HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19820201 00445
MITIUTES
FEBRIARY 1, 1982
The Orange County Board of Cannissioners met in regular session on Monday,
February 1, 1982, at 10:00 A.M., in the Comnissianers' Room, orange County
courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and commissioners Norm
Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Doi Willhoit. _.
A. C to ments from the Board:
Commissioner Marshall announced that the Mayor's Task Force on Human Services
in chapel Hill had completed its report; she thanked the county for its partici--
pation and cooperation with the Town in this effort.
Chairman [^shitted announced that bath the Timber's and Dr. Pamela Mayer
would be heard after lunch. C=missioner Willhoit said he wished to add a
discussion of Reaganomics and how the proposed program swaps u id affect certain
County departments. Cmumssioner Gustaveson will give a brief discussion cn HSAC
and added a road matter for Board discussion.
B. Audience Comments:
One member of the audience asked Commission Marshall haw he could get a cop,-
of the Task Force:is Report on Hunan Services; she responded that the Tom of chapel
Hill had that report. There were no other comments.
C. Minutes:
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by OmT issioner Marshall, to approve
the Minutes of January 22, 1982, as corrected. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner 4hi.tted, to approve
the Minutes of January 25, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
D. items For Decision by the Board:
2. Appointments:
Chapel Hill Planning Board: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commis-
sicner Gustaveson, to appoint Mr. Roger Dalston. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
commissioner Marshall moved to appoint George Meyer to the Chapel Hill
Planning Board; Commissioner Willhoit seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5;
noes, 0.
The Clerk was instructed to advertise vacancies an the Orange County Plan-
ning Board, the Commission for Women, the Energy Commission, the Orange County
4(3
Board of Adjustment and the Southern Triangle Fire District.
3. Tax Collector's Report: The Tax collector reported on the comparison
of uncollected taxes of this year as compared to last year's figure for the same.
Oxndssioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Qmanissicner Gustaveson, to have
the Tax Lien Sale on June 7, 1982. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
(CLERK'S NOTE: What follows is a verbatim transcription of agenda item
number 4, Mr. Charles smith.)
Chairman Miitted--Item D4, Mr. Charles Smith. I believe Mr. Smith is here.
Mr. Smith: I have a matter that I would like to bring to the Board. I would
,like my partner to discuss.
Mr. Mort Ievi: Good Morning. I regret you don't have a lectern; it would be
a little more comfortable-if'we did.
Commissioner Walker: You can have a seat right there.
Mr. Levi: Thank you.
Camnissioner.Walker: Right here.
Mr. Levi: Oh good.
Chairman Whitted: Pull it around.
Mr. Levi: I wanted to talk to you relative to an incident that had occurred
and hope that you might become informed relative to what it is and what
impact it might tend to have on a program under your direction, ah, here
. . in this ccuminity. Mr. Smith is a contractor who applied to participate
in your Cr ity Development Program under the direction of Mr. Kittrell.
At the time be applied he was requested to go through the normal, procedure
that everyone else goes through and he did that. After having completed
all the information and turned -n the application, he was granted the
right to participate in the CO Program. .. It is my understanding and pre-
dicted on the letters I have here both frcid HUD and from the references
that your Ctmninity Program sent out, that there uh these references were
sufficient to justify participation. Mr. Smith proceeded to work in the
program; submit his request for a bid, he did that, and was rewarded a
bid for rehabilitatin g a home. That hone was cm-pleted; there was a 5
i
day overrun. There wasn't any cost over--run. But there was a 5 day
over-run which is normal. You and I know that the Federal Government
especially the Pentagon, has over--runs not only.in terms of time, but
in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars. You, as Cbm-nissioners, no
' 0044'x .
doubt have had over-runs here in terms of building projects that con-
tractors undertook for you. I know they have Las Angelos, Durham, all
over the United States where you don't complete a project in the time
you anticipate completing it. So the project went over 5 days; of
course, there was a penalty for that. And I think most contracts there
is a penalty for going over. Anyway, the job was completed; it was
completed satisfactorily predicated on the on the admission of the
person-for whom the job was being done. The property owner— And after
this job was completed, Mr. Smith received a letter from the Director
of this program, stating that he would not be eligible to participate
in the program anymore. In other words, he was banned. There were two
criteria he established for banning him frown the program; 1) Pre-
dicated on a memo that was in a folder, not in his personnel folder,
but another folder that Mr. Smith was refused when he asked for this
Information under the proper Act; the second criterion was a letter that
had been received from the City of Durham stating that Mr. Smith had
been banned from program participation in Durham. Now follow this area
- _very carefully. The letter that came to your director from Durham
arrived and was requested prior to certification of Mr. Smith to partic-
I-pate in the City Development Program. That letter was on file.
You note the date. The date indicates that it was received before Mr.
Smith certified to participate, if this was, if this had been one of
the criteria for denial then why was he ever granted the right to par-
ticipate initially? In as much as this data preceeded his participation.
If the memo was which was written by your Rehab Specialist_ Was a
criterion that had objective intent of bettering the performance of
contractors it seems to me that Mr. Smith would have been made aware of
this and that some steps would have been made to let him know,they were
dissatisfied with something and or the basis of that corrective measures
would have had to have been instituted or participation would have been
denied in the future. This was not done. This memo was hidden and the
assistant to your director had to go and find this memo and bring it out
at the time we were in the office and say 'This is why I believe he was
denied the right to participate.' That memo you should have which became
a philosophy or an approach to prioritizing work at the time Mr. Smith
00448
had to call sub-con-tractors and you know you have no contractors in this
country who undertake full responsibility for a job and perform everything
themselves all the time. You need electricians, plumbers, etcetera. So
you don't have that expertise but you get people under contract with you
and you subcontract. And because of that Mr. Smith's priorities differed
from the anticipation of the structured rehab counsel, counselor. The
counselor's articulation in the farm of a memo addressed Mr. Smith Laving
dome something to the roof prior to doing something else. And for that
reason, he didn't have sufficient knowledge to justify continued partici-
i
i
paticn in that program. I would raise ,great question with that. T,--t
me touch briefly on why Mr. Smith quote dated in the letter received frM
the younci lady who had just taken the position, the new position in Durham
was denying him the right to participate in that program. There had
initially.been 66 2/3% of the contracts participating in the Durham
rehab program who were black; 33% were white. As the program wont on
the blacks were eliminated practically to one contractor. At that point,
I went to Washington and talked with Mrs. Harris who was then the Sec-
retary of HEW. I went to Atlanta, I talked with the Solicitors General
Office. I went to Greensboro, and we brought in the solicitors General,
we brought in the Auditors, we brought an the FBI and we brought in HOD
f--= Atlanta- At that time, if you read the papers, it was docuzTented,
they found there was discrimination. The Redevelcpment Ounnission over
there was practically, it.was, they discontinued they were banned. They
went out of business. They were audited; they found some discrepancies.
