[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6294076,"mediaKeyId","2522222-2a840d3eb5dd09a30c1987240f3ae306","parentId",2522222,"title","City manager presents $2.264 billion FY26 budget with no tax-rate change; proposes $4.9 million increase for schools","audioSeconds",225,"startMs",5967000,"endMs",6192000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2522222-2a840d3eb5dd09a30c1987240f3ae306&start=5967&end=6192","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2522222-2a840d3eb5dd09a30c1987240f3ae306/thumbnail_5967000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6294076/Charlottesville/Albemarle-County/Virginia/City-manager-presents-2264-billion-FY26-budget-with-no-tax-rate-change-proposes-49-million-increase-for-schools","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6294076-a81d4d2eb052724f744abf41c962c81c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146752&Signature=PVYQSaMHE0sjeNw-cE5VnnnuxZHdhKUllBhnePHLAcJP-Xf4rO2sAHyp1W6UwjnQeyoNpQFc6l-KJL1oDNfABiN-VqXYIUVa86~KCyFwOkPf5e0uuKQkIcPHnDQWApcIfhCFdPOprld0BPdRt8So3vruwWHFYX8SmBvPRZhYpmNZS3UTwiR7C23p6iujNgFfCiegskLP76X41F8PvXBh2d0ozYY2S18Yq1hFiYWfxh2-RJz86pIOla4~MNuMviAH220TE4QJ94ojy0E1D9~7ofai39tMe2K1~qTkZ4uOgo9WDzgXWZz52TLeCn0STSuUIi2b4rfEiCg66HIUYps~fw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Charlottesville VA","date","2025-03-04T00:00:00Z","article","City Manager Sam Sanders delivered a proposed FY26 budget to Charlottesville City Council on March 4 that totals $2,264,474,183 across all funds and proposes no change to local tax rates. The proposal includes a $4.9 million increase in operating support for Charlottesville City Schools, expanded affordable‑housing investments, and a set of priorities councilors asked the manager to reflect in the budget.

Key numbers and priorities

- Total budget (all funds): $2,264,474,183 (proposed FY26). The city manager presented the plan as balanced and based on current revenue projections.
- General fund context: the manager said the current-year general fund is approximately $252 million and total managed funds including utilities and transit total roughly $607 million.
- Schools: proposed increase of $4.9 million in ongoing operating support to Charlottesville City Schools to cover negotiated collective‑bargaining costs and other priorities; the manager also recommended increasing annual school priority CIP investments to $1.4 million and ongoing maintenance funding to $1.3 million.
- Affordable housing: the budget proposes $12.7 million in investments over the coming year and the next five years for housing initiatives, including allocations tied to projects discussed at the meeting (for example, as staff further develops requests for 501 Cherry, West Haven redevelopment and other programs).
- Transportation and sidewalks: the budget fully funds a multi‑year sidewalk program and commits $5.4 million to implement a three‑tier strategy across FY26–30, plus funding for related park planning and Riverview Park parking‑lot design work.
- Organizational and personnel: the manager proposed additional staffing in areas tied to collective bargaining implementation, labor relations support, and reclassification changes from a recent compensation study; recurring health‑insurance and other standard operating increases were included.
- Surplus and contingency: the manager reported an FY24 surplus of about $22 million and proposed holding the bulk of that in CIP contingency while prioritizing a subset of one‑time critical expenditures; he emphasized caution in spending because of federal uncertainty.

School presentation (separate agenda item)

Charlottesville City Schools’ School Board Chair Emily Dooley and Superintendent Dr. Gurley presented the school division’s FY26 request earlier in the meeting. The school board’s priorities aligned with the city manager’s proposal: increasing staff compensation (the school board reported a negotiated teacher contract with a 5.5% annual increase composed of a 1.5% step and 4% raise plus a 3% raise for other staff), adding readers and math specialists deployed where student data indicate greatest need, more bilingual/English‑learner teacher capacity, and additional social‑emotional supports. The schools’ operating changes the board described amount to an increase of approximately $4.9 million in FY26 (the same figure the city manager included in his proposal).

Manager’s framing and fiscal outlook

The city manager said the budget reflects council’s strategic priorities — schools, transportation, affordable housing, organizational excellence — and is framed with a posture of caution given federal fiscal uncertainty. He said the budget assumes no tax-rate increase and that the surplus provides short‑term flexibility for one‑time needs. The manager also flagged a separate discretionary “Council Strategic Initiatives Fund” and a $500,000 “vibrant community” pot for events and visitor‑attraction initiatives, which he said he would steward with council.

