1975-06-04AL26
5-28-~5 (Night)
6-4-75 (Day)
Mr. Wood said the Board already has a regular meeting scheduled for June 11 and it is a light
agenda and he did not see why this matter could not be taken care of at that meeting. Mr. Carwile
asked the urgency of having the meeting next week. Mr. Fisher said the urgency is because the
matter is one on which the Board may possibly reach a tie vote and the term of the appointed tie-
breaker expires on June 8. Mr. Carwite said he felt this statement was presumptuous. Mr. Wood
said he felt all Board members should play by the same rules and whether a tie-breaker is needed
or not, he felt the matter could be taken care of on the llth.
Mr. Henley said he could .see no importance in having the tie-breaker but he could meet next
week. Mr. Wood said the Board has been meeting a lot and his business is~the greatest at the end
of the school year and he could see no reason why this matter could not be taken care of at a
regular night meeting.
Mr. Fisher said he will have requested this meeting four weeks ago next Wednesday. The
Board has not found time to meet in those four weeks. Mr. Carwile said he recalled receiving a
letter, but did not remember any discussion on the matter. He did not think it is a matter which
the Board should hide from by not meeting, but did not see the urgency of suddenly meeting to
discuss it. Mr. Carwile said he was willing to discuss it at this momenv. Mr. Wood said he
would also discuss it now, and vote on it now, if Mr. Fisher so desired.
Mr. Fisher requested that the role be called (11:00 P.M.) and the substitute motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher and Henley.
Mr. Thacker (He said he was concerned that Mr. Wood had stated he could not be present
and he felt the matter was one which required attendance of the entire Board) and
Mr. Wood (He said it would be very difficult for him to be present).
Mr. Wheeler.
Chairman
6'4~75 (Afternoon)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 4, 1975, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 28, 1975.
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. Batche!or, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 4:15 P.M. and Mr. Fisher was recognized.
He read the following prepared statement:
Gentlemen of the Board:
When I wrote to you a month ago requesting this meeting, I stated that I was asking for a
vote on the. question of the Board's confidence in the County Executive, without the need for
charges or defense. However, since that time I have realized that any vote on this issue demands
a reason in order to be fair to Mr. Batchelor, to the Board and to the citizens of the County.
For this reason, I have prepared a statement as to the reasons why I think a change must be made.
I request your indulgence for a few minutes.
As an introduction, I want to state that my decision to seek to replace Mr. Batchelor as
County Executive was made three years ago in June of 1972. I had spent six months on the Board,
attempting to work with Mr. Batchelor, and trying, along with other members of the Board, to
advise him about ways in which he could more effectively perform his job.
However, after a continuous stream of reports from private citizens about the arrogance with
which they had been treated by Mr. Batchelor, after several instances of seemingly lax enforcement
of County ordinances (where no real responsibility could be placed), after repeated crisis Board
decisions because the County Executive had not been able to plan ahead well enough to inform the
Board of impending actions before the deadline was at hand, I decided that this was no way to run
a government. At the time of that decision, I polled the Board to see if other members felt a
change should be made. At least one reason given for staying with Mr. Batchelor at that time was
that an annexation suit was in process, and it was no time to change.
In 1973, the question was again raised, but a majority of the Board again felt that no
change was necessary.
In early 1974, the special grand jury was in session and the question wasn't raised.
However, after Mr. Batchetor's trial and conviction, I informed you that I thought the public's
confidence in Mr. Batchelor could never be restored, that he was mortally wounded. The Board
felt that he should be given a chance to find a job and some felt that the Board's support would
help him find employment. I was convinced by that argument and others to vote for an endorsement
with which I was uncomfortable at the time, still trying to be absolutely fair to the man.
After that vote, a number of events have occurred which have led me to believe that no
constructive changes have resulted from the scrutiny and criticism of the past few years; some
examples follow.
In October and November of 1974, the Board went through an extraordinary series of d±fficulties
regarding the adoption of a pay and classification plan, as mandated by State law. Two plans
were presented as recommendations of the County Executive. Finally, the Board, in executive
session, arrived at a compromise with which there was no Board disagreement. Then a day or two
before a scheduled vote on that plan, Mr. Batchelor sent us, for no apparent reason, a proposal
four, with no fiscal impact summary attached. The summary, provided at the time of the scheduled
vote, indicated that his new recommendation (his third) would only cost $5,474 more, yet would in
............... ~ a~ a~a~ssion, the decision was deferred again, and it was
./
1'2'
were in a direction to promote his proposal over the Board's. The actual difference turned out
to be nearly $17,000 between the Board's proposal and Mr. Batchelor's. Finally, after a month
and a half, a fifth proposal was adopted.~ The decision in the matter was complicated by differences
of opinion on the Board, and was made almost impossible with three different proposals from the
County Executive.
In the fall of 1974, the Board discovered that Mr. Batchelor intended to refund prior year's
property taxes to citizens after the December 5 deadline when 1974 taxes were due. This timing
difficulty would have generated considerable public aggravation at the County government, and Mr.
Batchelor was, fortunately, persuaded to get busy on correcting this situation. For a number of
days, some County offices worked three shifts a day to perform this task. Also in the mill were
notifications to all property owners of 1975 assessments. During this time when the County staff
was working hard, under pressure, to perform these tasks,~ Mr. Batchelor scheduled a two-or three-
day trip out-of-state to attend a meeting. The Board talked to him about this and several members
encouraged him not to go, but he went.