And on the basis of that, they cam up with a new program in Durham. And
I felt that it was extremely significant that you be informed as to what
has taken place in your program and what kited of data, what kind of good
clean raw data is being used to justify denying Mr. Smith participation
in this program. Especially after he completed the building that he under-
took.on bid in the manner in which they wanted it completed. There was a
sign off by the property Owner. The property owner was completely satisfied
with the }wilding. Ah Your director would not provide us with a copy of
that sign off. said he didn't k now where it was. He couldn't fixed it.
It wasn't in the file. We went over to the house where the daughter now
lives and she said as far as she ]mew the parents were satisfied. She's
i
0044D
satisfied. We should have seen it before. We said we saw it before.
Your office over on the wall, rather proudly displayed, has a pictorial
presentation of the after but they don't have anything before and I
think there should be a comparative analysis. Before and after. We
were displeased^:with the satisfaction that we received from Mr. Kittre7l
so we came down to talk to your County Manager. This County Manager
listened to us for about 45 minutes and asked that we wait, he would get
in touch with us shortly. This was on the day before New Year's...
New Year's Eve. We came back again. He was out. We cane back a third
time, he was out and on the 4th time he was out. And I dictated a letter
to his secretary. I assume that his secretary presented him with this
letter. We also brought the application for a reparticipaticn. Not-
knowing that we would get on the agenda here, I called back because we
didn't dictate this to the Secretary, and stated to the Secretary, add
to that memo that if we do not see the County Manager prior to the colony
treeting, Commissioners Meeting on Monday, we will take this case before
the County Cormnissioners. C8n Saturday I received a letter here that I
have in my possession from the County, your Oaunty Manager. I also
received a letter cn Saturday from your crau=lity Development Specialist.
Qr your ah ah Program Director. Cne was dated the 22nd, one was dated
the 21st. You should have that in your folder, if you don't I'll I'll
get it to you. I have it in my folder. Ah it does seem rather odd to me
that I had waited from the day before New Year's until the 22nd to get a
response and the thing that seems even more odd was on the Friday prior
to the 22nd on having received the letter we went to Mr. Kittrell's
office a fourth time. We met hair approximately 50 ft. from his office
talking to a police officer. He stated at that thime that he had not sent
out the letters of reference because the snow had detained he and his
staff from doing so. They were closed before the snow and as a result of
that we would have to wait about a week or two for the references return.
Now if those references were the criteria an which he would predicate his
decision what became the basis of justification for the decision rexx1exed
in a second denial? If those letters of reference which he sent out in
a form of this type asking please complete the questionaire and return
and his decision was predicated on this then he shouldn't have'.,had a
00450
decision because this questionai.re came back from Durham with no
information on it. This is the questionaire that was in Mr. Smith's
file when it was given to us and had no information on it at all. Now
what critieria or what criterion was used to justify taking that position'
Now since that time we've collected some other information that has gone
on in this program. And I'm going to have the opportunity to present
that to you. And it isn't the most favorable material. And I say to
you that Mr. Smith has been denied the right for program participation
predicated on some nebulous approach that is not justified in being taken
and we feel that he's being discriminated'against, and we feel that all
measures must be exhausted to see that he is treated fairly in his
effort to carry out the discipline in which he has prepared himself to
earn a decent living. And I thought the most appropriate thing would be
to Care before'you and let you know what has happened. Now since that
tims, Mr. Smith received a letter from the City of Durham stating that we
would be eligible to participate in that program, he received that letter.
Since the time he was banned, he completed a $13,000 job for the City of
Durham in the McDougall Terrace for a burned down apartment building. He
had 60 days to complete the job and the job was completed in 42 days.
And, gentlemen, and young lady, it is customary for contractors to go
over-tine. at tires. That is why there is a penalty stipulation in the
contract,. $5.00 a day, $10.00 a day, $50.00 a day or whatever you see fit
to put in that contract. And I think there is something beycnd this, when
your County Manager said the other night, "This is an administrative pro-
blem." I see this as being an administrative problem and if he is the
administrator that you've retained to function in a certain manner that's
what it's supposed to be. If it were not an administrative problem I
wouldn't have gone to him. But I also see something else when I see a .
letter caning from him on the, dated the 21st, one coming from him on the
22nd after he said to me "I haven't sent the letters out yesterday." And
getting both on the same day. something is rotten in Denmark and it isn't
Christine. And that's why I'm here to present this before you so we can
ascertain what direction can be taken. If you have sane questions, Mr.
Smith and I will be delighted to respond.
Carmisaioner Gustaveson: Just a couple of background questions, mainly that ah
06- 6,
ah are ah legal counsel for Mr. Smith or are you...?
Mr. Levi (interrupting): I'm legal in the sense that he has asked me to
represent him. But I'm not legal in the sense if you are asking if I
have been liscensed to practice law.
Co mi.ssicner Gustaveson: But ah, some point in here indicated that you are
part owner of this company; is that correct?
