the advisory council has put together a list of all of the businesses and community associations, and confirmed it is a citizen committee. Ms. Galvin suggested the City reciprocate when it revives its small area plan effort. Ms. Mallek suggested the two efforts be joined together now. Ms. Szakos reported the Charlottesville mobile app has just won the Governor’s Technology Award. Mr. John Jones stated the app is a collaborative effort of the City’s IT Department and Transit Department and can be downloaded onto a smart phone, and several transit vendors have said it is better than their apps. Ms. Smith noted it had all been developed in-house. Mr. Linden asked if there is any further discussion on the river item. Ms. Mallek commented that it is exciting for those who had been hoping for years there would be more done around the river. Ms. Szakos added she has lived in her house for 21 years and can see the river from it, and said she had always hoped there was something more the City and County could do with it. Mr. Boyles stated they will continue working with the committee and the nonprofit organizations, and will be submitting proposals to the City and County for the budget. Mr. Boyd asked if there is any money in the budget for Pantops master plan five-year update. Mr. Foley responded that it is not in the current year, but is proposed for next year. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Acting Director of Community Development, stated it is part of a work program and does not have an identified dollar amount for the general budget, but was submitted for the capital budget. _____ Mr. Linden stated the third high priority was transit, and the committee had touched on the possibility of a regional transit authority. Mr. Sheffield stated the committee had talked about transit but also regional bicycle and pedestrian planning, as well as land use, since that feeds the transportation network. He said the group walked away with understanding that there needs to be better collaboration between what the City and University are doing, and then what the County is trying to do. Mr. Sheffield stated they are feeding into the micro-systems of the City, with the County’s bike systems being a more macro scale. He said new developments and redevelopments provide opportunities to put that infrastructure in place, but if those lines are not set the opportunities might be missed. Ms. McKeel noted this was one of the areas discussed at the PAC meeting. Ms. Galvin said at their last City Council meeting, they got an update on the bike/ped lane, which reinforces the cooperation between the City and the County. Mr. Sheffield stated the County has been absent a transportation planner for a long time, with David Benish filling that role, but has recently hired Gerald Gatobu in that role. Ms. Smith mentioned there is a City/County citizen group that the City heard from when adopting the bike/ped lane, who urged them to consider connections and to utilize stream corrido rs. Ms. Galvin suggested disseminating the group’s white paper. Mr. Sheffield noted that Mike Barnes and Diana Foster had met with the committee. Ms. Palmer asked Mr. Sheffield for clarification of the “lines on the map.” Mr. Sheffield explained the County’s planning is not as concrete as the City’s and the University’s, and jurisdictions are dealing with different issues, so the consensus is to understand what the major networks are to get ahead of opportunities, rather than trying to design a major network for bicycle and pedestrian transit. Ms. Galvin mentioned there are some larger projects at the MPO level that the City and County have talked about, such as near Biscuit Run and on 29 North. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Sheffield stated that 29 is a great example, with Berkmar Extended having a multi-use trail, but that will end at Sam’s Club, and the major crossover point will now be the Rio grade-separated intersection. He added that without the lines on the map, it is difficult for the County to facilitate those conversations with VDOT; whereas the City manages its own roads, so they can just put in a bike lane if it wants to. Ms. Palmer said the Biscuit Run area is challenging because there are homeowners associations that have their own policies. Ms. Smith asked if VDOT regulates the off-road multi-use trails such as those around the John Warner Parkway. Mr. Sheffield responded the City regulates those, and using Berkmar Extended as an example, VDOT would have to regulate and maintain a multi-use path, which they strongly resist because their focus is roads. He stated their challenge as a County is connecting an urbanizing area under the umbrella of what VDOT is willing to do. Ms. Szakos stated a lot of transportation funding from the state is focusing on multi-modal, so they are having to switch their priorities to transit and to bike and ped. Mr. Sheffield agreed the state has embraced multi-modalism in their planning. Ms. Szakos responded it is not yet reflected in their funding. Mr. Boyd stated his concern for pedestrian crossings for Route 29 and Route 250 at Pantops, and said the Pantops Advisory Council has been looking into this further and will be presenting the cost of building a pedestrian and bicycle crossing. He added this may be a way to ti e in some of the bicycle and pedestrian crossings with major highways. (Note: Mr. Sheffield left the meeting at 4:28.) Ms. Galvin stated the committee had shared goals and concerns about a regional transportation system, and reached consensus on three primary items. She said the first is to facilitate access to jobs for low-income