Next steps and council questions

Councilors asked about timing for surplus allocations, funding for homelessness response and a low‑barrier shelter, and how the city will approach long‑term school funding and capital needs (Walker Pre‑K, Charlottesville Middle School completion and other CIP items). The manager said he prefers to hold most of the surplus in CIP contingency until federal uncertainty clarifies but will return with recommendations for prioritizing one‑time expenditures. The budget schedule and required public hearings were not completed at the meeting; council and staff planned upcoming work sessions to review details.

Who presented and participated

- Sam Sanders, City Manager — presented the FY26 proposed budget and fiscal outlook.
- Chrissy Hamill, Budget Director — noted for her role in revenue and expenditure work; Deputy leads were named in the presentation (Ashley Marshall, Eden Ratliff, James Friess).
- Emily Dooley, Chair, Charlottesville City School Board, and Dr. Gurley, School Superintendent — presented the school division’s FY26 operating and capital priorities and discussed the negotiated teacher contract and student supports.

Why it matters

The proposed FY26 budget sets the city’s spending priorities for the next fiscal year without raising property tax rates, while directing new operating support to schools and committing additional resources to sidewalks, affordable housing and internal capacity building. Council’s decisions in the coming weeks will determine whether the proposal is adopted as presented, amended, or rebalanced ahead of the fiscal-year start.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting Charlottesville, 3/04/2025 - 6:30PM","oneSentenceSummary","City Manager Sam Sanders presented a balanced FY26 proposed budget totaling $2,264,474,183 on March 4 that proposes no change to tax rates and includes a $4.9 million increase in operating support for Charlottesville City Schools.","taxTitle","Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Virginia","taxId",4418,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6294088,"Council approves 501 Cherry performance agreement, designates revitalization area for large affordable housing proposal and reauthorizes South First funding",688,2525000,3213000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2522222-2a840d3eb5dd09a30c1987240f3ae306&start=2525&end=3213","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2522222-2a840d3eb5dd09a30c1987240f3ae306/thumbnail_2525000.jpg","/articles/6294088/Charlottesville/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Council-approves-501-Cherry-performance-agreement-designates-revitalization-area-for-large-affordable-housing-proposal-and-reauthorizes-South-First-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6294088-55c4aba8fa764342ea4bb2251d12eaec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146752&Signature=MhAqVrYF8r4AqMkDMA2o5yMFUgL9T7hKoJsOuBCdcghWDuZ-CgDOBNc16MbN2OcA9vPBDGDuqmfPWHiZDcJst0n~Z7UyGUMIrLGrCrDNLnczqga9O~c79JTKKfddGzU8q06DbxarI9Fccxj5jfxBD414sbSFcXv-MFSEDFBWhQVqN9POPYHrkZi2Zu7wq9yPNbfRG9veIThh0Gt3Ms7b3SzyLAvEqpu9qRH21R5VTjym8OYnyN6QkUpSV8PQN9jWVkjwqFvMZK3DixNW6e9j8ZszyfD3qOnW0iL63FF62MaqO6L2YKOA6pYaaSJKmelsBXIi~4Z3fTg61g0MkN1gOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Charlottesville City Council on March 4 approved a performance agreement that will return a portion of future tax revenue to developers to support the construction of 71 affordable housing units at 501 Cherry Avenue and took related steps to support additional affordable housing projects in the city.

The council voted 5-0 to approve the 501 Cherry performance agreement, which uses a tax-increment methodology to share 50% of the property-value increment generated by the redevelopment back to the developer for 30 years. City staff said the measure helps make the 71 units affordable and that those units will be rented to households at income levels spread between roughly 30% and 60% of area median income (AMI). The city manager and economic development staff told council the city also has $3.1 million in its capital improvement program (CIP) earmarked to support the project; the performance payment is structured so payments occur after the development is built and the new units have been verified and a full year of taxes is paid.

Council heard that Piedmont Housing Alliance and Woodard Properties are the principal developers on the 501 Cherry project and that the grant portion would flow through the local Economic Development Authority (EDA) because Virginia guidance requires the authority’s participation for this type of tax‑sharing arrangement. Staff described the arrangement as similar to a “synthetic TIF” (tax increment financing) and said the EDA will receive city transfers and then send payments to the developer when the conditions for payment are met.