Mr. Levi: Ah that, that is a misnomer, and let me let me explain how that
ti
-- cai:^- into being. And I'm glad ya°� asked as you did, that T am a pant-
owner of that corporation. when we went to your worker's office he
asked what role do I play? and I said Mr. Smith and.I are partners. We-
are partners but it happens to bean another corporations. And whether
it's a corporation that I own, a corporation which we are partners or
his corporation, we work together. And in matters where I can assist him
in his efforts to overcame difficulties I do that. Your worker proceeded
to say if you are a partner, are you, I forget the question but the crux,
the statement led me to recognize immediately he didn't know what partner-
ship was. He didn't didn't know the criteria for establishing a partner-
-ship so I don't remynber the rather doltish question the statement at this
tine. But, but to respond to you, no we are not partners, I don't own any
of that construction or rehabilitation company. But we are partners in
another entity.
chairman Whitted: other questions?
Commissioner Gustaveson: Ah I guess that ah one concern is looking at all the
material that's been presented to me and trying to ah ah weave my way
through, my way through some of the things that you have said.
Mr. Levi: Sure.
Cornissioner Gustaveson: That certainly that ah one of my concerns and I think
that the concern of the ah ah development office and the County Manager is
that the ah we do have good work as far as the rehab of these hams.
Mr. Levi: Sure.
Commissioner Gustaveson: And ah, I gotta sense that you may like this but that
this may be a judgmental thing but T think that there are are ah com-
petent specialists who have evaluated many rehab situations and ah and
there was some evidence that that this ah there were a lot of things that
went on that went on in regard to this rehabilitation that seem to be
poorly timed and poorly done. And ah I guess my concern is ah that at
least this is part of the heart of the matter that ah this is certainly
ah within their professional responsibility and administrative respon-
sibility to make these judgements. That when they see,ah poorly timed
and ah poor workmanship in terms of the whole project that eh they want
to assure that the money that is being spent in this program is spent as
wisely as possible. And ah, ah I think that as I ah look through this
material that gets to the heart of the whole whole matter. And and I
gather that you kind of lightly went over this fact to bring in a lot of
other things that seem not to be really addressing the core issue and I
think that certainly there are many ah contracts they have to evaluate
many projects they have to evaluate and ah ah ah I think that this is
something that needs to be addressed...
Mr. Ievi (interrupting): Very well. Allow ma to address two things you've
said. First of all the state that I've made light of .'I don't under-
stand that—I made light of. The other you stated that it was the respon-
sibility of your staff to make judgments that this might have been a
T judgmental thing on my behalf. There's some conflict here. Judgment is
is granted in one situation but judgment is denied in the other. I that's
that's confusing.to me. The other is that the money must be spent wisely.
I doubt if you car. find anyone, let me put it this way, I've been impressed
with your presentations, I watch you on this Commission. I'm extremely
ah pleased in fact I thought you were one of the profs at UNC. I'd like
to know what you do because I'm impressed with your mannerism as a Cotmr-
missioner. Iet me say this, and you will understand this I believe that
money should be spent wisely and I believe that each time a hand is dipped
into the Treasury of the U. S. a little democracy and accountability and
responsiveness must of necessity cling to whatever the fingers take out.
And I can't say it anymore, I can't say it any better when I say that I
believe money should be spent wisely also. So there's no conflict between
what you believe and think and what I believe and thank. There's congruency.
Now, I'm going to try to address making light and you correct me if I
misunderstand what you have said. .Making light I assume you mean that I
have not given the proper attention and explanation to the performance of
the contractor in lieu of his real performance and in lieu of the standards
that have been established by your persons who have responsiblity for
overseeing. Is that what you mean?
Commissioner Gustaveson: That's essentially correct.
Mr. Levi: Fine. Now, ah I haven't made.light. First of all, one of the
criteria for acceptance and this is written this is written in your HUD
specifications here. I'll give it to you and you can read it. 9his is
written in your HUD specifications. Is that the homeowner, the home-
owner has to sign off at the coaPletion of the program and the homeowner
has to be satisfied.and if the homeowner isn't satisfied there are legal
ret ed-;es that the limner can undertake to express dissatisfaction and
at the same time deny the contractor the right.tb be paid. I can't think
of a better motivator. Deny the contractor the right to be paid. And if
there is dissatisfaction an the part of the homeomer she'll get in touch with
the Rehab Specialist; he'll get in touch with the check off list and let the
contractor know what he has to do thing. Many of these jobs contractors
have had to go back; I don't believe that.Hillsborough or Orange County
_ .
has a monopoly on anything good or anything bad. You are no different than
any of the other hundred counties in terms of carrying out the mandate that
has been given to you by HUD relative to rehabilitating houses_ I worked on
these all over the State. All over. So I'm not malting light. I'm looking
at what the homeowner signed and we were denied the right to see that seeing
that I'm satisfied. So we had to get articulation f7ran the der, The
Person occupying the house. We were denied that. Now I'm also saying that if
the criteria of that were used for denial, was the real criteria tom,, partici-
patien would have been n n-existent. So it isn't a question of what comes first,
the chicken or the egg, none Owes because you had the data that you,are now
using to deny participation before you granted acceptance. .
Commissioner Whitted: Well, that's that's a point that's not quite clear, and
You've made reference to that information we have in the letter from Durham came
to this office; the Orange Carty on the 15th of April was dated the 10th of
April. Now I believe that Mr. Smith already had a contract at that time. The
memo from the Rehab Specialist that ah indicated the ah that the work that had
been performed by.the Kidd Smith Company had been
a.na'dequate, was dated May 22nd
and then July of sametime the letter went to Mr. Smith denying ham participation
in the program. So the the dates that I have tend to indicate that the letter
00154 ,
that came frcm.the City of Durham was after Mr. Smith had a contract and
was performing work ah in Orange County. Now
Mr. Levi (interrupting): That is not true by the data that I have. And that
is not true.
Chairman Nutted: Well it is by what we have. What was the date that Mr. Smith
was awarded the contract?
Mr. Levi: Let Is go back and and date the chronology.
chairman Wnitted. (interruptmg) : What was the date?