residents without cars, and this pertains to International Rescue Committee from both the County and City perspective, as a lot of those individuals do not have automobiles, and affordable housing opportunities are not located near employment centers. Ms. Galvin stated there are also challenges related to the local reentry community, for those individuals who are not able to get their driver’s licenses reinstated. She said th e committee’s second goal is to create a map of regional employment centers and the “commute-shed” that comes into the Charlottesville/Albemarle employment centers. Ms. Galvin noted that Trip Pollard had done some excellent work a few years ago in which he mapped affordable locations and wrote a publication entitled, “Jobs, Transportation, and Affordable Housing.” She stated the committee agrees they need to discuss the logistics and costs of doing similar mapping for the Charlottesville/Albemarle metropolitan area, using the TJPDC, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Neighborhood Technology Center. Ms. Galvin said the third goal is to get updates from commuting patterns from the Bureau of the Census and the Virginia Employment Commission, both what is coming into the City and going out of it, and noted that Kathy McCue in the Department of Neighborhood Development Services has been exploring workforce housing trends. Ms. Galvin stated the fourth goal is to systematically identify and analyze the costs and benefits of consolidating a regional transportation authority versus enhanced collaboration between the University Transit Authority, CAT, and JAUNT. She said the steps entailed will include studying the implications of viewing transportation within a regional government model, as they do with water and sewer and the jail system. She noted a second component will be studying the merger of certain practices instead, such as training, information technology, and procurement. Ms. Galvin stated that regardless of which approach they choose, the committee feels it is important to address specific needs for things ranging from bus shelters and clear signage to additional routes. She said the committee’s fifth goal is to work with the TJPDC via the PAC to research best practices in regional transportation collaboration, with cities such as Tallahassee and Clemson mentioned. Ms. Galvin stated their next goal is to identify and analyze projected growth in commuting demands, and congestion scenarios and workforce housing demands for the City/County region. She said the group also suggested using the proposed park and ride site at Target as a test case for other satellite parking sites in the future to cut down single-occupancy vehicle traffic congestion. Ms. Galvin said th e next steps will be to request TJPDC to come back to PAC to begin displaying and discussing the multi-party transit systems, and to help both jurisdictions accomplish the tasks as outlined. Ms. McKeel commented that while the court committee is about to disband, transportation is just getting started, because there is so much to address, and they should also be including the University in these discussions. She stated that some years ago, they went to the General Assembly to seek enabling legislation for a regional transportation authority, but there was no money to carry it through. Ms. McKeel said the committee had talked about the big study and groundwork previously done, but it is all very expensive and almost overwhelming, so what the committee is saying will be a good starting point is better cooperation. Ms. Galvin stated the choice is consolidation or collaboration, and the committee feels the additional information is needed to understand how to better coordinate those systems. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) Ms. McKeel said that as the community continues to grow, it will be imperative for them to form some kind of transportation authority in order to draw down regional dollars, and while that time is a long way off, they can prepare now by beginning to cooperate better and figuring out how they c an work better for residents. She asked Mr. Boyles to talk about the TJPDC’s work on this. Mr. Boyles stated the TJPDC’s work had begun somewhat in July 2014 after their last joint meeting, because when they saw this as one of the City and County’s top three priorities, the MPO included in their FY16 budget a line item to work on a regional transit opportunity. He said they have looked at the study Ms. McKeel had referenced, which was completed in June 2008 and subsequently went to the General Assembly. Mr. Boyles stated they have looked at the millions of dollars of recommendations there, but have taken a little bit different approach because the organizational structure, anywhere from a formal authority to better route cooperation, may be the most important thing to address currently. He said this will especially need to involve ways that JAUNT and CAT can share responsibilities in different areas, and in overlapping areas between CAT and the University. Mr. Boyles stated there are a lot of examples of local governments providing regional transit, and the TJPDC is at the stage of being able to present on a formal proposal or MOU that stipulates the roles and responsibilities of the TJPDC, the MPO, the City, County and University, and work towards the next steps. He said this will likely come back as a recommendation for organizational change, but it is uncertain how formal that will be, adding that CAT, the MPO and JAUNT have been communicating about this, with sporadic communication involving the University Transit System. Mr. John Jones stated it is