In January of this year, Mr. Batchelor sent the Board a memorandum explaining howland why
he proposed to change the organization and operation of the Planning, Zoning, and Building Inspection
functions of the County. His suggestions for changes came from, and I quote: "leading developers,
lawyers and engineers, to determine what methods could be improved upon to get a better understanding
of the situation from the "customer's" point of view" unquote. Zoning Administration and Building
Inspection are, to me, regulatory functions of the County, and the concept of "customers" implies
a relationship often seen in State and Federal regulatory agencies, where the agency seems to
feel it is their job to sell the product, rather than to regulate the producer on behalf of the
consumer; for example, the State Corporation Commission and Vepco.
Farther on in the memo, Mr. Batchelor suggests that amendments to ~the Site Plan Ordinance
and the Soil Erosion Ordinance will expedite the review and approval of such plans submitted to
the County by taking away the power to approve plans from the Planning Commission and from the
Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, and to place such power of approval with
his own staff, answering to him. This will, presumably, eliminate a danger stated by one of the
"customers", quote, "the public is allowed to become too emotional on these matters" unquote. It
is to be expected that citizens will become emotional when their homes and styles of life are
threatened. I feel they must be allowed to voice their concerns to the public body which is
composed of citizens like themselves, and they must be listened to. The tone of this entire
memorandum lends credibility to the reports which I hear from time to time of citizens who have
brought apparent violations to the attention of County officials, only to be ignored. I do not
believe that Mr. Batchelor wants to enforce the County's laws uniformly ih the best interest of
its citizens, and that this is the ultimate reason why the laws aren't enforced.
In a February meeting this year, as the last item on a crowded agenda, Mr. Batchelor presented
the Board with a 16-page document which constituted a preliminary application for $884,040 in
Federal funds to be used for certain improvements to utilities in the County. No presentation
was made to the Board at that time, or before, concerning the specific needs for, or the nature
of, these improvements. Dates on some pages of the document indicated that these pages had been
prepared at least a week earlier, but the Board was not given the document in advance to read or
ask questions about. In any event, Mr. Batche!or informed the Board, which was tired and anxious
to adjourn, that action was required at this meeting, or a special meeting would be required in a
very few days in order to meet a Federal deadline. I contend that it is this type of crisis-
oriented management which prevents the County government from being able to better meet the needs
of its citizens through a sustained process of carefully considered and well-implemented proposals.
It has recently been reported to me that Mr. Batchelor, as one of our representatives on
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, continues to push for additonal sewer taps for new
construction when the Authority staff cannot yet meet the State Water Control Board's stream
pollution standards on a routine basis. It appears to me that if he is successful in his encouragemen
to run the sewer plants on that narrow edge of perpetual violation, that the State may step in
and impose strictures which would constitute a near moratorium. I do not believe that this would
be in the County's best interest.
As a result of these and other events, in early March of this year, during budget preparations,
I again asked the Chairman to schedule a meeting of the Board to discuss Mr. Batchelor's future
status. He suggested an executive session and the Board discussed the matter on March 31st in
Mr. Batchelor's presence. While no vote was taken, the Board was apparently evenly divided on
the issue of terminating Mr. Batchelor's employment at the end of the fiscal year, on June 30,
1975. Thinking that this change of opinion might persuade Mr. Batchelor to resign, I took no
further action for five weeks. Then on May 6 I wrote the Board a letter, with a copy to Mr.
Batchelor, requesting a vote in public on the issue so that it might be resolved. I feel very
strongly that this matter cannot be ignored and that any further deference to fairness to Mr.
Batchelor must be balanced against an even stronger deference ye the needs of the County's more
than 40,000 citizens who are being deprived of an administration which they can trust ~to serve
their needs efficiently and with honor. For these reasons, I hereby move the adoption of the
following resolution as it was mailed to you on May 6:
RESOLVED that Thomas M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive of Albemarle
County, be~nGtified that his tenure in that office is to terminate at
midnight on June 30, 1975.
Mr. Henley gave second to the motion stating that he did not remember, during his term in
office, too many motions which had not received a second. He said if a member is sincere in his
thoughtsP'~h~n~c~making a motion, he personally feels the motion should receive a second, however,
he said this did not mean that he would vote for the motion.
Mr. Wheeler called for discussion of the motion. Mr. Henley said he had a lot of things to
say but felt this was probably not the right time to do it and a lot would be misunderstood and
would probably not do any good one way or the other. He said he has talked to Mr. Batchelor and
feels he is sincerely seeking another jab and he is willing to give him a reasonable amount of
time to do~this.
No further discussion was held and the vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Fisher.
Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
L28
6-4-'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 l!, 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 !1, 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. 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 Attornies, Frederick Payne and James Bowling; County Planner, John L. Humphrey;
and Assistan~ 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 he 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 hut 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 correctly.
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 mede 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 inoluded in that contract need to be carried out.
Mr. Payne said there are two Iegal issues involved: (1) 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 be 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. Wi!ey'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 lega. t 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 Ss 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 orig.inatly
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 1OW 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