Council also considered a request from Preservation of Affordable Housing (POA) and the UVA Foundation to designate four parcels at the southwest corner of Tenth and Wortland streets as a revitalization area. Staff said UVA is offering the land and POA proposes a project with up to 180 affordable units ranging from 30% AMI to 80% AMI, and an estimated total project cost of about $66 million if the full funding stack is secured. City staff and POA indicated the designation is needed for POA’s planned application to the state for Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding; the LIHTC application deadline mentioned in the meeting materials was March 13. Council moved and seconded to approve the revitalization-area designation so POA could meet the submission deadline; the discussion noted UVA’s current contribution is the land and that any request for direct city capital funding would be considered separately.

Finally, council reviewed revised language to reauthorize earlier public funding for the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (CRHA) South First Street Phase 2 project. Staff said the original memorandum of agreement (MOA) had lapsed because construction had not started in the originally-specified time window; the amendment does not change the amount of city funding previously approved but updates project deadlines and adds a three-step compliance mechanism (30-day cure period, possible suspension of future funding, and potential termination) and removes a prior retainage provision to comply with bonding rules. Staff recommended reauthorization; council agreed to reauthorize and to waive a second reading so the revised MOA and the ordinance could proceed on the next agenda.

What the council did not decide at this meeting was a final, up-front cash commitment beyond the 501 Cherry tax-increment grant mechanism. Councilors and staff repeatedly emphasized that the performance payments will be paid after the development is completed and taxes are collected, and that any separate CIP or direct capital request for other projects (including the POA/UVA project) would come back to council for a separate appropriation decision.

Votes at a glance

- Performance agreement for 501 Cherry Avenue (71 affordable units): motion moved and seconded; recorded vote 5-0 in favor. Outcome: approved. Key terms: 50% of incremental tax value shared for 30 years; target affordability 30%–60% AMI; CIP contribution noted $3,100,000 set aside (not yet disbursed).

- Designation of revitalization area at Tenth & Wortland (POA/UVA proposal): motion moved and seconded to approve the designation to support a LIHTC application; council approved the designation (motion and second recorded in the meeting). Outcome: approved. Key details: site includes four parcels to be conveyed by the UVA Foundation; proposed ~180 affordable units at 30%–80% AMI; estimated total project cost ~$66,000,000; LIHTC application deadline noted March 13; staff said any city capital contribution would be considered later and is not included in tonight’s action.

- Ordinance amending MOA and reauthorizing grant for CRHA South First Street Phase 2: staff summarized delays that caused the prior MOA to lapse, said the funding amount is unchanged from July 2024 authorization, described new construction start and completion dates (construction start 07/01/2025; completion 07/31/2027) and compliance language; council moved to waive second reading and reauthorize the MOA so the project can proceed. Outcome: reauthorized (waived second reading).

Why it matters

Council’s actions move multiple sizable affordable‑housing projects forward: the 501 Cherry action creates an enforceable mechanism that lets a developer capture and share tax increment to subsidize affordability; the Tenth/Wortland revitalization designation lets a LIHTC applicant meet a state deadline; and the South First MOA reauthorization keeps a CRHA redevelopment moving toward construction. All three items tie into the city’s broader affordable‑housing strategy but leave open additional funding decisions that council may face later.

Who spoke

- Chris Engel, Director, Office of Economic Development (city staff) — presented the 501 Cherry performance agreement and explained the tax-increment methodology.
- City Manager (Sam Sanders) — clarified the split of the overall 501 Cherry project into residential and grocery components, discussed CIP set-aside and process implications.
- Antoine Williams, Housing Program Manager, Office of Community Solutions (city staff) — presented the South First MOA amendment and summarized compliance and deadline changes.
- John Settle (calling in), representative for Preservation of Affordable Housing — available to answer POA questions; staff noted his availability during discussion.
- Other council members and staff participated in questioning and discussion; no outside developer spokespersons were present in the chamber to present details beyond what staff and POA provided.

Clarifying details

- 501 Cherry: 71 affordable units; affordability targeted 30%–60% AMI; payment mechanism shares 50% of post‑development incremental tax for 30 years and is paid after construction and one full year of taxes are collected; CIP line item of $3,100,000 has been allocated but not yet disbursed.
- Tenth & Wortland (POA/UVA): proposal described as ~180 units, 30%–80% AMI; estimated total development cost $66,000,000 (staff said “if funding is in place”); designation requested to enable LIHTC application due March 13; UVA’s contribution described as parcel(s) of land (back parking/parcel carve‑off referenced).
- South First Street Phase 2: reauthorization does not change previously approved dollar amount; construction start date revised to 07/01/2025 and completion to 07/31/2027; prior retainage language removed to comply with bonding rules; MOA had lapsed because construction did not begin within the original window.

