Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-28February 28, 1980 Morning Meeting (Adjourned from February 27, 1980) February 27, 1980 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from Februar~ 25_ .on as well. Mr St. John needs authority to approve the contract and the performan ; bonds. Motion was then offered'by Mr. Roudabush to that effect. Dr. Iachetta he motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ~rs. Fisher, Hefl~F¥,ZIa~hatta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. Item No. 4. Tennis Courts--Walton School. ~nor said included in the Capital Budget as ~yr~!:oFTthe parks and recreation budget ~ct entitled "improvements and construction of a tennis court at Walton School". Th~ estimated to cost $15,000 and the low bid has been received in the amount of $19,1~ ~nce date for the bid has been set for the?~rstoof March. In the capital budget, unallocated for the parks budget to be used for other school projects. Mr. Agnor aallocated funds should be used to supplement the inflationary cost of this project anded that the funds be transferred from'~the unallocated project to the WaltOn ais 6ourt project. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the bid in the amount and sign the contract. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the ~ecorded vote: srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. was then offered by Dr. Iachett. a, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Conn~y, Virginia, $4,197.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and ferr~d to Code 19-10L.5 for the Walton School Tennis Courts; with same being ferred from "Other" items in the Parks and Recreation section of the Capital vements Program. was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. e. a Item No. ~. At 6:07 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iamhetta to adjourn to 8, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. in the Juvenile Court Building. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. e. February 28, 1980 Morning Meeting (Adjourned from February 27, February 27, 1980 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from February 25, 1980) RESOLVED by the~Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the location of the extension and improvements to Mc~ntire Road between Preston Avenue and Rio Road (Route 631) as proposed at the location public hearing held on June 27, 1979, is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED~that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportati~n~is hereby requested to proceed with the design of such project, in consUltation with this Council and the City staff, at the earliest possible date." Mr. Fisher said he has been concerned about whether the County should~Proceed renovation withmut a firm commitment from the City. It appears such a commitment i to be received. Therefore, he would recommend proceeding in good faith that the Ci carry through with its part of the McIntire Road project and then conSider the ques Lane Building on its merits. Dr. Iachetta felt the only way to proceed with this~p on its merits. He felt that after two years, it is too late to worry about any oth of thep~roject. Dr. Iachetta said the County has the option to b~ild the part of t Extension, which the County has chosen to call the Meadowcreek Parkway, in A!bemarl He did not feel the County should be locked in by the~pos~l~y~hat that section constructed~(the section in thei~City from Melbourne Road to the 250/Bypass)~is the problem). Mr. Fisher said.at the ~.r~a~13, 1980 meeting, the question of whether or not any savings realized from the low bidder was discussed. The architect was requeste~ some background work on determining whether deleting some items would save~money. Mr. Sample, architect ~ith Stainback and Scribner, said areas for possible~red~ been examined on an advisory nature because ~ime did not allow actual investigation point of determining authenticity on the background material. Thirteen items were which amounted to a possible savings of $300,850 or 6.7% of the total bid. The ite~ result in a less operationally efficient building due to the 10ss of an elevator, d~ window, gasoline island, and certain renovations to the auditorium. Additional ma~ will result by changing carpet to viny~asbestos tile and the deletion of vinyl wal] The building will be less architecturally satisfying because the largest of all the will be in not rebuilding the stage. A shed type roof over the stage womld have?to~ provided to protect the stage and the rising walls would h~vet~o be treated. Mr. S~ the job~ould~ have to be rebid if this savings is desired. The~--e~stimate of this de[ a six months period of time. In, conclusion, Mr. Sample said the low bid was~a good fide one and recommended the base bid in the amount of $4,454,000 ~lus the added al~ of $7,600 for a total of $4,461,600 be accepted. Mr. Lindstrom said with the circumstances given by Mr. Sample of a further del~ in~raase in construction costs, he would offer~ motion to accept the low bid as out] Mr. Sample. Mr. Henley seconded the~mot~n. Mr. Roudabush felt it was in the best interest of th~ County to accept the bid. that having served as a member of the Space Committee, the entire county had been s~ feasible location for a county office building and this was the only feasible site. the structure meets the County's long-term needs and the potential savings on the t~ items are things that would have to be put into the building before it could be full Therefore, he could not see the del~mn of them now. Mr. Lindstrom felt revitalizing a building of this magnitude and in thiS'locat~ the ~est interest~of the County. Mr. Fisher asked the status of Phase 2. Mr. Sample said the criteria for Phase Febr~ 2~_1980 M~rning Meeting (Adjourned from February 27, 1980) The City Council has no predetermined limits on any of these topics, but believes t bilitY of leadership shared by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors as yes them by the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle dictates that, at a minimum, three major areas be addressed. If you agree to City Council's proposal as present today, then we would suggest that a joint public meeting be held for City Council t and publicly make this proposal and for the Board of Supervisors to accept the offe City Council's feeling that while actual negotiations would be carried out in priva public should be aware that such negotiations are being conducted. In addition, if Board of Supervisors agrees to pursue these negotiations in good faith with the Cit then there should be agreement on the process to be followed. In this light the Cc suggests the following: 1. Each body will appoint a negotiating team consisting ¢ elected officials, their respective executives and attorneys. 2. This group will a list of topics or issues for discussion developed by each jurisdiction. 3. This will meet at least twice each month and more often if necessary. The group .will~k~ respective governing bodies fully apprised of the process being made in the negotis 4. City Council and the Board of Supervisors will agree to meet monthly in execut~ to insure that the same level of understanding exists among all members. 5. Negot should be completed by June 1, 1980. Council believes that in spite of the compte~ what has been proposed, agreement can be reached in this proposed timeframe." ~. Mr. Fisher responded on behalf of the Board on January 10, 1980 and suggested following: "We would suggest that the goal of the negotiations be a straightforwa~ which the citizens of both localities can understand and accept. We believe that ~ of our negotiations should be one which would result in total and permanent immuni~ annexation for Albemarle County through the vehicle of an economic and/or service-~ agreement, without any exchange of territory between the County and the City. Spec we believe that these discussions should be held pursuant to Sections 15.1-1166 an¢ ~hefCo~e of Virginia, as amended. Second, as it is the City which feels the ne~ change in the prese~t-status, we would suggest that at the very outset, the City she the discussions by stating in writing its position, and its proposal as to how thi~ is to be dealt with. Third, we must take into account several large and imminent ~ upon our time, and we feel that the target date of June 1, 1950, for an agreement ~ drafted, submitted to public hearings, and acted upon by both bodies, is probably ~ While we do not want to commit to that date as an immutable deadline, we do declar~ intent to work with you as expeditiously as possible. Additionally, .we believe th~ executive sessions of the governing bodies should be on an 'as needed' basis rathe~ predetermined monthly basis. Finally, the joint meetings of the two negotiating c~ should be held in public. We would prefer to reserve the option to alter the make~ negotiating committee as necessary for technical and fiscal expertise. We also ne~ clear that our committee will have no authority to make'any binding commitment wha~ will function solely as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors. We have sel~ negotiating committee and stand ready to unite with you." On January 30, 1980, the Mayor responded on behalf of City Council with the f~ "Th~ Council has reviewed the Board's position on the several issues presented in and feels that there is a goodly amount of common ground and that some agreement c~ reached, and would like to meet with the Board in executive session to iron out before negotiations begin. Immediately after this meeting the Council believes a public statement of the Board and the Council should be made to the press so that ~ citizens may know What is transpiring." The following letter was then written on January 31, 1980 by the Chairman "I ha~e ruled out the possibility of calling a special meeting, which requires wri' notice to the news media, both because of the attention which that extraordina~yy ~ would attract, and because of the Board's feelings about joint Executive Sessions time. The Board'-s earlier instructions to me, which ~ conve~ed to you by telephon ~~ ~2~. ~ ~h~ th~ Board. while ready and witlin~ to be~in negotiations, d February ~8, 1980 Morning Meeting (Adjourned from Februar~~0~ on February 11, 1980, the Board responded as follows: "The Board respectfully s with two points in that letter. First, we feel that the meeting you suggest to ter a public announcement should be a public rather than a private meeting. ile we understand your insistence upon having no preconceived limitations on the ae negotiations, we make clear that we expect and intend to negotiate the matter rial annexation as part of any solution, only after all other reasonable alternative axhausted." Laurence Brunton said he felt now is the time to announce the negotiators from the time and place for the negotiating meeting and any ground work. He said Mrs. ~en and Mr. Thomas AlbrO will represent the City. Mr. Fisher said Dr. Iachetta ~ will be the negotiating team for the County. He offered the County Executive's Room in the County Office Building for the first negotiating meeting. He then he City would be prepared to make its position in writing if the first negotiating ?e held next week. Mrs. O'Brien said the City has not prepared a complete proposal ~ feel such would be available within the next few weeks. However, the City would ~in discussing different topics and then proceed from there. Mr. Fisher said the ~ebruary 6 from the City stated that a proposal would be presented at the first ~ meeting. Mrs. O'Brien said the City preferred a step by step process. Dr.. Ld not' feel that would work and felt the County could better respond to a complete irs. O'Brien said there will not be a package. Mr. Fisher took strong exception )osed process. He said the Cityasked for the negotiations and the County agreed Ls of the above correspondence. The County do.es not want to be in a position" ~ity makes a request for one thing and that is negotiated and then the City comes ~ks for something else. Mr. Buck said the City respected the County's feelings ~tter of transferring land would be the last thing the Board wanted to see. The ~empting to ~i~!~a~wa~to~oC~mmo~e~h~t~n~y~!~g~a~a W~h~h~ity's goals. ~ticipates examining some issues and trying to arrive at a resolution in that ~. Gatewood asked why not having a complete proposal is a problem. Mr. Fisher ~unty does not know what the City will ask for and the County agreed to the negotiat~ City presenting its demands. Mr. Gatewood said the City is not planning on demands but only to work together and negotiate. The City does not plan to meet · e is a package which we demand and now let us see what you can do with it. Dr. ~lt such aspect is obvious. He felt the City is being naive if the issue is not from the standpoint that the County.is looking down a muzzle and the City is on md. If the City does not like what the County does, the law allows the City to ~. Mr. Albro said if the City had a gun muzzle mentality, this negotiating meeting ~ave been requested. He felt the City hopes to negotiate something and never have ~. He suggested rather than quarreling over the perceptions of what was meant by mce, that the first meeting of the negotiating teams be used to meet and define ~e. In other words, where are the areas in which proposals can be made to each felt if the City could state the chief goal and work from there it would be more Then, as the~negotiations evolve the County could also present its proposals. .ndstrom felt both sides have to be actively involved in working out a solution to ~. He did not feel either side would be legally bound by informal negotiations. ~ason, he did not see the posture of,demands being conducive to the problem and he ~e any problem with Mr. Albro's suggestion. He was sympathetic to the need to ~ferent areas in a more or less informal way. He felt such was important if the ~ot bound by the types of things discussed. Mr. Henley felt flexibility was ~he beginning and too much formality is being discussed to begin with. Mr. Lindstrom ~ayer was offered because he felt the members of both the Board and the Council conscious of~ their obligations. Mayor Brunton thanked Mr. Lindstrom ,for his felt it was important to create an atmosphere of good will and cooperation. He