Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-11AL28 6-2-75 (Afternoon) 6-11-75 (Afternoon) At 4:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile, to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 P.M. on June 11, 1975, in the Board Room of the County Office Building. motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Chairman The 6-11-75 (Afternoon) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 11, 1975, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from June 4, 1975. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwi!e, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C~ Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, T.M. Batchelor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St.John; Deputy County Attornies, Frederick Payne and James Bowling; County Planner, John L. Humphrey; and Assistant County Planner, Robert Tucker. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. No. 1. Appropriation: Airport. Mr. J. H. Bailey said at the May 15, 1975, meeting (Page '112, M.B. 13) on this matter the staff was instructed to consult with the County Attorney on the contract between Central Contracting and the County/City/Airport Board. Mr. Frederick Payne said h.e had reviewed the materials presented to him by Mr. Bailey. Briefly the facts are: The City/County/Airport Board entered into a contract for improvements to the Airport which included the excavation of certain materials on the site which were specified in the contract as "unclassified." It was unknown what the materials might be but could be anything including rock. The project was begun and a substantial portion carried out. The work was reviewed by the consulting engineers and certified that it had been completed corre'ctly. During the course of the project, a large amount of rock was excavated. This is more expensive than other excavation work and the contractor refused to complete the excavation. He was ordered to complete the work and did so under protest. When the contractor said the work was complete, the consulting engineers certified the work and payment was made. Later, it was found that a substantial amount of filling around the runway was done improperly. This appears to be an error on the part of the County's inspector, who is an independent contractor himself. However, under the terms of the contract, the contractor, Central Contracting, is responsible for the work even though they were erroneously led to believe that the specifications had been met. Because the final payment had been made and no funds were being withheld, the Airport Board was unable:to order the contractor back on the job. Since that time, it has been found that certain other improvements not included in that contract need to be carried out. Mr. Payne said there are two legal issues involved: (t) Whether the contract for the improve- ments contemplated originally has been satisfactorily completed. Mr. Payne said it is his opinion~ and he feels this to he in accord with Roger Wiley's appraisal of the situation, that they have not been satisfactorily and in that respect the contractor is in breach of contract. (2) The contractor has, since he discovered additional rock on the site, asserted a claim for additional compensation for excavation of that rock. Mr. Payne said he has reviewed that claim and is in accord with Mr. Wiley's assessment that legally the contractor has no valid claim for further compensation, however, the work that was contemplated under the original contract needs to be finished. This is important to the Airport and the work involves a time crunch because of the seasonal nature of the work. There are two aIternatives: (1) The City/County/Airport Board can have the work that was not performed properly under the original contract done by someone other than Central. That work would have to be hid. (2) In addition, the new work would have to be bid also. If this is done, Mr. payne recommended that the County sue the contractor, the consulting engineer and the inspector. Under no circumstance would he recommend suing one unless all are sued because there is a defect in the performance of all three. The alternative is to hire Central Contracting to come back and perform the fill work at no cost to the County/City.Airport Board, but.~to compensate Central in some amount felt to be reasonable by the consulting engineer for excavation of the rock, and to award Central a new contract involving additional compensation for the additional work to be performed. Mr. Payne said he and Mr. Wiley are in accord in appraisal of the legal situation. To litigate this matter would take at least a year before anything could be resolved and the Board and City Council would have to put up "front money" to get the work completed. Mr. Wiley believes that because additional work needs to be done, money will be saved by settling with Central. Mr. Wheeler said he did not understand how another contract could be given to a contactor who had not performed correctly the first time or how the staff knew a more favorable price would be received from Central as opposed to bidding. Mr. Bailey said Without any further preliminaries, a change order can be drawn setting out the work to be performed. The staff has talked to Central about the cost of completing the field and this cost is being balanced against dismissing Central, hiring another contractor to finish the work, and then suing Central to collect. Mr. Thacker asked if the cost of the new work is based on unit prices that were bid originally or if the cost of the new work will have to be negotiated. Mr. Bailey said it has been negotiated. This was not a part of Central's original proposal. An attempt has been made to cover every facet of the project on .which there is a disagreement. Mr. Thacker said he is concerned that the City/County allowed the contractor to bid at a very low unit price the contractor was obligated under his contractual arrangement to remove anything encountered. Now:the. City/County are going back and making him "hold" by giving him additional work. Mr.