different with agencies like CAT and JAUNT that get federal funding than it is with the University, which has different programmatic goals and does things that JAUNT and CAT are not able to do. He said the larger regional context is to form a CAT/JAUNT joint entity, noting that JAUNT receives rural funding dollars that cannot be mixed with other funding. Mr. Jones stated if they are to be a true regional entity, they will need to address the entire JAUNT service area, which extends beyond Albemarle County. He noted that Greene is the only locality that JAUNT does not serve, but they should be brought to the table as it would make sense to have a northern commuter route to the Ruckersville area. Mr. Jones mentioned that JAUNT’s Board had voted just the previous day to extend service into Augusta County, and they may stand a better chance of getting federal funding if they include additional localities. Ms. Galvin said they need to map out how these different systems overlap and how they relate to commuting needs, which had been identified as reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and the fact that many people do not have cars. Ms. Szakos stated it makes sense to do this collaboratively, because the biggest traffic problems are where the City and County converge. Ms. McKeel said at the last Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) meeting, they had a fairly significant conversation with UVA about their barriers and what their concerns are, so Mr. Boyles will be able to look at those and incorporate what other communities have done to resolve those silos and make some things work. Ms. Smith stated the other thing they had talked about at the PAC C meeting was working with UVA as the largest employer, with a lot of staff working in outlying counties. Ms. Galvin noted that Kathy McCue is already addressing that in the workforce housing study. Ms. Szakos said since parking is such a big issue at the University, it seem s that will be a motivation. Mr. Boyles stated the Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO will be meeting with the Staunton/Augusta/ Waynesboro MOP next month in Crozet to discuss the I-64 corridor, and that MPO is currently involved in a transit study from Staunton to Charlottesville because of the workforce living situation. He said there is two-way transit, as some people from the Charlottesville area work in the Staunton area, and CAT and JAUNT both serve on that study committee. Mr. John Jones said that inter-city money is available at the state level through one section of the federal transportation code that can be used to enhance the connections across the I-64 corridor. He stated that Blacksburg also has a strong transit system, in addition to those mentioned in Tallahassee and Clemson. Ms. Dittmar stated it is concerning to her that the University is not more interested in immediately looking at the regional transportation concept, particularly because a lot of their jobs are not high -paying. She said she has been approached by the Planning District Commission north of them to see if Albemarle is interested in putting in a little bit of money because they are trying to get people using the UVA Health Sciences Center to come to doctor’s appointments, and perhaps they should approach the Medical Center directly since it is separate from the University’s academic center. Ms. Dittmar stated it can be overwhelming to look at so many transportation options, and perhaps looking at good models with best practices might help the committee reel it in. She added that a community such as this should have a September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) regional transportation system, and people should be able to get anywhere without a car in the urban or suburban area. Ms. McKeel commented that other communities such as this one have figured it out. Ms. Galvin said she is interested in the next steps, because this little subcommittee cannot take on such a huge amount of work , but TJPDC can play an important role in pulling all of this together. Mayor Huja said they asked TJPDC to do that. Mr. Foley stated it was understood that the TJPDC, with a University employee on board, would organize an effort to look at these issues, and Mr. Boyles is in the process of developing a scope for how this will proceed. Ms. Szakos suggested she would like to see a body that includes two Board members, two Council members, and two high-ranking decision-making staff at UVA. Mr. Boyles agreed that they will be at that point after this meeting, as there are differences in direction and this group will be able to pull all of that together. Mr. Foley said it can be similar to the structure they have used for the K-12 committee. Mr. John Jones noted the Colorado Transportation System partnered with the Mountain Transportation System, and you can get on a bus in Denver and ride it all the way to Grand Junction. Ms. Mallek commented she is glad to hear this committee is focused on taking smaller steps, because when the study released in 2008 came back with a price tag of $100 million for light rail, it quashed a lot of that momentum. She mentioned the Lower Pioneer Valley Transit Authority in the Springfield to Amherst Massachusetts area, which institutes a bus that goes 50 miles and includes all surrounding towns, cities, and communities, and in the first month it went from 0 to 30,000 riders per day. Ms. Mallek said this coincides with increased parking costs on the college campuses and helps make the route very successful. Mr. Fenwick said he also appreciates the “baby steps” approach, as it will help involve the general