Mr. Ievi: The chronology is important.
Chairman Whetted: Okay, well what was the date that Mr. Smith received a contract
from Orange County?
Mr. Levi: Let's go back and and play the chronology.
Coranissioner Willhoit: Well let's just go right with the
(Ca[rAssicner Willhoit continues to talk but .I cannot decipher)
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Well the letter went out ftan your office ear April the
2nd. The letter went out requesting reference cn the 2nd of April; we're
ganna play the chronology. The letter went out cm April the second
requesting reference. Alright,
Chairman Whetted: Okay.
Mr. Levi: The the an response was received or written and sent on April the
10th; April the 10th in respcnse to your letter of April. 2nd, 1982, regarding
Kidd Smith. I submit the following:
Chairman Whetted: Now. Mr. Mr. Devi let me just. Cause there's a date there's
dates before that; now our information is that a contract was signed on
March 17, 1981, that and work was authorized to receed proceed on March 24th
and the work was completed May 14th. Now that was the job on Mrs. MacNeil's
house that was done by the Kidd smith cony. Is that correct? Is that
information correct?
Mr. Levi: I don't have that in my hand at this time. I do not know.._
Chairman Whetted: Okay unintelligble
Mr. T,evi (interrupting): Let me respond this way: I dcn't knew because there
were two files and we asked to see the personnel and I think that this was
the file that he didn't go into.
Chairman Whitted: Tim information that this Board has was that the contract was
signed, on March 17th, 1981, and work was authorized to proceed cn March 24th,
00455'{.
tD 4X)
the work was completed May.14th. And then in add, then..
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Work was completed on May 14th?
Chairman Whitted: That's the information we have.
Mr. levi: So the work was completed after this letter was received?
chairman Whitted- Yes, but the contract was signed March 24th.
Mr. Levi: You received a letter from the City of Durham on April the 15th.
Chairn�an Whitted: And t hen, using, he's using the ah the MOW from our Rehab
Specialist as to loon that work was performed on that one contract that was
signed March l7th in addition to the letter we received on April. the 15th.
Then it was a decision of the ® Director
(Chairman whi.tted continues but I can't understand, Mr.. Levi is interrupting)
Mr. Levi: I'm confused; 2 don't understand your March 17th date at all..
Chairman Whitted: Well that's the date the contract was sighed, sir. That's
tO rehab the house.
Mr. Levi: All right, fine. And work started immediately after that?
Chairman Whitted: It was authorized to proceed on the 24th of March. I'm not
sure exactly when it
Mr. Levi (intexr>ptiang): Sure. Sure.
Chairman VIbitted: started. And in April we received a letter from the city of
Durham.
Mr. Levi: Yes. April the 10th.
chairman Whitted: Then we had a mmio from our Rehab specialist on May 22nd
saying--
Mr. Levi (interrupting); The job was completed on the 24th?
Chairman Whitted: of March?
Mr. Levi: yes.
Chairman Whitted: No, it was completed on May l4th.
Mr. Levi: On May 14th?
Chairman Whitted: Right.
Mr. Tevi: And the 22nd fran the Rehab was what date?
Chairman Mhitted: May 22nd.
Mr.. Levi. May 22nd,
Chairman Whitted: Right.
Mr. Levi: Right.
Chairman Whitted: So those, that memo from the rehab specialist in addition to
Q 45G
the letter-from the City of Durham that indicated that Mr. Smith could no
longer participate in that program for the same reasons that our Rehab
Specialist deems his work to be unappropriate was the reason why he was
banned from any further participation in the Orange County program. Those
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Alright, now.
Chairman Whitted: Those things are all clear and they are all sequential and
I don't see any conflict at all in those dates.
Mr. Levi: Well, I saw conflict and gave the information to your Manager in terms
of the letter coming and. in terms of the ah date that Mr. Smith said that
he completed the work. You see, that I had no knowledge at all we did not
see anything we were told
Chairman Witted: (interrupting): Mr. Smith got a.letter that was sent to ham
in June, I believe, of 1981.
Mr. Ievi: Yes.
Chairman: Whitted: Pointing out the reason why he would no longer be eligible to
participate in the Orange County program.
Mr. Levi- That is correct. Yes.
Chairman Whitted: And he did not at that tame protest that decision. It was
in December of 81 when he reapplied when he was referred back to the July
letter saying for those same reasons you will no longer be eligible to
participate in this program.
Mr. Levi: No, no that is not correct.
chairman mhitted: Well, that's the inforniation we have, sir.
Mr. Levi: Well,,Sir, I'm telling you it's not correct. Now I understand you
have it sir, and hat's the only basis you can say that I can say it's
incorrect because you have it. If you didn't have it I couldn't:;say that.
Let me let me proceed. a
i
Chairman Whitted: Trying to say something unsuccessfully.
Mr. Levi: The reason Mr. Smith came here is because of the letter he received.
Not because he wanted to reapply, he received the letter and came to ask
for clarification and justification for having received the letter. Now
you'don't have that but that's-the basis for caning and the basis for craning
You've stated is not the basis.
Chairman Whitted: . Well, okay. July 16th, 1981, Mr. Smith received a letter
from Mr. Kittrell indicating the dissatisfaction with the the contract
UU4OY
64o
and the rehab work that was done. Then on the 22nd he refers again to that
July 16th letter as the reason
Mr. Levi (interrupting): Correct.
Chairman Vautted: for denial of the request.
Mr. Levi: Correct, Yes.; we are aware of that.
Chairman Whl_tted: Okay.
Mr. Levi: Yes.
IF
Cmmi.ssioner Marshall: I'm a little confused. Mr. Ievi, are you indicating
that Mr. Smith does not have a copy of his signed rehab contract nor a
copy of his notice to.proceed? It seems to me these are two very important
dates and one would expect a contractor would have copies of both those
agreex=ts.
Mr. Tevi: I would not object to your asking Mr. Smith, that I dontt know but
Cmirnissioner Marshall: well.