Proper names

- Piedmont Housing Alliance (organization)
- Woodard Properties (business/developer)
- Preservation of Affordable Housing (organization; POA)
- University of Virginia / UVA Foundation (institution)
- Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA)

Searchable tags

[\"affordable housing\",\"501 Cherry\",\"POA\",\"LIHTC\",\"CRHA\",\"CIP\",\"economic development authority\",\"Tenth & Wortland\",\"Charlottesville\"]

Topics

- affordable_housing: justification: Council approved a tax-increment subsidy and designated land and reauthorized MOA for public funding to enable multiple affordable-housing projects. Scores — topic_relevance:0.99, depth_score:0.86, opinionatedness:0.08, controversy:0.43, civic_salience:0.92, impactfulness:0.86, geo_relevance:1.00

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion points: funding sources, role of UVA (land vs. direct funding), whether city would or would not provide additional direct capital for POA project, EDA involvement to legally channel the tax sharing, timing and verification conditions for payments.
- Directions: staff to continue conversations about grocery-store portion of 501 Cherry and to return any city capital requests to council for separate consideration; staff to proceed with paperwork to execute the performance agreement and EDA transfer mechanisms.
- Decisions: council approved the 501 Cherry performance agreement (5-0), approved the revitalization-area designation for the Tenth & Wortland parcels, and reauthorized the South First MOA with updated deadlines and compliance language.","Charlottesville City Council on March 4 approved a tax‑increment performance agreement to support 71 affordable housing units at 501 Cherry Avenue, designated land for a separate 180‑unit affordable project at Tenth and Wortland streets and reauthorized previously approved public funding language for CRHA’s South First Street Phase 2 redevelopment.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6294082,"Residents and climate groups urge Charlottesville to prioritize electrification, efficiency over offsets in gas utility study",272,1340000,1612000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2522222-2a840d3eb5dd09a30c1987240f3ae306&start=1340&end=1612","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2522222-2a840d3eb5dd09a30c1987240f3ae306/thumbnail_1340000.jpg","/articles/6294082/Charlottesville/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Residents-and-climate-groups-urge-Charlottesville-to-prioritize-electrification-efficiency-over-offsets-in-gas-utility-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6294082-9f33431c68eacdd7865b91bad0268fb1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146752&Signature=hxzFSdhpbDyOW3Zqmr34dnk2zmRSEDwj1SyWl1PFKB9tERPeiRGOLUUpJjQE5moHpZrLp02VT4PmYSSqY4m-tX9Cae2MB5HnZDz8DDc38x~6YQTD9lxDba3TuOazJRNHhbBX7-yGVvxlh6s28enO3Yq0ACDG8OvYis6Woy8-AkbK~FNydOl764rNEP8ySzJs~xvVg8qXBDwXulubMtS11DUxq1dK6c76uVGGF9Zvle2aMQlC9JS5Kzaiauef9jiOKWsDqyCOiPNRgh-3R2vAUestBpsgrQPZOqlsw6vM4OWcqeS6rL9~WC3klg98wH41HrN2n2fK1NyYE7EWEbCMyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several residents and local climate organizations used the public-comment portion of Charlottesville City Council’s March 4 meeting to press council and staff to pursue energy‑efficiency and electrification measures rather than relying on carbon offsets in a plan to decarbonize the city’s methane gas utility.

Speakers representing local nonprofit and advocacy groups, as well as residents who said they were speaking from personal and professional experience, expressed broad agreement on three priorities: commit to a comprehensive, locally focused decarbonization plan, avoid counting carbon offsets as a primary solution, and leverage local technical expertise for study scope and implementation.

Grama McClain, identified herself as director of Adjravan’s Foundation and chair of the Community Climate Collaborative (C3) board, told council the study presented to the city was more of a carbon‑offset plan than a decarbonization plan and urged council to “commit to a real plan” that emphasizes energy efficiency and electrification and avoids offsets except as a last resort. McClain also asked staff to consult local technical experts and the city’s sustainability department when scoping future climate consulting projects.