public but will also mean when they get the bigger projects, the smaller ones will have already been addressed. _____ (Note: The Board and Council recessed their meeting at 4:55 p.m. and reconvened at 5:07 p.m. Mr. Sheffield returned to the meeting when it reconvened.) _____ Mr. Linden stated they would discuss two major topics, with the first being lifelong learning. Ms. Dittmar said lifelong learning post K-12 is an economic development issue but also fits into family financial sustainability, which both bodies are concerned about. She stated the Board of Supervisors had recently heard three different presentations, with the most striking from Ridge Schuyler, who spoke about certain types of workforce training needed. Ms. Dittmar said at their strategic planning retreat in 2014, the Board identified lifelong learning as a key strategic interest. Mr. Linden stated the government had released a report the day before that said there are six- million jobs that need to be filled but cannot be because those employers cannot find people to fill them. Ms. Dittmar commented there is a big disconnect. Ms. Szakos stated there is already a Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development, which has looked at these issues regionally, and wonders what the collaborative role for the Board and Council will be that is not already being done. Ms. Dittmar responded the technical education piece is part of the high school experience that CATEC offers, but this also involves adult training programs, and there is no money available locally for them. She stated that PVCC President Frank Friedman has indicated the state will not subsidize certificate programs, only degree programs. Ms. Mallek clarified this is by choice, and the state can certainly fund certificate programs but has chosen not to, and the momentum in the state community college system is not doing anything to change that. Ms. Galvin noted they are depending on the employers to pay for apprenticeships, and some of the state money can be used for scholarships for state-registered apprentice programs in trades. She asked if Ms. Dittmar is suggesting using more local resources to get people in the pipelines for those programs. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) Ms. Dittmar stated they have a partnership with CATEC and work with PVCC, and have people locally who have lost jobs and need retraining, the question is how they will help the adults in this community receive training and retraining. Ms. Szakos asked what they c an do beyond what they are doing now, as both localities are already involved with all of the workforce resources mentioned. Ms. Mallek stated their role can be to give some push to CATEC, as she does not see a lot of momentum there, and in places where this has been successful, that leverage to do more and step up the pace has come from local authoritative bodies. Mayor Huja stated they also need to put forth resources, and they just c annot ask CATEC to do it. Ms. Smith said the City has taken a micro-approach to this with its GO programs, because they have determined it is not enough to give people skills and throw them out in the workforce. She asked if their goal is to provide training for people with the assumption that they will find a job in this community, or if they will get skills and leave the community. Ms. Mallek commented that Ridge Schuyler’s presentation on the GO program has been excellent. Ms. Galvin stated it is nice to think the program can be regional, not just local, and that can probably happen without a committee. Ms. Dittmar said she has been looking at a floundering CATEC since the 1980s, and they have not stepped up the way it had been done in other communities. She stated they had presented a strategic plan but then said they had lost leadership and that has slowed implementation, then they presented new initiatives, but they are all focused on high school students, not adults. Ms. Dittmar said the Board had asked at that point where the adult initiatives are, and CATEC had responded that they would get to it. She stated that Galax is an example where local government has set expectations of their technical center, and asked what they can do to partner with service providers to make those things happen. Ms. Szakos said they came from the same CATEC report, but asked about the other resources such as PVCC and the workforce center, so it seems to be a bit of a crowded field already, in the context of any new initiatives. Ms. Galvin said she can see a value in hiring local, low-income people to do the rebuilding, and they need to be able to scale that up. She noted the GO programs are providing the methodology and the process but are very small, eight people at a time, and CATEC has an institutionalized construction skills piece, with bits and pieces at PVCC. Ms. McKeel asked Katherine Lee from CATEC to address some of what they have been talking about. Mr. Fenwick stated with the GO program, they have worked with Design Electric, which set the program up in their building and trained the apprentices, then the program stopped until those jobs were available again. He said the problem with government schools is they keep cranking out people in the same field because those facilities are set up for that type of training, and at some point that needs to stop because there will be a recession. Ms. Smith said the metric has to meet the jobs, and if they are doing the training the question is whether those people are getting jobs. Mayor Huja commented the GO program has worked because it is geared toward specific jobs. Ms. Dittmar asked who administers the GO program. Ms. Galvin responded it is Holly Lee. Mr. Maurice Jones stated the City has partnerships with PVCC, Plugged-In Virginia, and Design Electric. Ms. Szakos said CAT had participated before that. Ms. Smith said that GO had offered a fantastic instructor. Ms. Dittmar stated that perhaps the County’s Economic Development office could look at funding for an expanded GO program, and it needs to be clear that there is no way to pay for a soft skills focus at PVCC or elsewhere, and asked who figured that out. Ms. Galvin responded the City funded the GO program for their people, and it sound s as though the County wants to have the program also. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) Ms. Szakos stated it does not seem that a committee is needed to decide that particular item, as it is more of a County staff matter. Ms. Katherine Lee from CATEC stated the apprenticeship program at UVA is a CATEC program, and said that people tend to focus on the high school programs. She stated there are participants who are working full-time and still going through an extensive program with UVA and CATEC. Ms. Lee said there are other types of employment that are also targeted for CATEC training programs, adding that UVA sponsors the apprenticeship programs. She stated UVA advertises in their job announcements that they are going to hire people coming out of high school who will participate in this program. Ms. Lee said they do have the opportunity to use this same model and utilize other employers, such as large government contractors. She added the Piedmont Workforce Network c an help address some of the soft skills issues, as Mr. Schuyler’s report has identified, and those skills are also being taught at the high school level as part of job preparedness. Ms. Dittmar stated when Ms. Lee had presented the strategic plan for CATEC, it did not seem that establishing a PVCC connection was a priority, and asked if they are working on that. Ms. Lee responded that the following day, they are launching the first of three business councils in conjunction with PVCC, to look at the new academies that are coming online next year, IT, Engineering, and Cyber Security. She said this will include input from both local and out of state representatives to provide industry feedback on their curriculum, and two additional councils will focus on health and medicine, and advanced manufacturing, with the CATEC strategic plan having identified those as priority employment areas. Ms. Lee stated this will include both entry level jobs and tiered training/continuing education for people who are working. Ms. McKeel said there is a lot going on with both the high school and adult facets of CATEC, and the Board and Council want to know what they can do to support them. Ms. Galvin commented this is fantastic to hear, and said it will be wonderful if they can plug into some of the people who have done the soft skills training into the UVA apprentice programs, which are highly competitive. She said it sounds as though they have the pieces, but the bridge might not be there. Ms. Smith said one strength of the GO program is it has a very targeted population, and to throw a bunch of programs out there, the connection might be lost for this very vulnerable population. She stated it is important for them to identify who is going to be served. Ms. Lee said if you go to Design Electric, they will tell you they still have openings, so they all need to be responsive to those employers’ needs. Ms. Szakos said they all support CATEC, but it seem s at this point in their development it might be best to step out of the way rather than trying for local government to get involved and add another layer on top of it. Ms. Dittmar said they have been talking for years about reaching out to employers, and for a long time it has felt as though they are standing still, so she hopes that Ms. Lee can help link that goal to make that happen, while working with PVCC as much as possible. Mayor Huja suggested the City and County can go ahead and partner with the GO program. Ms. Mallek stated the same dynamic with people in poverty exists in the County, and the idea will be to replicate that program there. Ms. Smith said she feels somewhat protective of it, because they c an only serve about eight people at a time. Ms. Galvin commented that she is just as excited about shared job opportunities between jurisdictions. _____ The Board and Council agreed to move onto a discussion of small area plans. Ms. Galvin stated that rivers, hill systems, and air d o not abide by any jurisdictional boundary, but there are lines drawn in the sand that do not distinguish from one side to the other. She said they have shared systems of opportunity, and a small area plan at the borders will allow them to look at each other’s side of the fence, and understand that perhaps the dividing line is hampering the best solution for a future development scheme, park system, and so forth. Ms. Galvin added this w ill also prevent them from duplicating effort. Mayor Huja stated there are existing opportunities in areas such as Woolen Mills and Pantops. Mr. Linden asked if there is a history here that is relevant. Mayor Huja stated there has been a large study that includes the University. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) Ms. Galvin said that is the Area B study. Ms. Szakos stated there had been a joint Planning Commission study through the TJPDC from a large grant. Ms. Galvin clarified it is the comprehensive plan update. Ms. Smith commented that she is surprised to see Barracks Road mentioned here. Ms. McKeel stated she is very glad to see it, because it is a place where the City, County and University meet, and the University Foundation has contacted her with concerns about how it looks, particularly because of declining older neighborhoods and the need for more mowing. She said the County is working on getting some connections, and she would like to get people across Barracks Road and help them get to bus stops that are not connected. Ms. McKeel stated that places like Hessian Hills Apartments can benefit from a cooperative look from the City and County, and the City t akes care of Barracks Road up to a specific point, but then the management shifts to VDOT and the University. Ms. Dittmar said they have identified areas like Barracks Road and Woolen Mills, and there are probably several other areas, so they should look at those and then prioritize the ones they want to focus on. Ms. Szakos stated that Avon Street Extended is also an area of common interest, with the regional jail and the transit center, and a lot of people trying to get to jail without any transportation. Mr. Sheffield stated there is also a lot of bicycle activity in that area. Ms. Szakos noted there are a lot of people driving around trying to get to Monticello. Mayor Huja said they should not do 10 small area studies. Ms. Szakos suggested they form a committee to look at Woolen Mills, Barracks Road, Avon Street Extended, and Pantops, and rank them. Ms. Mallek said it would be helpful to have information about the cost and scope. Ms. Palmer stated it would be easier to do a smaller plan for Sunset Avenue, and the County has something in their plans already to do sidewalks in that area within the next year or two, so she wonder s if those are connecting with the City in any way. Mayor Huja asked who would be willing to work on this. Ms. Galvin responded she does not mind doing it. Mr. Sheffield stated that prior to starting on the small area plans, they need some type of agreement on how that will be done, a charter of approach and outcomes, as City and County staff seem to approach the same problem. Ms. Szakos said she would like them to address the corps, which has come before the Center of Risk Reduction, so she would like to serve on that one. The Board and Council discussed the possible composition of the small area planning groups. Ms. Galvin stated that Ms. Palmer had a good suggestion in having the Planning Commissions look at this. Ms. Dittmar recalled that the Commissions had talked about this. Ms. Szakos suggested having a Board and Council member on each group, along with a Planning Commission member from each body. Mr. Cilimberg stated the Planning Commissions had discussed jointly looking at the Rivanna River, with the County having prioritized the Pantops area for small area planning. Ms. Szakos said they can assume Pantops and talk about the others for the next stage. Mr. Cilimberg stated they had also considered the area from Rio and Route 29 to Hydraulic and Route 29 to the Hillsdale Drive area, so they can probably find 15 places around the City and County that can have small area plans. Ms. Galvin said this was indicating that they need some staff input on this, and she d oes not want to duplicate effort if they already have areas of focus. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) Ms. Szakos responded they can go ahead and identify the next areas of focus, even though they may not be considered until after next year. Ms. Smith stated they need to ask the question as to where the geographic boundaries are and whether the small area plans will include the City, such as in the Woolen Mills area. Mr. Cilimberg stated the Rivanna River Corridor Committee has identified the area that will be master planned, and will be appropriate for small area analysis. Mr. Linden said it seem s there are one or two areas for collaboration before making final decisions, and asked if there are new other areas of focus that need to be identified in addition to lifelong learning and small area planning. Ms. Szakos reported the $300,000 grant from the state through the Center for Risk Reduction had to be sent back, with the County understandably not able to act on it, and the Jail Board is looking at a plan B for a model that works to keep people out of jail and lower recidivism. She stated those efforts are very expensive, but pa ys for themselves in the first few years, and she and Mr. Boyd support the efforts in principle, but need to know what can actually make it happen. Ms. Mallek said she is glad they are moving away from the for-profit jail business. Ms. Szakos stated the local nonprofits such as Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR), do not feel they have the capacity to deal with this, and it will be almost impossible for the City to do alone given the population of the jail. Mr. Linden asked if this pertains to programs that prevent people from going to jail. Ms. Szakos responded the program takes people who are convicted of felonies, but are not a risk for violence, and provides them with wraparound services and a day program to keep them out of jail. She stated that nationally, these programs have shown incredibly good results in reducing recidivism, keeping people engaged in the community, supporting children, and remaining engaged in services. Ms. Szakos said these programs have been shown to reduce crime and recidivism, and this is the top priority coming out of the joint best practices evidence-based decision making team, which is comprised of judges, prosecutors, defenders, and OAR. She stated they wrote a grant and got the $300,000, but the localities were unable to move forward with it and the Board and Council