Mr. Levi: There's another issue ah that I'd like to raise before you ask him
that. How significant is reference? Float is the basis of justification for
sanding out this form? Wmt value does it carry"? How significant is it?.
Could one of you answer this?
Commissioner Cnd-iitted: well, of course it's part of the guidelines, I guess; t'-'
Board is not familiar with the day to day operations, that's why we haves a
CD Director, he handles that. But what is significant here is an evaluation
by our Rehab Specialist cn work performed in the program. Now that to me is
more significant than references....
Mr. Levi: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking for a value judgment in term of other
significant criteria, I'll get to that. And I'm trying to prioritize 1, 2,
3, 4 and I'm at one and you're further down, My question is, can You make a
determination, or could you ascertain at this point, since we have author-
iative resources, how significant this sheet is and the information that comes
back? And let me proceed because I
- Chai.rnian Whitted: well, it will have to be relative. In my estimation, it's rely
ative to other information that one has available to judge a contractor by.
And one is a review by a experienced cmtractor who is on our payroll as a
Rehab Specialist as to the work perfo=,ance,.how the work was performed.
Mr. nevi: Yes, sir.
Cmmissioner Whit-ted: And in this this instance it was deemed to be inadequate and
�aU,4-5
F
that was the basis upon which Mr. Smith has been denied participation in
the program.
Mr. Isvi: Six.
Chairman Whitted: Now that has been, that was the decision of the CD Director,
Mr. Ievi (interrupting): We understand that sir, I know that. I'm aware
where the decisions emanate froan.
Chairman Whitted: . Continuing to talk (Undecipherable)
Mr. Levi... (continuing to talk—picking up when intelligible) : My My My statement
related to the significance of this and not the relevancy. Relevancy is
Cha?=non Whitted: Okay.
Mr. Levi: very broad I think Einstein provers that. Buy my point is this:
That if this was that significant and it seems to me that you it I can ga
to the Retail Merchant's Association and apply for credit and they aren`t
going to a:store, they aren't going to give credit until they get an
answer back form-the Retail Merchant's Association. They pay them X
number of dollars per year for membership, sir
Chairman %bitted: But
Mr. Ievi: and that membership enables them to serve as a clearing house to
provide positive and negative data to justify extending credit.
Chairman Whitted. I
M-. Levi: Now, this letter of reference was designed to secure fran past
benefactors of services rendered by a contractor as to whether it was
satisfactory or non-satisfactory. And it seems to me a good strong
administrator who sends (tape over) then I would raise some questions
here. And and you have been charged charged with the responsibility of
administrating public funds. And this is why I'm presenting this to you.
I'm not talking about how relevant three, four, five, six, seven, I know
that it's relevant for the Rehab Specialist to be competent enough to
make decisions. I know it's relevant that your County and City inspectors
be competent enough to make decisions. We aren't getting into that. I'm
talking about how significant was this form? It could deny or grant
participation. It was never used.
Coanmissicner Willhoit: Participation was granted. Participation was granted; the.
contract was signed March 17th.
Mr. Ie-vi: The form was nevi used. The data to be utilized as a result of
inquiry from this letter never came. it never cane.
Ommissioner Willhoit: So then it did not affect negatively the decision to
allow participation?
Mr. Levi: That's a value judgment.
Commissioner Willhoit: well, it's a fact.
Mr. Ievi (interrupting): It's obvious that you haven't read the letter that
he wrote, because the letter that he wrote contradicts what you are saying_
He said that the basis of denial is the information that we received from
Durham. And you're saying that it didn't have a negative impact. And I'm
confused in terms of plus and minuses. Hmt's plus and what's minus?
Commissioner Willhoit: I'm saying that the contract was signed.
Mr. Ievi: T hat's the only way he could participate.
Chairman Whitted: Yes, Ms. Marshall.
Commissioner Marshall: Mr. Ievi, this, is not the priority,but what the letter
says. The letter that I have a copy of shows that careful review that
the omirmy completed construction five days over your scheduled time limit
and your company's work performance was inefficient. And it just says. .
additionally we are concerned about the negative reference Fran the City
of Durham's Community Development Department-
Mr. Levi: Yes
Commissioner Marshall: It does nOt deny the application specifically and soley
or even as a criteria, it quite clearly says it is not the criterion, it
just mentions concern.
Mr. Ievi: Ah is that your, the letter you received from him.
Chairman Whi.tted: That's the letter that went to Mr. Smith on July 16th, 1981.
Mr. Levi: Yes, you're- saying it does not deny participation?
Commissioner Marshall. No, I'm saying it does not deny participation as using
the negative reference from the City of Durham as a criterion, it just
mentions concern about that.in addition to the two criteria that were given.
- Mr. Ievi: Sure, Ah. Thank you and I'd appreciate that- I weuld like to know at
this point since it was mentioned, ah there was same basis for so considering
it. Now, if it were not used for denial what was? And if what was used for
denial was used, ,then how did that impact on the completed product? You see,
in the final analysis you have a completed product. And that completed
Product represents a person's satisfaction emanating from the property Owner
00460 -�
who was not only statisfied but motivated to the extent that she signed
off and said, "Take your check; yau've done what you agreed to do."
Con issioner Marshall: That is, that is very important. It is the end product
but as far as our staff is concerned-and cost efficient use of their time
they could not have to be continually rechecking going bark and seeing the
conditions...
Mr. Ie'yi (Interrupting): Have you read the job description-of the Rehab Wtimselor?
I, I. You're very intelligent lady. Don't! Withdraw that statement please!
Withdraw that statement. Please.
commissioner'Marshall: Perhaps the way I said it...
Mr. Ievi (Interrupting): No, not the way you said it. I can repeat it because
I can repeat it because, I can repeat it. let me stand so the acoustics . might
tend to add to what I'm going to say. I can repeat it. You're saying that
for because of cost efficiency, uh that's the way we talk in Washington, cost
efficiency. The point is that I'm proving there's not cost efficiency. My
My whole dialogue will refute that. There hasn't been cost efficiency and I
can go to your program and point out data where there has been not only.
inefficiency but ineptness, and a number of other things. Now, let's go back
to this. Cbviously, Mrs. Willhoit. Are you Mrs. Willhoit?