~ Bailey said the contractor took advantage of what he thought was a good thing as far as supervision and inspection were concerned. Mr. Bailey felt the contractor would have tried to collect for the rock excavation in any circumstance. Because the unit price was so low^,~~and more~ 6-11-75 (Afternoon) participated in by FAA, which was the repaying of the field. Central Contracting asked to do this work and permission was given. In the meantime, 'the economic situation changed and Central had men working here when they had work waiting at other places at a higher unit cost. Mr. Thacker asked what assurance the City/County would have that they could not obtain a cheaper bid today on the open market. Mr. Bailey said that would not remove the claim for work already performed (the rock)~. Mr. Wheeler said if he does not vote to appropriate any money, the Airport Board can make any deal they like, but if he has to vote for money, he is willing to rebid the work and then sue Central. He is tired of contractors not performing correctly. Mr. Wheeler said it might cost a little more but he is willing to pay that cost. Mr. Batche!or said that was the attitude of the Airport Board when this matter was first discussed. By the time the Attorney had finished reviewing the matter, the Airport Board was told that they would probably loose money. If the Board of Supervisors wants to risk additional money to get the same thing accomplished, that is fine, but the Airport Board has made a decision as to which way this work can be accomplished the fastest and with the least amount of tax dollars. Based on what the Attorney told the Airport Board, this decision was made. Mr. Carwile asked the amount of the potential rock claim. Mr. Bailey said it is $32,000. There is also an amount of $20,000 for additional land cost and $24,000 for additional work. Mr. Wheeler asked if $76,000 is being requested as the additional appropriation. Mr. Bailey said yes, but included in that figure there should be $17,500 Federal money. Mr. Wheeler said it would make sense to him to pay for the land, bid the $24,000 additional and corrective work and let the contractor sue if he feels he has a claim. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Payne if he found any defect in the contract. County do have a valid, enforcable contract. Mr. Payne said the City/ Mr. Bailey then read from "Notes on meeting between Central Contracting Company and County Engineering Department on April 8, 1975. "These two met in the County Engineer's Office on this date, by mutual consent. Messrs. Saunders and Williamson represented Central, Bailey and Williams, the County. Takeoff of quantities, which had been made independently, were compared and found to be together. The following figures were acknowledged by both parties to be accurate: Amount of excavation not accomplished: Amount of fill wasted 10,873 cubic yards 17,174 cubic yards Mr. Saunders stated the position of Central on the Contractor's responsibility for deficiencies in the work described under the contract, as follows: Central has been overpaid the sum of $0.46 x 10,873 = $5,001.58 on excavation. Central will reseed and mulch five acres at its own expense. Central acknowledges a share of the responsibility for the waste of excavated material which should have been placed accord±ng to plan. The extent of this admission is measured as follows: $ 5,002 7,500 $'12,502 Overpayment Additional compensation requested Total compensation Estimated fill required to complete (allowing 10% for compaction) Estimated cut required for fill 29,170 cubic yards 32,000 cubic yards Value of excavation required: 32,000 cubic yards @ $0.46 = Less. compensation Centra!'s part of misplaced fill $14,720 -12,500 $ 2,220 Mr. Saunders stated a lump sum price for this item and also agreed that the finished section will conform to our judgment of what is needed, i.e., a two-foot berm to control spill-off. This is somewhat more than the section designed by Dewberry, Nealon and Davis. Central accepts partial responsibility for repair of erosion. They do not accept .responsibility where seeding has been established, such as the turnaround at the south end of the field. The measure of this acceptance is reflected in the unit price quoted for borrow excavation for repair of erosion ($1.75/c.y. versus $2.75/c.y. for taxiway berm). The dollar value accepted by Central is: 914 c.y. ~ $1.00/c.y. = $914 We estimate there will be 17 acres of seeding and mulching. Central accepts five acres of this as its responsibility - a reseeding of acres previously seeded, which failed to establish. The dollar value of this work is: Five acres seeding ~ $400 = $2,000 Ail other items shown on the proposal are regarded as additions to the original contract. Even where unit prices for such work may have been given in the original contract, the lapse of three years and the inflation which has occurred effectively requires new prices. Central stated they are prepared to move in at once, upon being given notice to proceed. They estimate a 30-day work period will be sufficient for the completion of the job." Mr. St. John asked if anyone had agreed to the contractor's claim f~rYthe rock excavation. Mr. Bailey said at the time change order #3 was acknowledged and signed by Central, two things were asked by Central's representative. One was for more time for completion. A representative of .. Dewberry, Nealon and Davis was present at that time and Mr. Bailey had agreed to additional t±me. Central's representative also asked about a rock clause. The consultant asked Mr. Bailey and he replied that there could be no rock clause. If the contractor hit an undue amount of rock and felt it L'30 ~-~-z~ (Afternoon) Mr. St. John said he understands that there has been no assurance given Central Contracting that they will receive any additional compensation for the rock. Mr. Bailey said no. Mr. St. John said Roger Wiley is the Attorney for the Airport Board and this is the.Airport Board's contract. His office feels that unless it can be plainly shown that the Airport Board's Attorney is wrong, that weight should be given to his evaluation. He has spent days e~aluating the situation._ If this is turned into a matter of principle, instead of a matter of economics, it will cost the County and City more in the long run to stand on their principles, however, it is the Board of Supervisors' and City Council's decision. Mr. Wood then offered morion to appoint Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Carwile as a committee to work out _a solution to this problem with City Council. Thg motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. 