Jason Halbert, who said he works for a foundation and spoke as a private resident, urged the city to “incentivize recycling” in waste services and — on the gas utility topic — to invest locally rather than buying offsets. He said local investment would create jobs and support nonprofits that already deliver energy‑efficiency improvements.

Chris Minor, who identified himself as a city resident and said he also serves as chair of the Renewal Energy Alliance board and as a school-board member (speaking as an individual), criticized offsets and urged the city to avoid plans that would shift the burden of rising gas costs onto residents. Minor specifically urged electrifying public school buildings and putting solar on schools to hedge energy costs.

Carolyn Pugh, policy director at the Community Climate Collaborative, emphasized both the energy‑cost burden on households and public‑health concerns tied to natural gas in homes, citing links with increased asthma and urging the city to set timelines and responsible parties so the work does not stall after the study is presented.

Speakers repeatedly urged the city to prioritize local energy‑efficiency upgrades and electrification projects — weatherization, heat‑pump installations, and targeted investments in low‑income households — ahead of purchasing carbon offsets and recommended that the city reinvest any funds that might otherwise go to offsets into local programs that deliver tangible benefits and local jobs.

Why it matters

Public comments highlight community expectations and political pressures as council and staff consider next steps on a utility decarbonization study. Speakers argued that offsets can be risky or ineffective and that locally rooted investments are more equitable and offer co‑benefits such as job creation, reduced energy burden, and improved public health.

Who spoke

- Grama McClain — Director, Adjravan’s Foundation; Chair, Community Climate Collaborative board (C3)
- Jason Halbert — Resident; works at a foundation (spoke as a private citizen)
- Chris Minor — Resident; Renewal Energy Alliance board chair (spoke as an individual); local school board member
- Carolyn Pugh — Policy Director, Community Climate Collaborative

Clarifying details from public comments

- Offsets: multiple speakers urged that offsets be used only as a last resort and recommended investing offset‑level funds in local efficiency and electrification programs instead.
- Timeline and accountability: speakers asked for a clear decarbonization plan that assigns responsibilities and timelines rather than leaving the issue after the study is issued.
- Equity and burden: speakers repeatedly said low‑income households face higher energy burdens and should receive priority for efficiency and electrification investments.
- Schools: speakers noted the schools are major gas customers and recommended prioritizing school electrification to reduce long‑term operating costs.

Searchable tags

[\"decarbonization\",\"methane gas utility\",\"electrification\",\"carbon offsets\",\"energy efficiency\",\"Community Climate Collaborative\",\"C3\",\"Charlottesville\"]

Topics

- climate_energy_policy: justification: public comments centered on policy direction for decarbonizing a municipal gas utility and expressed strong preferences for local investments over offsets. Scores — topic_relevance:0.98, depth_score:0.72, opinionatedness:0.12, controversy:0.35, civic_salience:0.84, impactfulness:0.70, geo_relevance:1.00

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion only: the meeting recorded public comment and council/staff remarks; no formal council decision on the gas utility study was recorded at this meeting.

Meeting context

- Engagement level: multiple public commenters (4 named) spent more than 30 minutes across related agenda discussion; item drew sustained attention from climate groups and resident advocates.
- Implementation risk: medium — speakers noted the city’s authority is limited in places and that execution will require funding, technical plans, and coordination with utilities and agencies.

Provenance (excerpted remarks)

- Grama McClain: criticized the study as an “offset plan” and urged a real decarbonization plan focused on energy efficiency and electrification.
- Jason Halbert & Chris Minor: urged local investment instead of offsets and highlighted energy burden and school energy use.

Ending

Speakers asked council and staff to return to the community with a clear timeline, assigned responsibilities, and locally focused investments to reduce emissions from the city’s gas utility rather than relying chiefly on offsets. Councilors acknowledged the comments and signaled continued work with staff and local partners on the study scope.","Multiple residents and climate‑focused organizations urged city council to avoid relying on carbon offsets in a recent study about decarbonizing the municipal methane gas utility and instead invest in local energy efficiency and electrification, citing health, cost and equity concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City manager presents $2.264 billion FY26 budget with no tax-rate change; proposes $4.9 million increase for schools

Council approves 501 Cherry performance agreement, designates revitalization area for large affordable housing proposal and reauthorizes South First funding

Residents and climate groups urge Charlottesville to prioritize electrification, efficiency over offsets in gas utility study