Cbnmissioner Willhoit: I'm Dan Willhoit.
Mr. Ievi: Excuse me, sir. Six, I ah don't want to change anything about your
lifestyle.
cormassioner Willhoit: I'm glad most of the press is absent right.now.
Mr. Levi: I thought, Mrs.
Clerk to the Board: Ms. Marshall.
Mr. Levi: Ms. Marshall, let ma say this and I'm happy we can smile. Ah the reason .
I say withdraw your statement was not a demand or force, I'm simply saying it
has been my observation and experience that the responsibility and the job
description of the Rehab Specialist if he's effective is exactly what you sai
isn't and it's that way because of cost efficiency.
Commissioner Marshall: Tha's what I said.but if I said it to to withdraw...
Mr. Levi (Interrupting): I accept it...
O mmissioner Marshall, (Oontinuing) : 6iat I'.ve said; not as far as the total
amount of work that a Rehab Counselor is responsible for. I happen, as I've
U�461
been appointed very recently to this Commission, and I have not yet gotten
out of some of my awn, older responsibilities, I am Chairman of the Chapel
Hill Housing Authority and the Redevelopment Cam-ni.ssion. And so, I am fami-
iliar with the job of the Rehab Oounselor. And with the job of-.-.the Inspector
and the they do of course have to check and continually check...
Mr. xevi (Interrupting): I accept your withdrawal and I don't think I need anymore
expertise for the position you hold because you made the stag t; I simply
_._. call your_attention to it. And I think the further we go into it the.mare
problems we get into.
Clomnissicner Marshall: Well, perhaps. '
Mr. Devi (Interrupting): I accept that ccupletely.
Chairman whitted: Well, I...
O=ni.ssicner Willhoit: I'd like to mow the Manager's recommendation cn this
issue_
Chairman Vd-itted: The Manager recommends the Hoard decide. Okay, okay, on this
document.
Manager: Yes.
- _-- C irnia i Whitted: Okay on this documrment.
Ckrmamissioner Gustaveson: Second.
Chairman Whitted: The reca:mendati.en from the Manager is that we ocntinue to ban
the Kidd Smith Company from participating in the Cw mmity Develop rent project
of Orange County.
Mr. Levi: Some support...what supports this decision?
commissioner Wil7hoit: Well, it's really, it's really to reaffirm the decision
of the Manager-
Chairman Whitted: Okay.
Commissioner Willhoat: It's not specific action on the C mPany. I guess maybe
I'll rephrase it that we confirm the Manager's recommendation in this
matter.
Chairman Whitted: Okay. And it's been seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Walker: After hearing all this discussion I'm thoroughly confused.
I Would hate to vote at this time. I really don't feel prepa"ed to vote. Ah,
we have not hear from ah.the coordinator, the Board (unintellible), Mr. Jones
sic/ 'ztme
Board has been trying to speak back and we have not had our people
0046�_
directly involved.
Cbmnissicner Gustavesan: Our information here is really very clear there what
the issue is and it's clear that the judgment was made ah in regard to this
issue and ah ah I fully support that judgmnt. I have confidence in our
Staff and ah it's very clear, I rean I think I understand these other questic ,
but ah ah the materials that have been presented here are very clear. I I
think that the element here is that there are many competing .Rehab contractors
and ah decisions have to be made in regard to ah ah competing contractors and,
You nienticned,that there was a finished product. But I.think that the real
issue is that you were lucky that it didn't pour down raining. And, you mow,
I think that if we had a major rainstorm during that period ah and this this
is what ah concerns people who make these judgments.
Conwitsioner Walker: Well, I respect what you're saying but let me say this: Ah,
and I don't know reason they gave to make a decision, the people did sign off
saying we're happy.
Chairman Whitted: Well, you didn't see the docurrent; it's a standard document, that
has to be signed off by the heaiieowner that that.._
Cbautissicner Walker (Interrupting): I didn't see it because...
Cbnwissicner Gustaveson (Interrupting). Well, I I think that the question' is-not
you know the questions is how one got to this point,and ah, you know, again
when you're responsible for many contractors many separate rehabs and where
have a situation that ah ah you know by the grad of God or what, you know
that it didn't pour down rain and totally make a mess of.things ah I mean I
think this is a kind of judgment that ah ah competent people have to make.
I support ah...
Mr. Ievi (Interrupting): Mr. Chairman, I realize that you...
Ccazdssimer Gustaveson (Continuing): the decision that was given by the Director
and the Rehab Specialist because ah they have many projects they have to keep
an eye an and many more that will be caning up and...
Mr. Levi: I'm not so sure that's ...
Chaixman W- tted (Interrupting): well, the motion is on the floor.
Mr. Levi: Mr. Chairman, I understand. May I say one thing? And I agree with you
that it's good the rain didn't come- I'm not here to try to push something
{
that's not fair. I agree with you and ah Mr. Smith just asked me could he
say sanething to that. No. But I say then there were soave sub sutra subcontractors
involved and what happened, he put the ceiling in and then worked on the roof;
but he had to in order not to go over because of the subcontractors were in fact
were there. I agree with you. let's hope no snow cane or no rains or he
wound have possibly have been out of business with bankruptcy. I understand
that. He understands that too. What I'd liik6`t:O do when you o mmplete your
motion, sir, and I'm grateful to you for letting me speak now. Ah. is, I'd
like to ]mow what the County Manager's decision is before I leave and I want
to congratulate you-for letting me carne to talk to you I'm here in the name
of fairness, honesty, because I do want to see what goes on and if signOffs
don't mean anything, I'm going to go,.to HOD as soon as I leave here and tell
them to stop reT iring them in the package.