have not really had a chance to discuss it. Ms. Mallek stated it would be helpful to have some lead time on this, rather than having it presented at the last minute, and what Ms. Szakos is describing is the same type of approach as the drug court. Ms. Szakos responded this is a much different program because these people have much more severe crimes and need more intervention and structure. Mr. Fenwick stated the bodies need a lot more information about it prior to making a decision. Ms. Szakos said she is just suggesting they form a committee to look into this and make recommendations. Ms. Mallek said the Jail Board and its staff should be the ones doing this research. Ms. Szakos stated they have already done the research, and it is a matter of the localities not having the funding. Mr. Linden noted they are running short on time and asked if there are other issues to discuss. Mr. Fenwick stated it is great they are looking to the future, but it is also important to look at existing authorities to see if they are effective, with the RWSA and RSWA being the first that come to mind. Ms. Mallek said that some of them should probably evolve beyond their original charters. Ms. Palmer stated she would like for the City and County to talk next year about implementing composting, as it will eliminate a lot of the disposal waste. Mr. Linden noted that Board and Council members have signed up to work on small area planning, with others agreeing to work on a program for non-violent felons. Ms. Galvin asked if there is any interest in looking at pre-K regionally. Ms. McKeel responded there is already a group working on this, and wonders where they might be in their work. September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) Ms. Rosa Atkins, Charlottesville City School Superintendent, stated she and Assistant County Executive, Doug Walker had just left a meeting in which there was a plan discussed to identify additional seats for preschoolers this year, and to come up with a model as to how to collaborate, serve students, and pull down funding from the state in addition to private support. Ms. Galvin stated the elected bodies will just need to know when funding becomes an issue. Mayor Huja suggested they go back to the two ideas they were discussing. Mr. Linden said the additional item raised besides the felon program is looking at their authorities. Mr. Fenwick responded that since it was his idea, he would volunteer. Ms. Galvin stated that since the RWSA and RSWA have representation from each body and the Board and Council get quarterly reports, so she is not sure what more can be done, adding that the group is going to have a strategic retreat. Mr. Fenwick said the group can report to the elected bodies to make sure the authorities are doing what they are supposed to do. Mr. Sheffield said that Board and Council members serve on those authorities, so there should be a self-assessment done as members. Mr. Fenwick stated he can understand why Mr. Sheffield would be satisfied with a self- assessment, but he sees an opportunity to look at the authorities to make sure they are under the control of the elected bodies. Mr. Sheffield said this kind of approach would have to be done by an outside source. Ms. Mallek stated she does not recall ever getting a report as to how the authorities are implementing their charters, and perhaps the operations have evolved from where their charters are. Mr. Foley noted the RWSA will be a doing a strategic plan and undergoing a SWOT analysis, and he and the City Manager have suggested that it would include input from Board and Council members. He said at the end of a year if it is determined the process is not effective, they can revisit it, and the process is slated to begin in early 2016. Mr. Linden asked if there is interest in being involved with the felon program discussed. Ms. Szakos stated this is something that will come back to the Board and Council at some point for funding. Ms. Galvin said because that topic, like the RWSA Board, already has a governing body working on it, they may just want to see more information about it but it may not need additional involvement. Ms. Smith stated the discomfort is with the private model. Ms. Szakos stated the model that the evidence-based decision-making team and Jail Board have come up with is to use a contractor, who will run it for six months and then hire all local staff, so while the contractor is the oversight company it becomes a locally run organization using that expertise. Mr. Linden suggested that Ms. Szakos might find someone from the Board, either now or after new members take office in January, who is interested in pursuing this with her. Ms. Galvin commented that she does not want Board and Council’s work to bog down the existing small area planning process for City and County staff, and wants to make sure that staff does not feel they have to wait for decisions to be made in order to proceed. Ms. Szakos said it is really to help inform and learn about the process. Mr. Linden asked if there are any comments about the meeting itself. Mr. Fenwick stated if they are looking to be collaborative and efficient, they need to ensure they do not leave unanswered questions behind them. Mayor Huja commented that it is good to have an ongoing City/County dialogue. Attendees thanked Mr. Linden for his work. _____ September 10, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 15) At 3:58 p.m., Mayor Huja adjourned City Council meeting. At 3:58 p.m., Ms. Mallek moved to adjourn the Board meeting to September 25, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 12/02/2015 Initials: EW J