2. Work Session: Article 17 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to be know as Site Plan Development Ordinance. (Public hearing on this matter continued from May 28, 1975.) Mr. John Humphrey said the Board has been furnished with two copies of the proposed ordinance. One copy is the staff's original proposal and the second copy is a revised copy dated May 19, 1975. The revised copy came about through various work sessions with the Planning Commission, the County Attorney's Office and the County Engineer. Up through Section 17-5 the changes are basically for clarification, uniformity and proper technical terms. The basic difference from the staff's proposal is in Sections 17-6 and 17-7 which deal with administration, approval and processing involved in submittal of site plans. The first draft proposed that the staff of the Planning Office be the approving agency, The Planning Commission, during public hearings, decided they wanted to retain this authority unto themselves, but did pass a resolution to the effect that after a period of approximately four months, during which time they will evaluate the decisions of the technical committee, they will consider the possibility of amending the ordinance to transfer this authority back to the technical committee. Mr. Humphrey asked that the Board retain one item which has been eliminated, Section 17-5-22, but refer only to as-built site plans being required for utilities. Mr. Thacker agreed that as- built site plans are necessary, but asked how it could be guaranteed that the line was built as shown on the site plan. Mr. Hatchelor said the engineer's name on the plan would guarantee this. Mr. W. R. Roudabush, Jr. was present. He said as far as water and sewer lines are concerned, if a problem develops, the contractor might make a change which is proper and the lines would not be installed as shown on the site plan. Concerning underground telephone-and electrical lines, he would never certify underground locations of these. Mr. Humphrey said it should at least be shown were lines cross other lines. Mr. Roudabush felt this should be required of the people installing the lines. The Board should not require a citizen to certify where telephone lines are installed since the telephone company installs their own lines. Mr. Thacker agreed that the burden shopld be on those companies that install their own lines, rather on the property owner or the engineer. Mr. Roudabush said Re would not object to a separate requirement that franchise utility companies be required to submit to the County a diagram of any underground utilities in connection with site plans before certificates of occupany are issued. He felt the burden should be on the people who design the lines, lay them out and install them. Mr. Humphrey said the only other major changes in the ordinance are in Sections 17-6 and 17-7 dealing with administrative approval. It has taken four years of staff and Commission work to get to this point. Mr. Roudabush also commented on Section 17-3-3. He said that originally this section stated that site plans had to be prepared by certified.architects, engineers,-and land surveyors who are licensed to practice in the State of Virginia. The revision dated May 19 has deleted that and now states that site plans can be prepared or certified by an architect, engin'eer, landscape architect, land planner or land surveyor. There is no registration in the State of Virginia for landscape architects or planners. If the Board is going to adopt a restrictive ordinance that requires site plans be certified, the ordinance should parallel State law. There are certain things in this ordinance that can only be done by registered people. The Board members made no comments on this statement at this time. Mr. Tucker said the ordinance carries a definition of a land planner and he would have to fit in that definition. Mr. Payne said there has been considerabZe work done on the ordinance and it is essential that someting be adopted in the 'near future. ~ Mr. Roudabush supported that statement. He said the Planning Commission received comments from surveyors and engineers and to his knowledge everyone supports adoption of an ordinance similar to this one. Mr. Humphrey said it will take a period of time after adoption in order to implement. He suggested that the Board consider a period of 30 days after adoption before implementation. Mr. Thacker said Section 17-2-!(a) basically requires a site plan on a single-family rental unit where the ordinance does not require this on a single-family residence. He asked the reason for this. Mr. Humphrey said the subdivision ordinance takes over on single-family residences, but there is no subdivision of land involved in rental units. The County now requires site plans for all rental units, over two, to determine proper setbacks, side yard requirements, etc. Mr. St. John said this is important. There are developments in the County where there are from ten to 200 acres with rental units. The land is not subdivided title wise and the County can only have control over this through the site plan ordinance. Mr. Thacker said he objects to requiring a person building a rental unit on a two-acre lot to file a site plan. Mr. Payne said it was mentioned at the Planning Commission hearingsj that this might cause a hardship on someone constructing one unit. In Section 17-3-3 there is an exception to the certification requirement for two or fewer single-family detached rental units. Without a certification, the site plan could be less formal and t~erefore less expensive. Mr. Carwile said he shares the concern about large rental developments in the County, but does not feel the person building on an obviously subdivided lot should have to go to the expense of site ....... ~-11-75 (Afternoon) Mr. Humphrey said the wording could be changed to'read "two or more single-family units on one parcel". Mr. Thacker suggested that the wording be changed to clearly reflect that. Mr. Thacker asked if a maximum of 10 foot contour intervals (Section 17-3-1) is close enough. Mr. Roudabush said this would give a general idea of the terrain. Mr. Thacker said Section 17-3-2 says no site plan will be approved within t0 calendar days of the notice of submission to the adjacent property owner. He said it was not totally clear if this is 10 days before and 10 days after the notice, making a total of 20 days. Mr. Humphrey said that is 10 days from the date the notice is mailed. Mr. Wheeler asked if the Board wanted to take "landscape architect" and "land planner" out of Section 17-3-3. Mr. Humphrey said the landscape architect has valuable input on site plans. Mr. Roudabush said the State Code prohibits these people from submitting drawings to the County showing many of the items required by 'this ordinance. Mr. St. John suggested that the following wording be added to the end of that section: "nothin~ in this section shall be interpreted to permit the practice of engineering or land surveying as outlined in Title 54 of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Thacker asked if the wording of Section 17-4-2 regarding "closure error" is proper. Mr. Roudabush said it is not acceptable to present day standards, but if someone has an old survey and it does not meet the current standards, he does not have to have the boundaries resurveyed. The survey of record can be taken if it falls within the limits spelled out in this section. Mr. Thacker asked what constitutes approval under Section 17-5-2. He wondered if action by the technical .committee would constitute approval based upon signing by the agent. Mr. Humphrey said it would take formal action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Thacker said he was concerned that surety would have to be furnished prior to formal approval. He would like this section to be worded so the site plan would go through the review process and receive approval subject to proper surety bond being placed in the hands of the County at the time the signature is placed on the site plan. Mr. Humphrey said that is the way this section was contemplated. Mr. Thaoker said he is concerned about the wording conoarning amount of surety bond. Who provides the estimated cost and how will it be verified. Mr. Humphrey said when a bid is let or accepted by a particular developer, a bid would be submitted to, and reviewed by, the County engineer. After review, the County Engineer might come up with his own esvimate. Mr. Thacker said if that is the case, a burden is being added to the Engineering Depam~ment~ He felt input should be received from the County Engineer to see how this works with other responsibilities of his department. Mr.~THacMer said that somehow the Board has to pin down who provides the estimate to insure that the surety is adequate. He felt this paragraph is too vague in that respect. Mr. Payne asked if Mr. Thacker were contemplating a procedure whereby an amount is suggested by the applicant and reviewed by the County Engineer. Mr. Thacker said he was not suggesting that the County Engineer be involved in this process. He felt this may be an expense the County cannot afford. Mr. St. John said if the ordinance states that a certain person is to establish the amount of these bonds, he is concerned that no one person will be expert on all bondable projects. Mr. Carwile asked what improvements required by this ordinance will have to be bonded. Mr-. Humphrey said anything which is to be dedicated to public use. Mr. payne said there are also things like parking areas which will mot be dedicated to public use. Mr. Carwile said there is a certain amount of expense involved in bonding. He agrees to bonding fmr off-site drainage improvements; soil erosion aspects, but when building a parking lot that might cover four or five acres, it seems there must be more practical ways to insure that this type of work is completed. Mr. Batchelor said if a site plan calls for a certain number of parking spaces, these 'spaces must be installed before a certificate of occupancy can be issued. How well the pavement is installed is the developer's business since it will be his responsibility to main it forever. Mr. Roudabush said in Section 17-5 i~ says parkings bays and everything has to be bonded. This used to read that all physical ~mprovements located within the public right of way or connected to public facilities be bonded. T~at wordin~ has been removed. Mr. Carwile said if the applicant has not complied with all conditions on the site plan at the time he applies for a certificate of occupancy, he can post a bond om those items at that time. Mr. Roudabush said if the ordinance is adopted the way it is written, a bond would have to be posted to cover the cosy of paving a parking lot. He asked if the County is able to take the bond and then go out and have the work completed on private property. He said this is not a ipublic improvement and would get the County into the busines: of managing a private development. Mr. P/ayne said there is something to.be said for having a certificate of occupancy cover ~he whole procedure. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the County Attorney do some work on this section. Mr. Thacker said Section 17-5-5 pro~±des that the County Engineer shall approve access roads not dedicated to public use in accordance with standards promulgated by the County Engineer. He said when writing an ordinance this restrictive, these standards should be a part of the ordinance. Mr. Wheeler asked that the staff make a recommendations on such standards and that these be presenved to the Board at their m~eting next Thursday. Mr. Thacker said Section 17-5-8 speaks of service roads constructed to County standards. was not aware that the County had any such standards. Mr. Wheeler asked that this wording be straightened out. Mr. Thacker noted that Section 17-5-10 says parking areas, design and construction, shall be approved by the County Engineer in accordance with proper engineering practices. He felt this should also be spelled out. Mr. Thack~r asked if i0 feet is adequate under Section 17-5-12. Mr. Batchelor said the Service Authority is now requiring 20 feet on everything. Mr. Roudabush suggested the wording: "easements for public utilities shall conform to requirements of the Albemarle County Service Authority." L32 6-11-75 - 6-11-75 (N±ght) Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to continue this public hearing until June 19, 1975. motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carrmed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, HenZey, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. At 6:01 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Chairman The 6-11-75 (Night) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 11, 1975, at '7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; Deputy County Attorney, Frederick Payne and Assistant County Planner, Robert Tucker. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. No. 1. grant. Request for County to act as sponsoring agent on a Division of Justice and Crime Prevention (Action on this matter deferred from May 28, 1975). Mr. Payne said his office was requested to review the agreement for the County's liability in this matter. There are two areas where the County has potential liability. 1) The County is liable for all monies that pass through to the sub-grantee and respons±ble to see that the money is expended properly, even though the County would be guilty of no wrong doing. Mr. Payne said this would requi~e some bureaucratic setup, not just a simple check in and check out. 2) This is Federal money and there is a requirement that the grantee, which is the County, and all the sub-grantees, have equal opportunity practices. Mr. Payne said he discussed this with the City Attorney's office and was informed that to their knowledge the Federal government does not have any extensive policing regulations, but the State Attorney General's Office does take these requirements seriously. If all goes well it will really be a one check in, one check out arrangement. However, the potential is there for County liability. Mr. Batchelor said it is not easy for the staff to be involved in something over which they have no control. Occasionally, there are programs that are good for the community, and the Board needs to make a decision on this matter. The staff recommends approval of this program (Second Effort, Inc.) He recommended that the Board seek approval of the General Assembly to giving the Planning District Commission or some other agency pass-through approval without the awesome respon- sibi!ites that have been mentioned. Mr. Wood said it sounds like the County would be accepting a great deal of responsibility and even personal liability if this request is granted, but there is a need for this program in the County and there is no direct cost to the County. If this can be handled by the staff, Mr. Wood felt the Board should approve the request even if it is felt that a member of the Board of Supervisors should set on their Board so?~there will be feedback. Mr. Fisher said he has no problem with the proposal itself. He is concerned that the people who receive the funds will perform their accounting and hiring practices so well that there will be no questions. He also suggested possible representation on the board of Second Effort and quarterly or semi-annual financial statements. Mr. John Crenshaw said he would welcome one of the Board members to set on the Board of Second Effort. He said the grant funds will not come all at one time. In order to continue receiving funds, they must make reports to the Federal government. Mr. Wood then offered motion that the County become the sponsoring agency for the Division of Justice and Crime Prevention grant for Second Effort, Inc. with a member of the Board of Supervisors being included on their Board and a quarterly financial statement being presented to the Board of Supervisors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. 2. Subdivision Plat. from May 28, 1975.) William H. and Anne M. Carpenter. (Action on this matter was deferred Mr. Joseph Richmond, Jr., was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Tucker said this matter was deferred so the structures could be drawn on the plat. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission for approval of the 60,000 square foot waiver and waiver of the 25 feet for right of way dedication. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. 1975. ) Thacker Construction Company Site Plan. (Action on this matter was deferred from May 28, (NOTE: Mr. Thacker abstaining during discussion and vote on this matter.) Mr. Tucker said this matter was deferred so the Board could make a review of the site. The applicant had noted this appeal on the Planning Commission's recommendation for screening.along the southern fence line.