Chairman Vhitted: The the Manager's recarmrendation is to continue to ban the Kidd
Smith Coalpany from participating in the amity Development project of Qrange
County. That mmntioi has been made and it's been seconded. All those in favor
of the motion say "Aye;°
ccam¢nissioners Gustavesoi, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit: Aye.
Chairman Whitted: Those opposed say, "No."
Commissioner Walker: No.
Chairman Hatted. The nr)ticn carries four to one. Thank you.
Mr. Ievi: Well, I'd like to know what the County Manager's rreeonmendation is and
I'm sure I'm gonna be asked what ah criteria he used for doing this. What
is it? Dirt he just say, "I hereby reommend that it be denied," or,
Chaman Whitted (Int e_r opting): The same basis, the'Manager is hex
-e
but it's
on the same basis that the Commmnity Development Director used.
Mr. 1Pvi (Interrupting): Have they taken the Fifth Anandment? The Manager and
the ah gentleman here? Or do we have some kind of vocal disturbance?
Ccmammissioner Wil]hoit: We have it better than that. We have it in writing.
Mr. Ievi: May I get ah may I get a copy?
Commmissioner Willhoit: You may see the Manager.
Clonmissioner Gustaveson. Well, I think you've removed a copy; it's addressed to
Mr. Charles Smith.
Chairman Witted: We don't have anything additional to what was sent to Mr. Smith
on July 16th.
Mr. Levi: Oh, you m?an you have acted on the basis of what Mr. Smith already has?
Chairman Whitted: And reconfirmed on January 22nd.
�.1 404
Mx. Levi: So you've acted on what, everything you've acted on is what Mr. Smith
has.
Chairman Whitted: Yes.
Mr. Levi: Thank you, six'.
Manager: I was just gonna say I-went through the same steps that you have
gone through here this morning. When Mr. Levi and Mr. Smith batre to me in
the latter part of December, made certain contingent, certain points ah; this
was my reason for getting into the matter with the Director with the County
Attorney to see if we had followed due process to see if we had in fact, checked
out references and what the sequence of those references was an relation to the
omtract being awarded.. I found that, contrary to what Mr. Levi had told to nt-,
that the references did come in after the contract was awarded mid it"was
during that time too, our own people had turned in negative ah reports on the
quality and timeliness of the work. Another contention that was made was that
the property owner was satisfied. Now, Mrs. Smith hap =*Ce became deceased
but her daughter did give us a statement as to recollection of the quality of
work; and that was that'the work was not done satisfactorily- The signing
of the 4cceptance was not an indication that they were pleased with the quality
of the•work or the tirreliness.of the work and that a letter that we have too;
I don't believe it's in the packet, signed by Mrs. Wanda Gattis.
commissioner Walker: Saying that?
Manager: ' Saying that her mother, ah and herself were dissatisfied with nine items
connected with the work that was done by the Smith Company. So based...
Commissioner Walker (Interrupting): Now, that's w letter that.we should have had
before we voted.
Manager: Yes, yes, ah this these things caused me to feel that the Director had
made a wise deten+lnaticn. There are about sixteen contractors in the program
and it is his responsibility to make some background checking as well as
monitor the quality of work that goes on. I felt that these was ample basis
to support him on this action.
Chairman Whitted: Okay, item Five...
(Clerk's note: This concludes the verbatim transcription of that part of the
meeting pertaining to.Agenda Item Number Four.)
4446.5
5. Compensation for Right of Way Acquisition, Cmu mitt' Development:
The CD Director, Mr. Kittrell, said this was the mount the Program would
offer in each case to the property owner (See pages for the amountsi.
Commissioner Wi-Llhoit moved, seconded by ammdssimer Gustaveson, to adopt the
Resolution Establishing ,lust ompensaticn in the amounts reaommiended by the CD
Staff. Commissioner Walker said he wished to speak with Mr. Kelly prior to voting
can this issue. Commissioner Walker asked if Mx. Kelly had visited all the parcels_
y
The Cal Director said that was not required by HUD; C+aa=nan TAbi.tted said-Mr. Kelly
had certified all the parcels. Chairman Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner
Gustaveson to table the motican until the afternoon session when Mr. Kelly could be
contacted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
6. Amended CDBG Agreement: . Cammmtissioner Gustavesan moved, seconded by Oammissioner
Marshall, to approve= the amended CDBG Agreement for the renovation of the Senior
Citizens Center in the Northside Multipurpose Center in Chapel Hill. Vote: Ayes,
5; noes, 0.
7. Title Xx Allocation: Mr. Tom Ward, Social Services Director, told the Board that
the actual formula for Title XX allocations had not been made public yet; however,
he felt, looking at preliminary figures and projections, that the reduction for
orange County would be 25%. omnuissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Ccmx&ssime.
Marshall, to advocate for a :formula which Would assure each County receives its'
fair share of the Title XX funds based on .population and no change in the present
formula; and endorsed the letter from the Chair of the Board of Social Services
and authorized the Chair of the Board of Commissioners to co-sign the letter and
oomamnnicate with the State the Board of Cmn-Lissicners feelings about this formula_
There was sore discussion as to whether this new formula would be used to
calculate this year's allocation. Commissioner Gustaveson asked that Mr. Wil7hoit
amend his motion to include a letter suggesting a meeting; O=missicner Willhoit
declined,saying he felt it was premature without the analysis from the North Carolina
Association of County Commissioners.
_.- Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
The Board discussed Item Number 8, the ESC office and added Item Reaganonics
at the same time. 9be discussion centered around the closing of the nVloyment
Security Office in Hillsborough and the effect this would have on the WINN clients.
Mr. Mangum, C 'I'A Director, said his program had picked up a large number of those
clients, looking for work, which in turn increased his office's workload. Mr.
Mang= added that those clients don't have the access to trans--
1104-66
portation to get to Durham.
CmYdssioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Cotr¢nissicrner Marshall, that the
Social Services Director and the CErA Director send a letter to the Employment
Security Office in Durham to Mr. Rhett Chamberlain, outlining their individual
concerns and have the letters endorsed by the Board of Commissioners. Vote:
Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
The Board decided to copy the letters to JOCCA Director Gloria Williams_
Discussion continued on the proposed Reagan program swaps between. Federal
and State Governments and the projected effects an county/local government.
9. Vacant 'County Positions: .Commissioner Gustavescn moved, seconded by
Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Manager's recamTendation (that is, to unfreeze
the following positions: Programmer, District Supervisor, Real Property Appraiser,
Business Property Appraiser, Administrative Officer 1, Soil and Erosion Control
Officer, Truck Driver; and to continue the freeze on the following positions:
Administrative Assistant to the Manager, Soil. and Erosion Inspector, Iand Records
Specialist, Tax Clerk II [ the .'administrative Officer I to be unfrozen is to be
downgraded to an Account Clerk 1V,). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
oxmdssicner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to unfreeze
the position of the Coordinator for Women. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.'
Ms. Peggy McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for Women, gave the Board a brief
report cn the activities of that group for the past few months and outlined a pro-
gram of activity for the next few months. She asked that the Board authorize the
-temporary filling of the.position now occupied by Susan Waldrop in the Commission's
Office while Ms.,,Waldrep is on maternity leave from March 1 through June 15. The
Board asked that she refer her request through the Manager.
The Board adjourned for lunch and reconvened at 2:00�.P.M. with all members pre-
sent.
Cha;:man Va-dtted moved, seconded by Ccaimissioner Willhoit, to return agenda
Item 5 back to the -floor for discussion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Discussion of
Just Compensation for Rights of way continued. Commissioner Walker said he had ta7 . d
with the Manager during the lunch break and he was satisfied with the responses_
Cawdssioner Willhoit's motion to adopt : the Resolution establishing 0ust Cam-
pensation as stated on page of these Minutes is back for the vote: Ayes,. 5;
noes, 0. ,
10. Vehicle Replacement for Sheriff's department: The Manager told the
Board this item was from a previous meeting and had been returned as the Board
00467
desired. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit,
to approve the Manager's recommendation of purchase of two mid-size patrol Vehicles
for the Sheriff's .department and'according to the specifications submitted by the
Purchasing Officer (See page of this book for those specifications). Commissioner
Willhoit noted that the County Sheriff's department was not involved in "pursuit" and
suggested the "certified for pursuit" specification be stricken, the consensus was to
do so. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, U.
a
Dr. Pamela Mayer: Dr. Mayer presented a brief report to the Board on the
budget calendar of the Chapel Hill--Carrboro Schools. She said they were in the
process of examining discretionary programs by shaools for effectiveness, with
its assigned a priority. Cmadssioner Willhoit said it would be most
helpful if the Board could see the costs for 1)required programs; and, 2) source
of funding; and,3) if there is a required match.
1. The Timbers: This was returned from the agenda of January 19, 1982.
Chairman Whitted asked Mr. Cannity to summarize first the Planning Board's re=rt-
mendations; Mr. Cannity did so, those reeotmendations.are on pages of this
book. chairman TAbitted asked if all the Planning Board reccavendations had been
met by the developer and Mr. Cannity replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Whitted then asked Mr. Cannity to smanarize the Planning Depart -,. ..
recommendations; Mr. cannity did so saying the main concern of the Department was
for the privacy of the individuals. He said they preferred a design more "sympathetic"
to the site which slopes gently; he added there was no screening between. the units
which were too close together. The Planning Department's recommendation. is on page
of this book.
Chairman Whitted noted that some structures were already in place, i.e. sewer
and water lines, which dictated to some extent the layout of the development.
The County Attorney said the Board should address the timing of the develop-
meat with regard to the deed restrictions and .the phasing in and maintenance of
the public improvements. Mr. Cannity said the Planning Staff and developer had
discussed that and agreed to phase in the project in four phases of approximately
eighteen units each time with the improvements to be amp7eted prior to the issuing
of the building permits for the subsequent phase. Mr. Qumity said the developer
had some problems at the;mment with the paving of the access road but that the Board
could address that and any of the other improvements would have to be complete before
each subsequent phase was begun. The pool was planned for the fourth and final phase.
0468.
Cmu&ssioner Gustaveson expressed a concern that if the pool were not
completed until the final phase that it may not be installed for five or six years
and never installed if the project hit a snag which prevented the final phase being
1--Lilt. The Attorney said that an outside time limit could be worked into the final
document.
Conmissionex Waller moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the
Planning Board'.s uuendation,to grant the Class A Special Use Permit for the Timbers
with all conditions as listed on pages ::.�of this book and that the phasing/
` timetable of the construction of all public improvements and what ever instruments
needed to secure those constructions and for the maintenance of the il ents
and security bonding to insure that this is completed be worked out in the final
document. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
11. Town of Carrboro Ordinance: The Manager told the Board that carrboro
was requesting the Board adopt an ordinance to have apartment owners having eight
or more units to submit a list of all tenants as of January 1 to the Tax Supervisor
not later than January 30, 1982. The Manager told the Board that the County already
had the authority to do this under GS 105-296-G and in fact did already require
this; therefore another ordinance was unnecessary. Commissioner Marshall suggested
the County talk with Carrboro and Chapel Hill and tell them what it is doing with
regard to the collection of taxes.
12. Work Session on Water Resources Task Force Report: The Board set
March 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. as the date for a work session on the Water Resources
Task Force Report. Both the Planning-Board and the Task Force are to be notified
and invited to attend the meeting.
13. Added Item-Road Matter: Cmudssioner Gushaveson said there had been a
serious accident at the intersection of Mt. Carmel Church Road (formerly Farrington.
Road) and J0-50i S. the previous week. Coa'[missioner Gustavescn moved, seconded by
Coardssioner Willhoit, to have the County Manager write the Department of Transportation
expressing this Board's concern with that particular intersection and suggesting ade ion.
safety measures. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
'IM Board adjounhed by consen;En.o further busin s to conduct.
. r Chair
Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk